186 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

What was the theme of the series? Hmmm.... well organics vs. machines? I dunno. I might be a moron, but if you were to ask me I'd say it was to find a way to beat the reapers. They were coming, we had to defeat them otherwise we were all dead.

Of course that may be a little bit too direct. There's a fire burning my house down, and I'm thinking I should put out the fire instead of contemplating the deeper meaning of the fire. "Is fire at war when it burns? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?" Sorry, I don't care. I'm putting out the fire.

Then again we don't find out any more about this until the final 10 minutes of the story, which is a pile of dog do do. There are some hints with the Zha and Zha-til and the Quarians and the Geth; but both the Protheans and Quarians had turned the tide when the reapers arrived. The Protheans were kicking ass, and the Quarians were blitzing their way back to Rannoch. So both those cases sort of blew this Organics vs Synthetics out of the water until Mr. Catalyst tells us otherwise.

Then if you get Leviathan, we find out the deeper (pardon the pun) meaning. The entire concern about this was because the Leviathans were concerned more about tribute even though it seems that organics when given the chance seem to be pretty resourceful in coming up with ways of defeating synthetics.

The theme is "let's focus on defeating the reapers".

[SurfaceBeneath]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
That's pretty much how I interpret it. It baffles me that people on this site struggle to consider such interpretations. No wonder they hate the story so much...

I think people have a very emotional response to certain stories they are invested in and so when they encounter something they feel "in their gut" is bad, they tend to reinforce their opinion around that feeling rather than seek outside perspectives or interpretations to try to see if there was something they missed or didn't really understand.

That's not really a defense of Mass Effect's story, which since the first game I would classify as "pretty ok", but rather my reasoning for a lot of people's reactions to the ending even today.

[Bill Casey]

Casey Hudson is wrong...
It's organics and synthetics vs. a forcible combination of the two that manipulates both organics and synthetics...

[dreamgazer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

That's pretty much how I interpret it. It baffles me that people on this site struggle to consider such interpretations. No wonder they hate the story so much...

It's less about the interpretation and more about the method of delivery, as well as the context informing and surrounding that exposition.

[Linkenski]

I think Casey was looking from the wrong angle when he decided that. It isn't the key theme to the games no matter what they say. There are events from ME1 and ME2 that prove it. The key theme is unity independent of difference if i should say so. All games have a story where you shape a team across species or personalities that don't go well together, but through choice and loyalty you make them work together and in the end, the difference make you strong.

[Eshaye]

Reorte wrote...

Eshaye wrote...

What he said ^ The more you find out about the Reapers, the more it's evident that a simple absolute of good vs evil isn't adequate. In fact what the Reapers are doing is something good. True evil would be to annihilate organic life at all cost with no mind for their preservation, it would be a selfish cause, when the opposite is true.

Just about every large atrocity ever committed has been committed by someone claiming that they're doing good.

I knew someone would bring that up, great evils are paved with good intentions. And that applies to TIM pretty well as we witness his gradual downfall. I'm more wary of applying it to the entire theme though.

Also what Troxa said is pretty much bang on. The real truth is they had no idea where they were going with this. Even less after Drew K. left the building. 

Modifié par Eshaye, 21 mars 2013 - 10:26 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Part of the issue, and this really applies to all Bioware games in general, is that they are written by committee rather than having one outstanding author behind them. It's a type of writing process that brings with it some advantages (individual character and mission moments) while sacrificing some of the larger scale story. It's one of the reasons I've always gone to Bioware games for characters and self contained plots rather than large stories because I don't think that is or has ever been Bioware's strength, even going back so far as the Baldur's Gate games.

So the Mass Effect games set up a ton of themes simply by virtue of having so many cooks in the kitchen. But when it came down to it, they wanted to tie the entire series together with one foremost central theme. That was one of many themes that had been present throughout the trilogy but not everyone connected with it as much as some other themes. But I'd argue it's always been there.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 mars 2013 - 10:31 .

[Megaton_Hope]

I personally cared a lot more about the Genophage than whether EDI could learn to have successful dates.

[remydat]

CronoDragoon wrote...

remydat wrote...
Why do you think most literature depicts heroes as pretty in and villains are ugly.  Subsconsciously, we like to think of good vs evil in those terms.

The krogan were never portrayed as evil so I fail to see your point. Nobody keeps the genophage because the krogan look like dinosaurs, they keep the genophage because the krogan when previously given autonomy acted like dinosaurs.

As for the rachni, plenty of people picked to save the Queen in ME1 so I don't see this supposed subversion.

There were protrayed as warlike aggressors and become more humanized through your relationship with Wrex and Grunt.

Just because plenty of people picked to save her does not disprove my point.  You save her if you are playing paragron regardless.  Anybody can tell what the paragon option is suppose to be.  That doesn't mean you save her because you actually believe the view of the Rachni you were provided was incorrect.

[Reorte]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Then if you get Leviathan, we find out the deeper (pardon the pun) meaning. The entire concern about this was because the Leviathans were concerned more about tribute even though it seems that organics when given the chance seem to be pretty resourceful in coming up with ways of defeating synthetics.
 

My take on the Leviathans is that the creation of synthetics threatened their dominant position, simple as that, but were too arrogant to admit it (even to the Catalyst that they created to help keep them dominant).

[remydat]

SiriusXI wrote...

remydat wrote...

And Legion and the Geth already fight heretics and the Reapers so synthetic vs synthetic already fits into the logic.  I think you are confused.

... oh boy... It was YOU who said that the "all organics vs. all synthetics" theme was central to Mass Effect. Therefore I made a JOKE saying Synthetic vs. Synthetic does not fit into Bioware's logic, even if the game clearly shows that such conflict exists and is likely to exist in the future.

"conflict" was a theme of Mass Effect. Conflict between organic vs. organic (Turian/Salarian/Krogan), synthetic vs. synthetic (Geth vs. Heretics/Reapers), an also organic vs. Synthetic (Heretics/Geth vs. Quarians).

But NEVER was there the theme "Only all organics vs. only all synthetics". Also, while most of the conflics shown ingame are solvable without spacemagic, this sudden new conflict is not. Krogan make peace with Salarians/Krogans, Quarians make peace with Geth.


And once again, if peace is dictated by the party that win the war, it is not really peace. It may be peace legally, but usually the loser will suffer penalties, like occupation of territory, loss of territory, loss of military forces, reparations and so on. If there is TRUE peace, as in, the two parties decide to stop the war BEFORE one party is defeated and works out a peace contract TOGETHER, we have a completely different situation. This is more than just a semantic difference. Do you really consider it the same thing, whether I settle a conflict with my friend Billy by giving him a hand and say "come on, let's stop fighting", or by punshing him so haard he can barely move, saying "Stop attacking me Billy or else"?

No one claimed that the ONLY theme was organics vs synethetics.  The term over arching or central does not mean only.  It is a game spanning what 120 hours, comics, novels, etc., it will have several themes but the central theme to Hudson is one of synthetics vs organics.  You are free to choose your own really.

And like I said it is semantics.  I said it was peace.  I understand your point and acknowledge it but that was not where I was going with my statement.  In any event I will only add that IMO True Peace is measured over time not at the end of the hostilities. 

Modifié par remydat, 22 mars 2013 - 12:02 .

[remydat]

Reorte wrote...

Eshaye wrote...

What he said ^ The more you find out about the Reapers, the more it's evident that a simple absolute of good vs evil isn't adequate. In fact what the Reapers are doing is something good. True evil would be to annihilate organic life at all cost with no mind for their preservation, it would be a selfish cause, when the opposite is true.

Just about every large atrocity ever committed has been committed by someone claiming that they're doing good.

And just about ever large act of kindness has been committed by someone claiming that they're doing good.  You statement proves the point. Good vs Evil is a matter of perspective.  The people who from your perspective are evil may have others who believe they are good and the people from your perspective are good may have others who believe the are evil.

If you think the Geth are toasters you don't feel that broken up by what was done to them.  If you think they are living beings with equal rights of any living being than how you measure them against the Quarians becomes more problematic.

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

What was the theme of the series? Hmmm.... well organics vs. machines? I dunno. I might be a moron, but if you were to ask me I'd say it was to find a way to beat the reapers. They were coming, we had to defeat them otherwise we were all dead.

Of course that may be a little bit too direct. There's a fire burning my house down, and I'm thinking I should put out the fire instead of contemplating the deeper meaning of the fire. "Is fire at war when it burns? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?" Sorry, I don't care. I'm putting out the fire.

Then again we don't find out any more about this until the final 10 minutes of the story, which is a pile of dog do do. There are some hints with the Zha and Zha-til and the Quarians and the Geth; but both the Protheans and Quarians had turned the tide when the reapers arrived. The Protheans were kicking ass, and the Quarians were blitzing their way back to Rannoch. So both those cases sort of blew this Organics vs Synthetics out of the water until Mr. Catalyst tells us otherwise.

Then if you get Leviathan, we find out the deeper (pardon the pun) meaning. The entire concern about this was because the Leviathans were concerned more about tribute even though it seems that organics when given the chance seem to be pretty resourceful in coming up with ways of defeating synthetics.

The theme is "let's focus on defeating the reapers".

I don't think this project was ever sold on mindless fun.  Why do you think there was paragon and renegade options and all these morally grey alliances and decisions.  You seem to think you were playing the equivalent of an action movie ie big explosions big villain all neatly wrapped in a bow when from the moment I started playing I realized I was getting a more complicated drama.

And I am not saying that to say you are wrong for wanting that just that you have to at least being willing to accept that others certainly wanted to contemplate the nature of fire.  I can do that in this game because it is a game.  It allows me to safely ponder philosophical questions that I don't have time to do in real life situations.

[remydat]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

I personally cared a lot more about the Genophage than whether EDI could learn to have successful dates.

Which speaks to the the greatness of the game IMO.  It is entertainment.  Just because they wrote it witn an idea or theme in mind, doesn't mean that is the idea or theme that has to most resonate with you.

People act like because the author's thoughts on the main theme don't agree with theirs it must mean he is wrong or an idiot or delivered a bad product.  No it just means it was a pretty good story that anyone willing to give it a chance could find something that connected with them.

[SpamBot2000]

Balls.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

remydat wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

What was the theme of the series? Hmmm.... well organics vs. machines? I dunno. I might be a moron, but if you were to ask me I'd say it was to find a way to beat the reapers. They were coming, we had to defeat them otherwise we were all dead.

Of course that may be a little bit too direct. There's a fire burning my house down, and I'm thinking I should put out the fire instead of contemplating the deeper meaning of the fire. "Is fire at war when it burns? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?" Sorry, I don't care. I'm putting out the fire.

Then again we don't find out any more about this until the final 10 minutes of the story, which is a pile of dog do do. There are some hints with the Zha and Zha-til and the Quarians and the Geth; but both the Protheans and Quarians had turned the tide when the reapers arrived. The Protheans were kicking ass, and the Quarians were blitzing their way back to Rannoch. So both those cases sort of blew this Organics vs Synthetics out of the water until Mr. Catalyst tells us otherwise.

Then if you get Leviathan, we find out the deeper (pardon the pun) meaning. The entire concern about this was because the Leviathans were concerned more about tribute even though it seems that organics when given the chance seem to be pretty resourceful in coming up with ways of defeating synthetics.

The theme is "let's focus on defeating the reapers".

I don't think this project was ever sold on mindless fun.  Why do you think there was paragon and renegade options and all these morally grey alliances and decisions.  You seem to think you were playing the equivalent of an action movie ie big explosions big villain all neatly wrapped in a bow when from the moment I started playing I realized I was getting a more complicated drama.

And I am not saying that to say you are wrong for wanting that just that you have to at least being willing to accept that others certainly wanted to contemplate the nature of fire.  I can do that in this game because it is a game.  It allows me to safely ponder philosophical questions that I don't have time to do in real life situations.

I'm looking at the trilogy as a whole, not just one installment. I'm a pragmatist in real life. I don't see things in black or white. There were smart things to do and there were dumb things to do. The decisions about whether to cure the genophage or not didn't take long. With Wrex in charge it was "Cure". With Wreav it was destroy Maelon's data, kill Maelon, & "Fake it". Rannoch: with Legion it was Peace. With GethVI it was "Fry the Toasters".

Did you play ME1 and ME2? Did you hear those cheesy lines? ME2 was a bloody Arnold Schwarzenegger movie with the big explosions, especially if you played it in a renegon fashion. Also they were used in  ME3.

I pondered those philosophical questions you are probably pondering years ago and found they were waste of time. Fire is an exothermic chemical reaction. That is the nature of fire. Who cares about the philosophy of fire? There is no philosophy of fire. I'm sure someone can make up something. That was a very poor analogy they used.

I find that trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make any sense just clutters the mind and fill up space that can be used for creating something worthwhile.

[Ieldra]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Keep in mind that the "Synthetic vs Organic" conflict is much broader than most people seem to think and is not solely limited to robots and people going to war. It's an overarching tendency of organics at a certain point in their evolution to create machines, augmentations, or whatever that expand their abilities beyond organic capabilities and how the logical conclusion of that is that organics will be replaced entirely. Not because organics and synthetics hate each other yadda yadda (though admittedly it was phrased too much like this) but because organics simply become redundant at a certain point. The Catalyst's goal was to prevent this from happening, to allow races to grow to the point where evolution no longer was the sole dictator of their species fate. The harvest was in some ways done to protect developing races that had not reached that level of technology yet.

So yeah, when viewed on a broader level organic vs synthetic is a core theme of the entire series.

That's almost exactly how I see it.

I think what did the most damage to the presentation of the theme was the decision of Casey Hudson and Mac Walters to keep the conversation with the Catalyst, as they call it, "high level", with no explanations at all, in the original ending. "Without us to prevent it, synthetics will destroy all organics" is all that we get in the original ending. The EC was better, but still kept things vague enough to prevent any conclusion from being compelling, and still prevented an in-depth treatment of the matter by preventing Shepard from mentioning peace on Rannoch. 

Not only here, but in general, unnecessary vagueness instead of clarity, sometimes to the point of intentional obfuscation, did the most damage to the story in the end. I'm fine with speculating about what happens after. With an exposition half of which results in my asking "WTF is the meaning of that", not so much. I'm exaggerating? Well, the EC is pretty good in certain parts, but the places where the writers went light-years out of their way for the sole purpose of avoiding clarity are still blatantly obvious.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2013 - 11:35 .

[Dr_Extrem]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


I pondered those philosophical questions you are probably pondering years ago and found they were waste of time. Fire is an exothermic chemical reaction. That is the nature of fire. Who cares about the philosophy of fire? There is no philosophy of fire. I'm sure someone can make up something. That was a very poor analogy they used.

I find that trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make any sense just clutters the mind and fill up space that can be used for creating something worthwhile.

yep .. its esoterical bs.


"fire" is the emission is visible- and infrared electro magnetic radiation.

this is caused by an exothermic, oxidative process - thats it. thee is no philosophy in fire. the reaction goes on, as long as the requirements are met.

not enough ..
- heat to maintain the initialisation temperature - no fire
- oxygen to fuel the oxidative process - no fire
- material to oxidise - no fire


its not even a fitting anaylogy, because fire is not guided by intelligence (like the reapers) - it only depends on fuel and temperature.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 22 mars 2013 - 11:39 .

[SiriusXI]

remydat wrote...

that just that you have to at least being willing to accept that others certainly wanted to contemplate the nature of fire.  I can do that in this game because it is a game.  It allows me to safely ponder philosophical questions that I don't have time to do in real life situations.

What!?

1. The nature of fire is retty much clear. It is a chemical reaction and you can read about it in every chemistry school book.

2. So WHY does fire does what it does? Because that's how this chemical reaction works. Fire has no free will, it is not sentient. You could ask, "why is the world how it is? Why do chemical reactions even exist? But these sort of questions are not raised by the catalyst's analogy. He wants to compare the motives of the reapers with the motives of fire. But since fire is not sentient, yet the reapers are (or are they?), the analogy falls flat.

3. You don't have time to ponder philisophical questions in real life? Really? You never reflect on anything greater than you bodily functions except in video games?

4. You realize that video games are part of your real life, too, don't you? If you ponder pilosophical questions in the game, you are doing it in real life.

5. Mass Effect has dealt with a lot of difficult issues, like when does life start being life? Is AI as precious as organic life? Would you kill a family member if that family member is murderer? Would you abandon your family if they were in danger because of you? How fare may science go? Do the ends justify the means? Always? Are there ethical bounaries which may nver be crossed? Some other more obvious issues, such as racism, corruption, temptation, and so on.
--> All this can be found in mass effect. But not in the endings. The endings do not follow logically from established themes of conflict within the galactic society. There is NO inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics, but a conflict between species, political groups, criminals, and yes, also between organics and synthetics (Geth/Quarian). But this is only one of many conflicts we encounter, never was it THE main conflict.

[Wayning_Star]

SiriusXI wrote...

remydat wrote...

that just that you have to at least being willing to accept that others certainly wanted to contemplate the nature of fire.  I can do that in this game because it is a game.  It allows me to safely ponder philosophical questions that I don't have time to do in real life situations.

What!?

1. The nature of fire is retty much clear. It is a chemical reaction and you can read about it in every chemistry school book.

2. So WHY does fire does what it does? Because that's how this chemical reaction works. Fire has no free will, it is not sentient. You could ask, "why is the world how it is? Why do chemical reactions even exist? But these sort of questions are not raised by the catalyst's analogy. He wants to compare the motives of the reapers with the motives of fire. But since fire is not sentient, yet the reapers are (or are they?), the analogy falls flat.

3. You don't have time to ponder philisophical questions in real life? Really? You never reflect on anything greater than you bodily functions except in video games?

4. You realize that video games are part of your real life, too, don't you? If you ponder pilosophical questions in the game, you are doing it in real life.

5. Mass Effect has dealt with a lot of difficult issues, like when does life start being life? Is AI as precious as organic life? Would you kill a family member if that family member is murderer? Would you abandon your family if they were in danger because of you? How fare may science go? Do the ends justify the means? Always? Are there ethical bounaries which may nver be crossed? Some other more obvious issues, such as racism, corruption, temptation, and so on.
--> All this can be found in mass effect. But not in the endings. The endings do not follow logically from established themes of conflict within the galactic society. There is NO inevitable conflict between organics and synthetics, but a conflict between species, political groups, criminals, and yes, also between organics and synthetics (Geth/Quarian). But this is only one of many conflicts we encounter, never was it THE main conflict.

organics against the problematics of the MEU. (even themselves

I personally blame Mother Nature... and how we/organic intellect differentiate who (and why) came first.

[ZLurps]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Keep in mind that the "Synthetic vs Organic" conflict is much broader than most people seem to think and is not solely limited to robots and people going to war. It's an overarching tendency of organics at a certain point in their evolution to create machines, augmentations, or whatever that expand their abilities beyond organic capabilities and how the logical conclusion of that is that organics will be replaced entirely. Not because organics and synthetics hate each other yadda yadda (though admittedly it was phrased too much like this) but because organics simply become redundant at a certain point. The Catalyst's goal was to prevent this from happening, to allow races to grow to the point where evolution no longer was the sole dictator of their species fate. The harvest was in some ways done to protect developing races that had not reached that level of technology yet.

So yeah, when viewed on a broader level organic vs synthetic is a core theme of the entire series.

I don't know if it really was that much about people not getting it, but that delivery was awful and that said theme has been used in fiction for hundred years at least. I really expected BW to bring something fresh to the table, but for me it was just another piece of humanists trying to appear deep about things they have no ****ing clue.

[Wayning_Star]

ZLurps wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Keep in mind that the "Synthetic vs Organic" conflict is much broader than most people seem to think and is not solely limited to robots and people going to war. It's an overarching tendency of organics at a certain point in their evolution to create machines, augmentations, or whatever that expand their abilities beyond organic capabilities and how the logical conclusion of that is that organics will be replaced entirely. Not because organics and synthetics hate each other yadda yadda (though admittedly it was phrased too much like this) but because organics simply become redundant at a certain point. The Catalyst's goal was to prevent this from happening, to allow races to grow to the point where evolution no longer was the sole dictator of their species fate. The harvest was in some ways done to protect developing races that had not reached that level of technology yet.

So yeah, when viewed on a broader level organic vs synthetic is a core theme of the entire series.

I don't know if it really was that much about people not getting it, but that delivery was awful and that said theme has been used in fiction for hundred years at least. I really expected BW to bring something fresh to the table, but for me it was just another piece of humanists trying to appear deep about things they have no ****ing clue.

actually no, that's not entirely correct to assume theirs is no clue, just because the actuality of the story is just hard to comprehend, much less fact based in real time.

Of course the story is old, they talk of billions of years, and evolution, a nature based reality of sorts, not exactly proven or disproven, the mass effect of evolution. But the "idea" of our involvement with technology and why it is a by product of nature is an interesting, if not brand new theme. If we Core the ethos in that framework and realize we're actually 'shaping nature' to suit our designs, cloud it in some delusion that it's needed to survive at the very "risk" of our natural abilities. I think that's an interesting, if not cosmic coincidence many don't realize as they synthesize with there favorite video game/ technology base.

All Of Your Basis Are Belong to Us..

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 22 mars 2013 - 12:30 .

[CosmicGnosis]

... Are you kidding me? Are you really unable to grasp the fire analogy?

Catalyst = Forester
Reapers = Fire
Galaxy = Forest

The Catalyst directs where the Reapers go and what they destroy, just like a forester directs where a fire goes and what it burns. New life is allowed to flourish in the galaxy, just like new plant life is allowed to grow in a forest.

There. That's it. Frankly, I think you guys are just looking for excuses to hate the Catalyst, Mass Effect 3, and BioWare.

[Wayning_Star]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

... Are you kidding me? Are you really unable to grasp the fire analogy?

Catalyst = Forester
Reapers = Fire
Galaxy = Forest

The Catalyst directs where the Reapers go and what they destroy, just like a forester directs where a fire goes and what it burns. New life is allowed to flourish in the galaxy, just like new plant life is allowed to grow in a forest.

There. That's it. Frankly, I think you guys are just looking for excuses to hate the Catalyst, Mass Effect 3, and BioWare.

the only problem with that ideal is that the reapeships store, not destroy, folks miss that one every time and has detrimental effects on their creation. The catalyst is not into destroying stuff so much as preserving, in it's own way.

The destroy choice on the other hand is "all about" taking out the reapers as in the simple matter of their construction is removed from the reality. The problem with that is their idea of being cannot be actually destroyed in that way, it can only be changed to another form, not removed. They are part of the MEU and that's the underlying ethos of the story.

WE are the reapers. (just cannot quite get a grasp on that pesky reality.)

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

... Are you kidding me? Are you really unable to grasp the fire analogy?

Catalyst = Forester
Reapers = Fire
Galaxy = Forest

The Catalyst directs where the Reapers go and what they destroy, just like a forester directs where a fire goes and what it burns. New life is allowed to flourish in the galaxy, just like new plant life is allowed to grow in a forest.

There. That's it. Frankly, I think you guys are just looking for excuses to hate the Catalyst, Mass Effect 3, and BioWare.

. I think the issue is that it is a bad analogy, not a difficult one to understand.