582 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

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.

Yes, and the death of EDI does show one truly irreplaceable life.  In order to be able to destroy her, you must decide that her life is less important than the life of anyone else.  In my game, Shepard made it clear that this wasn't a war about numbers and in real life there are people that decide this on a day to day basis.  It's why the Coast Guard will risk the lives of ten or twenty of their own to rescue one person, because that person cannot be replaced and it's what separates us from lower-functioning lifeforms.  EDI cannot be recreated.  She's dead. 

And the geth are just likely to be gone-they are software but the programs that ran in the jubs and databanks that contained them have been shut down or at the very least damaged.  If they can be recreated then it's likely they will not be the same, will not have "memories" of what they and the quarians went through and so on.

You are making a decision that synthetics are not worthy of the same consideration as organic life.  If the catalyst said that the Krogan would be affected, it would be clear that you are deciding that the Krogan are not as important as everyone else.

Synthesis most definitely creates a scenario that cannot help but one day lead to assimilation and similarity.  If it is a real solution.  If not, and it leaves everyone as individuals with their own personalities, then conflict will occur.  Just because Synthetics understand organics, doesn't mean that some won't want to kill organics or accidentally do so.  And just because organics get tech inside of them does not mean they won't have a problem with out of control synthetics or synthetics in general.  If people keep their own personalities, some will still hate.

[devSin]

o Ventus wrote...

For a while I thought I was the only one who saw how horrifically racist the ending premise is.

Really? Maybe in the really early days?

When people use words like "genocide" and "eugenics" to correctly describe the ending, they're indicating this theme of intolerance that pervades the entire scenario. The only way for these disparate forms of life to coexist is for them to be the same?

It's been utterly abhorrent since the very first day, and it's just as repugnant now, and I've seen many people comment on it over the past year. It's a disgusting message to send.

[3DandBeyond]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

snipped

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.

This is it.  Synthesis is an enforced way to get along.  The main themes as you've stated were choice based.  Cooperation is done by consent.  Synthesis forces it.  And yet, some say people retain their individuality after synthesis-if so, then again people will still fight, so it accomplishes nothing.  If they do not retain their individuality then they are mindless drones controlled internally by tech.

[Mathias]

Argolas wrote...

Bioware =|= Derpchild

We do know the Mass Effect dev team heavily favors the synthesis ending.

[Davik Kang]

jstme wrote...

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.
 

Reason that people get confused over the implications of Destroy?  I can't say.  It's fairly straightforward.  Maybe people get angry and then don't really feel like exerting mental effort any more, especially when the mob is on their side.

Reason people get angry over the endings in general?  Well they tried to do something different - BIG MISTAKE.  They gave videogamers the same respect that film makers give their audiences - and videogamers showed that they don't deserve it (not because they didn't like it, more because of the manner of the hilariously childish backlash from so many).

Reading the 'alleged' Patrick Weekes rant from last year, I think it's fair to say that the chosen ending may have been a little too risky in that it put importance on being clever over the importance of being satisfying for large numbers of players.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 21 février 2013 - 06:20 .

[clennon8]

I actually agree with EntropicAngel. Destroy is a rejection of the premise.

Control and Synthesis are inherently cynical, however. Control says the galaxy needs a God Emperor Shepard AI to get along. Synthesis says organics and synthetics can't get along unless they are hybridized via a space magical transmogrification beam. It's garbage.

Modifié par clennon8, 21 février 2013 - 06:18 .

[Wayning_Star]

and some posters are NOT trying to decide what is what with other posters about the MEU trilogy?

You cannot choose synthesis because you are not being an independant thinker?

oh wait..yes dear, what ever you say dear...lol

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 21 février 2013 - 06:21 .

[3DandBeyond]

devSin wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

For a while I thought I was the only one who saw how horrifically racist the ending premise is.

Really? Maybe in the really early days?

When people use words like "genocide" and "eugenics" to correctly describe the ending, they're indicating this theme of intolerance that pervades the entire scenario. The only way for these disparate forms of life to coexist is for them to be the same?

It's been utterly abhorrent since the very first day, and it's just as repugnant now, and I've seen many people comment on it over the past year. It's a disgusting message to send.

Absolutely.  We have rape of a sort with a dash of eugenics, genocide of a new race of people, and a smattering of dictatorship thrown in for good measure. 

Sure, people will say that's hyperbolic, but if BW is allowed to keep their hype and never have to deal with it, then so too can I keep my more relevant hyperbole.  At least the things I may be hyping do exist in the game.  The stuff they hyped has yet to make an appearance.

[steinvegard]

Wayning_Star wrote...

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 .

I`d agree with you about any other Bioware-game. I dont apply this kind of analysis to them. But the ending in ME3 goes out of its way to make it look like it has some kind of important philosphical message. It desperately wants to be taken seriously. So I take it seriously and try to see what it is saying, And the only thing I find is the same message that modern nationalism thrives on.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Eterna5 wrote...
Or you can pick control which does nothing to diversity. 

Does nothing to divesity sure but basically shows that organics can't handle their own affairs without a mechanical overlord. No coexistance without one side being dominant, or extinct, or both being rewritten. Because we're not more than the sum of our part apparently and it's in our nature to hate each other.

[Xamufam]

3DandBeyond wrote...

StarcloudSWG wrote...

snipped

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.

This is it.  Synthesis is an enforced way to get along.  The main themes as you've stated were choice based.  Cooperation is done by consent.  Synthesis forces it.  And yet, some say people retain their individuality after synthesis-if so, then again people will still fight, so it accomplishes nothing.  If they do not retain their individuality then they are mindless drones controlled internally by tech.

True & Synthesis doesn't  fix the problem it goes around it

[Wayning_Star]

LineHolder wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

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

LOL 

well, at least now we actually KNOW what 'pure unadulterated evil' represents..in real time,eh?

[Wayning_Star]

How many faries CAN dance on the head of a pin?

anyone know? just curious

[Eterna]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
Or you can pick control which does nothing to diversity. 

Does nothing to divesity sure but basically shows that organics can't handle their own affairs without a mechanical overlord. No coexistance without one side being dominant, or extinct, or both being rewritten. Because we're not more than the sum of our part apparently and it's in our nature to hate each other.

Well if their History is any indication, then yes. I firmly believe the Organics need to be babysat. They're like children with forks playing around a power sockett. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 21 février 2013 - 06:29 .

[3DandBeyond]

Davik Kang wrote...

jstme wrote...

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.
 

Reason that people get confused over the implications of Destroy?  I can't say.  It's fairly straightforward.  Maybe people get angry and then don't really feel like exerting mental effort any more, especially when the mob is on their side.

Reason people get angry over the endings in general?  Well they tried to do something different - BIG MISTAKE.  They gave videogamers the same respect that film makers give their audiences - and videogamers showed that they don't deserve it (not because they didn't like it, more because of the manner of the hilariously childish backlash from so many).

Reading the 'alleged' Patrick Weekes rant from last year, I think it's fair to say that the chosen ending may have been a little too risky in that it put importance on being clever over the importance of being satisfying for large numbers of players.

I think your post is rather condescending, stating that people are confused as if they don't understand something you know to be true.  It's not straightforward-you need to actually go back and review what the catalyst (not the most credible thing in the game) says will happen and then view what does happen, and then watch the incredibly juvenile epilog to it, that does not adequately show the consequences of such a thing.  It makes not good GD sense at all.

No the problem isn't that BW tried to do something different at all.  The problem is that BW said they would do one thing and would not do some things at the end of the game and then that was all false.  They said this all repeatedly and none of it was true.  And that something different you think they did-well, it would be different if they had not stolen it from other games and IPs.  It was unoriginal, uninspired, and lacked coherence and cohesion with the rest of ME, because it was taken from other sources and not adequately changed to fit this one.

They did not respect video gamers and then try to appeal to them on that level.  This clearly shows they didn't even think people would remember Deus ex or Babylon 5 and so on.  What it shows is they didn't know how to end the thing and keep the promises they made AND make it fit with their story.

Nice of you to try and see things only from your own narrow point of view and then insult by inference here.  A lot of extremely thoughty people have taken issue with this (I don't mean me), as well as real authors, literary critics, and not for pay review sites.  And because BW decided to make people think it was intellectual and all, some are not seeing that the emperor has no clothes.  It's pseudo-intellectualism.  And it wasn't even that well done. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

And than there's control, which proposes reforming the tyrannical regime and using it to keep the peace, instead of ethnic cleansing.

[jstme]

Davik Kang wrote...

jstme wrote...

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.
 

Reason that people get confused over the implications of Destroy?  I can't say.  It's fairly straightforward.  Maybe people get angry and then don't really feel like exerting mental effort any more, especially when the mob is on their side.
Reason people get angry over the endings in general?  Well they tried to do something different - BIG MISTAKE.  They gave videogamers the same respect that film makers give their audiences - and videogamers showed that they don't deserve it (not because they didn't like it, more because of the manner of the hilariously childish backlash from so many).
Reading the 'alleged' Patrick Weekes rant from last year, I think it's fair to say that the chosen ending may have been a little too risky in that it put importance on being clever over the importance of being satisfying for large numbers of players.

Hmm. That could be the case if other games that tried to do something different,be clever and philosophical few years prior to ME3 - oh,like Deus Ex,you know - were causing the same outcry. Probably i did not notice it making national news then.
Because the reason for positive - or shall we say much much much much less negative? - reaction to those other games simply being ending that actually fit rest of the game as far as narrative and thematics where envolved despite raising serious questions and forcing to make serious chocies - that just can't be true. 
After all ,clever and philosophical finale cut and pasted from a different story just for sake of appearing clever and phislosophical could never fail. Its audience fault! 

[3DandBeyond]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

And than there's control, which proposes reforming the tyrannical regime and using it to keep the peace, instead of ethnic cleansing.

Yeah, with an overlord made up of more than just Shepard's memories and thoughts, that forces the Many that Shepard cared about to live with creatures that basically ate their families, friends, planet, and so on.  "Hey Bob the Reaper, are you the one carrying around the goo from my wife, Vera?  Say hi for me."

[GreyLycanTrope]

Eterna5 wrote...
Well if their History is any indication, then yes. I firmly believe the Organics need to be babysat. They're like children with forks playing around a power sockett. 

Organics have varried outlooks just like synthetics, they can work past their differences, just like history shows different ethnicities with varried outlooks working together. They don't necissarily have to and it won't happen over night but the possiblity exists as much as the possiblity of conflict. It's an uncertainty, which is the nature of life. I prefer the chaos of it all, keeps things from getting stagnant.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 février 2013 - 06:42 .

[Wayning_Star]

I`d agree with you about any other Bioware-game. I dont apply this kind of analysis to them. But the ending in ME3 goes out of its way to make it look like it has some kind of important philosphical message. It desperately wants to be taken seriously. So I take it seriously and try to see what it is saying, And the only thing I find is the same message that modern nationalism thrives on.

I don't blame you for being 'on alert' given your motivation. But the story only hints at the neccessity of co dependency of tech and society. If anything, the idea of inducing technology 'into' a race,say humans, is an act of nature through evolution. Organics start the cycle from their neeed to exist, as in nature they're held to the laws of evolution, and that action has no bearing on diversity. Not even part of the equation. Apparently evolution isn't a choice, its demanded to survive.

If you wish to blame anti diversity 'in' the MEU, not realtime, You will have to steer your application to the necessities of evolution, and nature it's self for requiring tools to exist.  Does our tools 'oppress' us? Will they ever become "evolved" enough to actually be players in the game of life? Do we oppress them or do we accept them, give them a chance at diversity, not be tools, oppressed?

Its really a simple message, complicated by strife/fog of war.  The catalyst is only a by product of a natural urge to create synthetic life. When we do that, we're responsible for that life, we have to choose to either accept it or cancel the order, be 'nationalistic' on a racial level. Synthesis is a representation of a bond, or what I call a simple, but complex form of treaty with alternate life forms.

[3DandBeyond]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
Well if their History is any indication, then yes. I firmly believe the Organics need to be babysat. They're like children with forks playing around a power sockett. 

Organics have varried outlooks just like synthetics, they can work past their differences, just like history shows. They don't necissarily have to and it won't happen over night but the possiblity exists as much as the possiblity of conflict. It's an uncertainty, which is the nature of life. I prefer the chaos of it all, keeps things from getting stagnant.

See two of the greatest lapses in logic are that conflict is bad and that chaos is bad.  They are neutral terms.  There can be good and bad forms of both.  Evolution is chaotic and random and it is good.  Not all adversity comes from something that this version of synthesis would address.  The universe changes on its own and so climate or planetary conditions can change.  Now, maybe the tech is meant to address that and to provide for the adaptation of a species and all, but that does nothing to appeal to learning to overcome or create things to overcome adversity.  If adversity no longer exists then it seems clear that the part of the brain used to adapt and create will die, unused.