201 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

There is space magic in Mass Effect. It is called biotics. It translates the classical RPG magic in a SciFi setting. Does anyone complain about magic in RPGs? No. But there was no magic in the medieval...

That's the point.

[NatP]

I honestly can't believe no one has posted this image yet: http://th08.devianta...eck-d5pxvyx.jpg

[Enhanced]

NatP wrote...

I honestly can't believe no one has posted this image yet: http://th08.devianta...eck-d5pxvyx.jpg

because it's NSFW.

[Argolas]

NatP wrote...

I honestly can't believe no one has posted this image yet:

The only problem is that those are not Banshee children. Interracial breastfeeding is a little weird.

Modifié par Argolas, 26 avril 2013 - 07:20 .

[M74]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

...there is however something incredibly repugnant and abhorrent about what should be a natural evolutionary process being fast-tracked and arbitrarily enforced upon all of creation by a being that understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the "human condition".

The Catalyst doesn't think, believe, dream, empathise or emote.  It exists, and it calculates.  That is all.  And that's why it's solutions - ALL OF THEM - end up becoming a galactic horror.  Synthesis as a final evolutionary step is fine.  Synthesis as a mandatory and irrevocable genetic alteration, instigated at the whim of a being which believes that the cyclical and violent extermination of all advanced organic life to be an acceptable method of preserving life as a whole is nothing short of an abomination.

The Catalyst's solutions are fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's logic is fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's reasoning is fundamentally flawed.  The Reaper harvest was fundamentally flawed.  The Catalyst's suggestion of Synthesis is fundamentally flawed.  Because the Catalyst itself is fundamentally flawed.  Why?  Because it does not and cannot comprehend or take into account the very nature of life itself, the very thing it was created to protect.

... so much to the holy gift of story telling skills in Mass Effect ...
:whistle::innocent:

[PsyrenY]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Oh boy. The "space magic" logic is fun, isn't it? The obvious flaw is, as you point out, that essentially everything is "space magic" since it isn't in accordance with today's technology/sciences. All of the guns? Space magic. Mass Effect drives? Space magic. EDI? Space magic. The Citadel? Space magic. The Hammerhead? Space magic. Biotics? Space magic. Augmentations? Space magic.

And so on, and so on, and so on. Ad nauseum. Of course, the really funny part is that it tends to be selective. So we get "Ehhhh... only the stuff I personally don't like is space magic because shut up." Oh BSN.

I'm used to their cognitive dissonance, it doesn't even register anymore.

[Mangalores]

Argolas wrote...

There is space magic in Mass Effect. It is called biotics. It translates the classical RPG magic in a SciFi setting. Does anyone complain about magic in RPGs? No. But there was no magic in the medieval...

That's the point.

Biotics has in universe explanaition even tied into real world observations (though obviously there the disconnect between science and fiction starts). Synthesis is space magic even within ME science.

Synthesis is not space magic because it is a SF tech, it is space magic because it is space magic within ME terms  which coherently tries to address real world concepts with in-world explanation (e.g. where does all the heat go, how do you break Einstein's pesky theory, what's biotics), thus giving a heads up when they break scientific laws and that they know they break those laws.

It is not a question of whether Science Fiction or fantasy violates modern physics, it's how a fictional universe establishes a consistent set of in universe rules how it deals with the necessity of breaking physics for fictional/drama purposes. Fantasy can just handwave it as supernatural forces and go bananas, Science Fiction - at least good one - tries to only break the laws it needs to to establish the in world rules that drive the plot. Still, both genres establish in universe laws because otherwise the drama wouldn't work and everything would be random.

Even anything-goes-shows like Doctor Who establish specific rules why the Doctor cannot do everything. Why? Because the question would be: Why is there drama and he isn't doing everything?


The entire Crucible is obviously already borderline to that but the notion to cause a big explosion or create some kind of network hack to take over control is at least consistent with what we know about having something with a lot of energy and what you can do with a big antenna. Thus the suspension of disbelief that some plot device can do that is at least plausible, while Synthesis breaks all kinds of new scientific fields the ME universe never put in question before for plot purposes.

ME never questioned biology, genetics or evolution, but suddenly that science is also wrong and we have some magic in universe pseudoscience to replace in essence everything.

So it's space magic not because it violates physics like everything else, it's space magic because it violates in game consistency and it's own internal logic. The only way to explain it away is that the whole ending is filled with plot holes, for the other endings it's just easier to ignore the plot holes and consider the ending still plausible.

[Indy_S]

Mangalores, it might be too late for us to convince them otherwise. As they have established, anything can happen at any time for no reason.

[The Night Mammoth]

I've never really agreed with the 'indistinguishable from magic' argument.

It basically says three things. One: I'm apparently too stupid to be able to distinguish. Two: it's fine to have magic in science fiction to solve the plot. And three: people who aren't Arthur C.Clarke are happily piggybacking his creativity to excuse stupid things in fiction they like regardless of applicability.

[Metallica93]

tickle267 wrote...

I'm dying. Too damn funny.

My thoughts paralleled the OP's, as well. It was bad enough where the Reapers essentially forced us along a certain evolutionary path through mass effect technology, but you JUST had a conversation with the Illusive Man about earning knowledge. No way in hell do we suddenly deserve the knowledge of all previous cycles. Absolute moral suicide.

Plus, how were organics "ready" for synthesis in this cycle compared to the previous times the Catalyst has tried to do it?

[Ledgend1221]

Synthesis is stupid.
I mean even Skyrim thieves guild looks like Shakespear compared to it.
It's just so god awful it's hard to believe that anyone in the human race could be that stupid as to come up with it and present it as an actual choice.

[ElSuperGecko]

Enhanced wrote...
After reading ElSuperGecko posts, I understand. He's trying to tell us that his "Self serving personal interpretation and headcanon!" is better than ours.

...which would be a fine rebuttal if I'd actually posted any headcanon or personal interpretations of the endings.

But I haven't actually done that, have I?

But don't worry, I understand.  You dislike having your self-serving personal interpretation and headcanon called into question, because it makes you feel insecure.  So you palmwave any arguments that don't fit your own agenda.

And people call Destroy supporters close-minded! 

[dorktainian]

i'll use a quote from the horses mouth so to speak.

http://kotaku.com/58...ass-effect-game

Walters couldn't tell us what to expect in terms of ME3's plot points, but he did say what won't be happening. "You can't go and find one Reaper who actually turns out to be a good guy… things like, "Oh, yeah, these Reapers are OK." People playing the game will hopefully say, ‘Nope. They're as bad as everyone said they are.' You really don't want to be doing anything but killing them."

[Wayning_Star]

Up until the end, the Shepard's don't really even have a first clue as to what the reaperships are, nor their initiator, catalyst. so it's a no brainer that they are bad, or what ever. But, once Shep is clued into their matrix, then it's a different story and the expected enemy becomes less so. Actually, the end game essentially provides that organics are the actual problem within the MEU, they and their technology they cannot live/evolve without.

growing pains..

[ElSuperGecko]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Up until the end, the Shepard's don't really even have a first clue as to what the reaperships are, nor their initiator, catalyst. so it's a no brainer that they are bad, or what ever. But, once Shep is clued into their matrix, then it's a different story and the expected enemy becomes less so. Actually, the end game essentially provides that organics are the actual problem within the MEU, they and their technology they cannot live/evolve without.

growing pains..

This would be the case if you simply ignore everything you've previously learned throughout the course of three games, and accept the word of your enemy and take it as gospel.

Kind of like someone who has previously been opposed to racism being brainwashed at a KKK meeting, or a peaceful muslim being radicalised, or...

...oh yeah, an organic being indoctrinated by Reaper influence.

I've never understood why a sketchy, vague, platitude-packed three minute conversation with a being you have no reason whatsoever to believe can and does override 3 games worth of information, revelations and first-hand evidence for so many people...

[KaiserShep]

You don't really get any clue at all about any reaper matrices. For the entirety of your campaign, you had booming voices threaten you incessantly, only to learn later that its made of the liquefied dead. There's no amount of Casper preaching that could undo that mess.

[Lebanese Dude]

ElSuperGecko wrote...



I've never understood why a sketchy, vague, platitude-packed three minute conversation with a being you have no reason whatsoever to believe can and does override 3 games worth of information, revelations and first-hand evidence for so many people...

This is true. It's why I ended up picking Destroy. It felt "right" to me, and any other option would have felt completely disingenuous and "perfect".

However, I don't think the Catalyst was directly lying to you. It could be lying by omission. I just did not want to play god, and any other option would have been just that. My Shepard regrets the loss of AI but understands at the end of the story, that this time there will be no true happy ending.

Modifié par Lebdood, 29 avril 2013 - 10:27 .

[Xilizhra]

I've never understood why a sketchy, vague, platitude-packed three minute conversation with a being you have no reason whatsoever to believe can and does override 3 games worth of information, revelations and first-hand evidence for so many people...

We had no idea how to control the Reapers in the first two games, but no idea how to destroy them either. In ME3, I wasn't opposed to the idea of control in principle, but Cerberus attacked our side first, and I had to defend it, so there was no chance to really talk about things with TIM. Simply put, there was no chance otherwise.

However, I don't think the Catalyst was directly lying to you. It could
be lying by omission. I just did not want to play god, and any other
option would have been just that. My Shepard regrets the loss of AI but
understands at the end of the story, that this time there will be no
true happy ending.

Only because your Shepard failed to seize the opportunity for such. Also, I personally never thought that Destroy made narrative sense, because picking it makes the Catalyst appearance completely unnecessary... but since you have the Catalyst anyway except in MEHEM, it's best to find a way to deal with it. Or so I believe.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 29 avril 2013 - 11:16 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
We had no idea how to control the Reapers in the first two games, but no idea how to destroy them either. In ME3, I wasn't opposed to the idea of control in principle, but Cerberus attacked our side first, and I had to defend it, so there was no chance to really talk about things with TIM. Simply put, there was no chance otherwise.

Oh, we knew how to Destroy the Reapers.  Knock down their shields then hit them with overwhelming firepower (it worked on Sovereign).  Unfortunately, that's simply not viable as it took an entire fleet to bring down that one Reaper alone.  We also knew that a previous cycle had managed to develop a weapon which could take down a Reaper (and cause massive collateral damage in the process), unfortunately TIM was unwilling to divulge further details on that and neither were the developers.

My issues with Control stem from the process (Control them despite being dead?) the Reaper's own mind-altering abilities (we saw what they did to Saren and TIM first-hand) and the fact that I personally believe one individual wielding that much power is a receipe for disaster regardless of motive.

Lebdood wrote...
However, I don't think the Catalyst was directly lying to you. It could be lying by omission. I just did not want to play god, and any other option would have been just that. My Shepard regrets the loss of AI but understands at the end of the story, that this time there will be no true happy ending.

I agree, I don't think the Catalyst was lying.  I think it was telling us everything as it saw it.  However, how the Catalyst sees things is not how the rest of the galaxy sees things, and I think it's logic is sufficiently and irredeemably flawed so as to not accept it's assertations or solutions.

See the OP for my thoughts on this, but needless to say if a being implemented cyclical galactic genocide as a "solution", then it's going to take a LOT of convincing for me to accept another "solution" from it, especially when I'm not completely convinced the problem for which this "solution" is required exists in the first place.

And the Catalyst didn't even attempt to explain or convince, it simply told me to accept and believe.  When Sovereign and Harbinger said our extinction was inevitable, I didn't believe them, so why should I believe the Catalyst?

[Xilizhra]

Oh, we knew how to Destroy the Reapers. Knock down their shields then hit them with overwhelming firepower (it worked on Sovereign). Unfortunately, that's simply not viable as it took an entire fleet to bring down that one Reaper alone. We also knew that a previous cycle had managed to develop a weapon which could take down a Reaper (and cause massive collateral damage in the process), unfortunately TIM was unwilling to divulge further details on that and neither were the developers.

A gun that large would be quite easy to destroy with orbital bombardment, I doubt it'd be practical. And what I meant was that we don't have a way of destroying the Reapers that we could actually use to win.

My issues with Control stem from the process (Control them despite being dead?) the Reaper's own mind-altering abilities (we saw what they did to Saren and TIM first-hand) and the fact that I personally believe one individual wielding that much power is a receipe for disaster regardless of motive.

If it's an indoctrination-based trap, then it's likely all three options will kill me somehow. And while it may not be optimal for me to have that much power, it's better than the alternative.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
A gun that large would be quite easy to destroy with orbital bombardment, I doubt it'd be practical. And what I meant was that we don't have a way of destroying the Reapers that we could actually use to win.

True, but it would have been interesting to see if the technology could be replicated, put into practice or even modified and used for other purposes.  Cerberus find the remains of the weapon however, and TIM handwaves it as not important (remember that he never planned on destroying them in the first place; would have been interesting to see if Alliance/Council scientists drew the same conclusion).

If it's an indoctrination-based trap, then it's likely all three options will kill me somehow. And while it may not be optimal for me to have that much power, it's better than the alternative.

You think that having that that power is better than no-one having that power?  OK, but I don't agree.  Knowing what he/she knows about the Reapers and having gone through near-equivalent situations with David Archer, Saren and the Illusive Man, my Shepard is exceptionally leery and suspicious of putting themselves in a similar position.  Can I Control them?  Am I willing to bet humanities existence on it?  My answer is the same as it was for TIM.

To quote Harvey Dent, you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.  An "eternal, infinite, immortal" Shepard - linked into the Reaper consciousness - would inevitably fall into the latter category.

In my opinion, at least. 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 29 avril 2013 - 01:13 .

[Xilizhra]

True, but it would have been interesting to see if the technology could be replicated, put into practice or even modified and used for other purposes. Cerberus find the remains of the weapon however, and TIM handwaves it as not important (remember that he never planned on destroying them in the first place; would have been interesting to see if Alliance/Council scientists drew the same conclusion).

You can only have a gun be so big and still consider it practical; I think they hit the limit with dreadnaught guns.

You think that having that that power is better than no-one having that power? OK, but I don't agree. Knowing what he/she knows about the Reapers and having gone through near-equivalent situations with David Archer, Saren and the Illusive Man, my Shepard is exceptionally leery and suspicious of putting themselves in a similar position. Can I Control them? Am I willing to bet humanities existence on it? My answer is the same as it was for TIM.

It's better than genocide. Not better than Synthesis, I grant, but I have no way of knowing that because of the Catalyst's terrible explanation.

To quote Harvey Dent, you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. An "eternal, infinite, immortal" Shepard would inevitably fall into the latter category.

He was wrong about Batman, what makes you think he'd be right about Shepard?

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
It's better than genocide. Not better than Synthesis, I grant, but I have no way of knowing that because of the Catalyst's terrible explanation.

There's that self-serving headcanon in action, again

Xilizhra wrote...
He was wrong about Batman, what makes you think he'd be right about Shepard?

Actually, he wasn't.  Dent died and became a hero.  Batman lived and became the villain.  In the eyes of the people, of course, not the viewer.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 29 avril 2013 - 01:23 .

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
He was wrong about Batman, what makes you think he'd be right about Shepard?

Actually, he wasn't.  Dent died and became a hero.  Batman lived and became the villain.  In the eyes of the people, of course, not the viewer.

Viewer, i.e. reality, is all that matters here. I don't really care if my Shepard is viewed as a villain, as long as she does good for the galaxy.