582 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Its funny how folks will flock to banners,yet claim independence through sociology, then ban the thought of common goals. All for the best thoughts on just how bad their favorite VG might be..er... wrong.

the story has nothing to do with sepratism or distinction of sole survival. Its simply about what happens when you build tools so friggen big they make YOU the tool.

Now all you have to do is get busy...TOOLS..

signed: the catalyst creators

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 21 février 2013 - 05:14 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

It's Bioware's story, that's the message they sent intentionally or not.

Destroy doesn't reject the premiss, you kill all synthetics, even while breaking free you embrace it.

[steinvegard]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

No "Destroy" is embracing the premise, since it forces you, if you have saved the geth, to commit genocide. One culture destroys the other for peace. That is exactly the core of many modern nationalistic movements thinking. Bioware chose to bring such philosophy in to the game.

They then have to live with the fact that this kind of thinking does not exist outside of a real-world context, where such ideology have real world consequenses. Destruction of a culture, either through violence or assimilation is the only way lasting peace can be achieved through the story. If Bioware cant even stand by the political message of the ending that their artistic integrity apperantly demands of them, then I have little respect for their integrity.

If this wasnt the message of the ending, I would be happy to be corrected by them, but with what we have, it is the most valid interpretation I can see.

[Davik Kang]

Greylycantrope wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

It's Bioware's story, that's the message they sent intentionally or not.

Destroy doesn't reject the premiss, you kill all synthetics, even while breaking free you embrace it.

No.  You are fully aware that more synthetics will be built, and trust that this will not lead to the annihiliation of all life.  You leave it to the will of the individuals to make their own way.  Not decide their fate for them.

But hey it's nearly 12 months since the game came out and people are still getting angry and confused over this so let's get ready to watch more people getting angry and confused...

Modifié par Davik Kang, 21 février 2013 - 05:30 .

[Wayning_Star]

steinvegard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

No "Destroy" is embracing the premise, since it forces you, if you have saved the geth, to commit genocide. One culture destroys the other for peace. That is exactly the core of many modern nationalistic movements thinking. Bioware chose to bring such philosophy in to the game.

They then have to live with the fact that this kind of thinking does not exist outside of a real-world context, where such ideology have real world consequenses. Destruction of a culture, either through violence or assimilation is the only way lasting peace can be achieved through the story. If Bioware cant even stand by the political message of the ending that their artistic integrity apperantly demands of them, then I have little respect for their integrity.

If this wasnt the message of the ending, I would be happy to be corrected by them, but with what we have, it is the most valid interpretation I can see.

assimilation is what humans do, have been for about ever. How is that critical, in relation to the ME trilogy?

The only thing I see in the story here is how nature forces change through evolution, making for the eventual action of our enviornment to control us, even more directly. Supposedly 'intellectually' driven machines won't stand for your premise, so we have to change to accomadate them or wipe them out. This is all just another form/force of nature.

Got Evolution?

[JamesFaith]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

Yeap.

Not everything have to have some secret moral message, sometimes it's just story and has nothing to do with author believes and ideas. 

I wrote few stories, where hero took law in his own hand, but I personally support police.
Some of my heroes used torturing but I personally refusing it.

Not always is story mirror of authors mind.

[phimseto]

Wow, you couldn't be more off-base with these lines of thinking. Bioware is guilty of a few things but none of what you are saying is it.

They didn't want the player to have any easy choices. It was not a reflection of Bioware's worldview but rather their desire to put the players into a terrible position. The nature of Bioware's method of doing so (Star Child) is certainly worthy of debate. This isn't, and really it's a hell of a thing to say about a company that has bent over backwards (sometimes to a fault) trying to be "Yay! Diversity!"

It's precisely what happens at Rannoch (if you get the ideal there) that makes the Destroy choice such a tragedy - you've destroyed the Geth and condemned the Quarians to generations more in their suits. You choose destroy because you don't trust Control (or reject its premise) and Synthesis is fundamentally no better than what the Reapers are up to.

To choose control is to basically end up agreeing with The Illusive Man and to roll the dice that it isn't all an elaborate trick or that you won't fail spectacularly. It's the idealist's choice to save the geth while basically destroying the Reapers' own free will in favor of your command matrix. Not very nice.

And synthesis is...ehh...I refuse to defend it. It's the Galactic Rape ending - you take away the very nature of individuality and meld your own sensibility into every sentient creature. ICK.

The message of the ending, at least the original non-EE ending, is that there are no clean getaways and no easy choices. You can win, but you lose something.

Look, I'm on record as being at odds with Bioware over their whole approach with Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age II, and much of their post-EA buyout work. However, they've also made a genuine effort to be forward-thinking in their approach to gender, race, and societal issues in games. It doesn't make them right 100% of the time, but it puts them beyond these kinds of crass accusations. Despite my despair over autodialogue, the Mass Effect games are still ultimately about player choice. How you handle the situations the game puts you into is absolutely a statement about you, possibly about the game, and not at all about the politics of the company or talent behind the game.

[GreyLycanTrope]

EntropicAngel wrote...
1. Bullskat. Is wanton murder the message of Skyrim? Is theivery? Is sex with the nearest person who brings you a rose the message of The Witcher? The inability of society to take responsibility for their actions and thoughts is truly pitiful.

We're not talking side quests we're talking the end of the main narrative and the ideas that there presented there in. In Skyrim was about destiny. The Witcher has no central message it has a plot aside from the world being largely out of Geralts control, he always walks away with Triss everytime, the Sorceress get massacred everytime. Our hero has no input outside his view on non humans with can be either supportive or not, but the final conflict has to do with Kings and politics something Geralt is trying to stay out of in the end he ends up being just a pawn of larger events.

2. It does reject the premise. You aren't killing synthetics because you don't believe iin diversity. You are making a choice that will result in synthetics dying. And, they can be created again directly afterwards if you so choose.

You still kill synthetics, just because you feel bad about it doesn't mean you're not doing it. You can't be a pacifist and kill at the same time. You can't say you reject a premise and than employ it.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 février 2013 - 05:42 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

The Catalyst seems to believe in an inevitable clash of civilizations. I don't think that means Bioware necessarily believes it or that Shepard has to. The problem is that the Catalyst is powerful enough that, in order to stop the cycles, Shepard does have to address its concerns somehow even if (s)he thinks they're a load of crap.

In fact, I could make an argument that all four endings *reject* this logic:

- Refuse: This one's easy, in that it's basically telling the Catalyst to go jump in a lake. While it results in losing the war, it's not because of an organic/synthetic clash but rather a Catalyst & Reapers/everyone else clash.

- Destroy: The Catalyst warns you that the chaos will return eventually if you do this, so doing it anyway might mean Shepard simply doesn't believe that.

- Control: Marginalizes the Catalyst altogether. "Organics aren't the problem, synthetics aren't the problem, even the Reapers aren't the problem - YOU are the problem. Now go away." (g)

- Synthesis: Organics and synthetics don't have to fight and don't even have to be considered entirely different from each other, and can develop a mutually beneficial relationship.

And no, I don't accept that Synthesis destroys diversity - humans are still human, turians are still turian, krogan are still krogan, etc. If all human blood types could be merged into one so we were all compatible blood donors for each other when the need arises, wouldn't that be a good thing, and not a destruction of diversity?

[Raanz]

Just wow. Interpretation folks....it's a fictional story with zero message. EntropicAngel has it right.

[3DandBeyond]

steinvegard wrote...

 I`m sorry if this has been covered before, but I only recently played and finished the game(What I heard from people about the ending, made me wait until I had both a lot of spare time and absolutly nothing else of interest to play)

I was most surprised by the politial messaging in the endings: Diversity just doesn`t work over time. The only way to avoid conflict is either to destroy those who are different or to make everyone the same.

Since the game shows us synthetics and organics being able to get along just fine in the short term, but assures us that in the end it will end in conflict. (Listening to the star child was like listening to one of the vile representatives of the English defence league and similar modern nationalist movements who emphasise that despite things seeimg peaceful right now, diversity will eventually lead to war)

This would be reading to much into it if the game had stayed a heroic science-fantasy yarn all the way through, but since they chose to get all philosphical in the end, we have to ask what they are actually saying. And the only reasonable moral I can see is the same one that modern nationalistic movements stand for. Diversity, or multiculturalism, can seem like it is working right now, but ultimately it must end with only a monoculture surviving. I am surprised and dissapointed that Bioware would choose to spout such Samuel Huntington-Clash of civiliazitons like nonsene and even make it the ultimate message in their story.

It leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth for having supported them financially.

Agreed, this is something that people have had a real problem with from the original endings until now with the EC.  Synthesis seems to be the catalyst's favorite ending and it is something that by "virtue" of what it does would remove diversity.  Many say that's not so and that people still remain individuals, but then cannot answer what the integrated tech then is for?  Or then why synthetics must have full understanding of organics in order to get along with them and not want to kill them.  I don't fully understand my cat, but we get along.  I don't want her to be like me. 

The game was about diversity-it was a mantra that it was about strength through diversity.  Even the tale of Javik tries to point this out.  His cycle couldn't achieve what Shepard's did because it lacked this individualism.

But in the end, you are forced to choose between destroying the different, assimilation and similarity, or controlling that which you will not do the first two things to.  But choosing none of the above and instead asserting independence and that diversity you believed in, is like an instant choice for a protracted suicide.  Yeah, not what I want in a game.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 février 2013 - 05:50 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Raanz wrote...

Just wow. Interpretation folks....it's a fictional story with zero message. EntropicAngel has it right.

Then why force us to follow this BS premise or suffer a ****ty ending?

[Wayning_Star]

oh boy we about to get that new re invented wheel now..

[3DandBeyond]

Raanz wrote...

Just wow. Interpretation folks....it's a fictional story with zero message. EntropicAngel has it right.

Sorry, but BW opened this Pandora's box by saying the original endings would invite speculation from everyone and then by saying and more often alluding to the endings as inviolate art.  Sure, fans more often quoted them as saying it was art, but that's because they did use that word and then also said the EC would be created because people just needed more of an understanding of what they'd written. 

I do agree it has zero message, because BW had no real idea how to end the thing and so they culled scraps from other intellectual properties and tacked it onto ME3.  The problem with this is then they asserted that this was somehow the only story they could write and that if someone wanted something else, well that wasn't something they could write.  Probably not, because someone else would have had to have written it first.  Actually, had they just gone over some of the pre-release hype they used to sell this game, they might well have been able to write a better ending, because they certainly used a lot of fiction in that hype.

But the implication was also that this was their original creation, when it was not.  Again, they opened up the "interpret this" well and left it for fans to speculate into eternity.  The speculation might have been more fun if there actually had been a coherent and cohesive message.  Lacking one, the game would have been more fun if it had ended more along the lines of an actual ME game.

[steinvegard]

Wayning_Star wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

No "Destroy" is embracing the premise, since it forces you, if you have saved the geth, to commit genocide. One culture destroys the other for peace. That is exactly the core of many modern nationalistic movements thinking. Bioware chose to bring such philosophy in to the game.

They then have to live with the fact that this kind of thinking does not exist outside of a real-world context, where such ideology have real world consequenses. Destruction of a culture, either through violence or assimilation is the only way lasting peace can be achieved through the story. If Bioware cant even stand by the political message of the ending that their artistic integrity apperantly demands of them, then I have little respect for their integrity.

If this wasnt the message of the ending, I would be happy to be corrected by them, but with what we have, it is the most valid interpretation I can see.

assimilation is what humans do, have been for about ever. How is that critical, in relation to the ME trilogy?

The only thing I see in the story here is how nature forces change through evolution, making for the eventual action of our enviornment to control us, even more directly. Supposedly 'intellectually' driven machines won't stand for your premise, so we have to change to accomadate them or wipe them out. This is all just another form/force of nature.

Got Evolution?

To claim that their politcal ideology represents a law of nature is part of the whole anti-multicultural philosophy. Ideology disguised as a law of nature also was a driving ideological force behind imperialism in the 19th-century, where evolution was used as an excuse for subjugating "less developed" cultures.(Though I am certainly not accusing Bioware of saying anything like that. Only that their central message seems to be diversity=unavoidable conflict in the end) 

They might not be aware that they are tapping into thoughts with some seriously problematic historical and cultural contexts, but they are none the less. Perhaps I am extra sensitive to it as a European, where nationalistic anti-diversity movements are growing, and their rhetoric is very similar to Star Childs(Whom we are told is a superior intelligence by the way) assertions in the end.

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It's Bioware's story, that's the message they sent intentionally or not.

Destroy doesn't reject the premiss, you kill all synthetics, even while breaking free you embrace it.

1. Bullskat. Is wanton murder the message of Skyrim? Is theivery? Is sex with the nearest person who brings you a rose the message of The Witcher? The inability of society to take responsibility for their actions and thoughts is truly pitiful.

2. It does reject the premise. You aren't killing synthetics because you don't believe iin diversity. You are making a choice that will result in synthetics dying. And, they can be created again directly afterwards if you so choose.

1 Road apples  None of that is required inthose games.  But ME3 forces you to choose a "solution" that basically says "You all can't play nice without direct interference from an outside force imposing it

2) You're making a choice that proves teh Catalyst's point that organics and synthetics can't coexist.  Just because more children will be born in the future doesn't make wiping out entire populations now okay.

[TheJediSaint]

The only coherent message I got form Mass Effect 3's ending was that Bioware wanted me to buy DLC.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 21 février 2013 - 06:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

The Catalyst seems to believe in an inevitable clash of civilizations. I don't think that means Bioware necessarily believes it or that Shepard has to. The problem is that the Catalyst is powerful enough that, in order to stop the cycles, Shepard does have to address its concerns somehow even if (s)he thinks they're a load of crap.

In fact, I could make an argument that all four endings *reject* this logic:

- Refuse: This one's easy, in that it's basically telling the Catalyst to go jump in a lake. While it results in losing the war, it's not because of an organic/synthetic clash but rather a Catalyst & Reapers/everyone else clash.

- Destroy: The Catalyst warns you that the chaos will return eventually if you do this, so doing it anyway might mean Shepard simply doesn't believe that.

- Control: Marginalizes the Catalyst altogether. "Organics aren't the problem, synthetics aren't the problem, even the Reapers aren't the problem - YOU are the problem. Now go away." (g)

- Synthesis: Organics and synthetics don't have to fight and don't even have to be considered entirely different from each other, and can develop a mutually beneficial relationship.

And no, I don't accept that Synthesis destroys diversity - humans are still human, turians are still turian, krogan are still krogan, etc. If all human blood types could be merged into one so we were all compatible blood donors for each other when the need arises, wouldn't that be a good thing, and not a destruction of diversity?

And yet I could make the claim that all the choices actually do still perform the same intrinsic function as the reapers do now.  The kid, if you take him literally, says two key things.  He says that synthetics destroying all organics is inevitable.  And he says the reapers as his solution, no longer work.  In the first statement, he is saying there never will be a solution.  In the second, he is saying his solution is not a solution, at least not anymore.  So, why would he keep using it if Shepard refuses?  Perhaps because all along he has known it is not a solution at all, nor is any choice.  In each case, synthetics do exist or will exist, so the idea that the problem or the conflict if it is true will not return does not fit in with his inevitability scenario.  Something that can have a solution, even if one is not yet in existence, is not inevitable.

And you believe synthesis does not change the individual, what then does it do adn why is it needed?  The kid sees it as the pinnacle of evolution-by definition, that means evolution stops.  And when evolution stops, similarity always follows.  If genes no longer change then they become similar and then so do people and all living things.  If the tech is to stamp out disease then it may just as well eliminate the body's ability to adapt, which eliminates change.  As it now stands, humans are very similar genetically.  If we have tech fully integrated at the DNA level then it must be to control and to stop change-the kid wants order because order is perfection and chaos is conflict.  So, today the Krogan will still be the Krogan, but who is to say what they will become in ten generations.  And if they become immortal, what then?  How many Krogan or Rachni babies can the galaxy handle?  Conflict surely will ensue.

[StarcloudSWG]

Yes. That's one of the *many* reasons why I pick Destroy every time.

In Control, you impose Shepard's morality on the galaxy through the threat of genocidal cuttlefish monsters wiping out your civilization.

In Synthesis, you take away everything that's unique about the different races in the name of 'getting along.'

For a game series that carried the message of "Strength through diversity, victory through cooperation", the ending themes are directly antithetical.

[Wayning_Star]

steinvegard wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

No "Destroy" is embracing the premise, since it forces you, if you have saved the geth, to commit genocide. One culture destroys the other for peace. That is exactly the core of many modern nationalistic movements thinking. Bioware chose to bring such philosophy in to the game.

They then have to live with the fact that this kind of thinking does not exist outside of a real-world context, where such ideology have real world consequenses. Destruction of a culture, either through violence or assimilation is the only way lasting peace can be achieved through the story. If Bioware cant even stand by the political message of the ending that their artistic integrity apperantly demands of them, then I have little respect for their integrity.

If this wasnt the message of the ending, I would be happy to be corrected by them, but with what we have, it is the most valid interpretation I can see.

assimilation is what humans do, have been for about ever. How is that critical, in relation to the ME trilogy?

The only thing I see in the story here is how nature forces change through evolution, making for the eventual action of our enviornment to control us, even more directly. Supposedly 'intellectually' driven machines won't stand for your premise, so we have to change to accomadate them or wipe them out. This is all just another form/force of nature.

Got Evolution?

To claim that their politcal ideology represents a law of nature is part of the whole anti-multicultural philosophy. Ideology disguised as a law of nature also was a driving ideological force behind imperialism in the 19th-century, where evolution was used as an excuse for subjugating "less developed" cultures.(Though I am certainly not accusing Bioware of saying anything like that. Only that their central message seems to be diversity=unavoidable conflict in the end) 

They might not be aware that they are tapping into thoughts with some seriously problematic historical and cultural contexts, but they are none the less. Perhaps I am extra sensitive to it as a European, where nationalistic anti-diversity movements are growing, and their rhetoric is very similar to Star Childs(Whom we are told is a superior intelligence by the way) assertions in the end.

I'm sorry OP, you are just over analyzing the cause and effect of choices..in a video game world. Sure the information is there, but has absolutely no effect on any reality in real time. Even IF you choose to take over the world in the game, isn't confessing to be anti anything. You are only 'entertaining' the concepts involved, not chartering their eventual control of the universe. It's NOT real.

Don't associate video games with the evolution of world politics, or any propagandistic force feed. You can dis agree with the theories/fake scenerio, but you cannot kill the messenger on your word associations.

And if you think about it, the game actually incourages diversity, otherwise we wouldn't be here debating the qualties of real world simplictics/social Idiocracy .

[Eterna]

Or you can pick control which does nothing to diversity. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 21 février 2013 - 06:10 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Eterna5 wrote...

Or you can pick control which does nothing to diversity. 

Except you better march in step with Reaper Shep or get laser to the face.

[jstme]

Davik Kang wrote...
But hey it's nearly 12 months since the game came out and people are still getting angry and confused over this so let's get ready to watch more people getting angry and confused...

There must be some reason for that, don't you think so? And since this is not the case for same people and/or different games(even in the same trilogy) - it must be somewhere else.
 

[mjh417]

Oh how I never grow tired of saying letting this notion be heard and spread. Seriously, I mean that, no sarcasm.

Im glad a new player had the same reaction I did. Bioware disturbs me.