428 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

JasonShepard wrote...

iakus wrote...

aug1796 wrote...

What people don't realize is the control ending is just as ethical as destroy.....who says that Shepard has to use the reapers....he could just decide to pilot them into the sun...Problem solved no reapers and everything can go back to a semi-normal state...

1)  that's not Shepard.  That's an AI based upon Shep's memories, but still a distinct, independant entity.

Odd. I distinctly remember the Catalyst saying something to the effect of "You will Control the Reapers". Not "An AI that isn't really you and is just based on your memories will Control the Reapers."

On a more scientific note, sufficient computing power could accurately duplicate the human brain. Consciousness is almost certainly quantum in nature (we don't actually know), but destructive analysis allows for transfer of quantum states from one medium to another - in this case, from the human brain onto a Quantum Bluebox. In other words: with what we're given in game, I'm willing to believe continuity of consciousness between Shepard and the Shepard-AI. In other words, that AI is Shepard.

So how come you can copy an organic mind onto an AI, but you can't copy an AI? The lore tells us that AIs can't be copied or moved due to the quantum bluebox issue. The raw data (memory) will transfer but the personality will reset.

Also the Starchild also said Shepard also losing everything if he chose control. That makes more sense if he loses his personality.

And the EC does not actually confirm your idea at all. Instead the AI talks as if it's a different entity that remembers being Shepard. It's the whole reason it refers to Shepard either in the third person, or as "the person I was".The last one is because despite being a different entity, with its own personality, it still remembers having been Shepard.

[Thrat]

Every second post is a debate about the endings can't stand it anymore! Just wait for the coming ME-Story driven-MMORPG. It will give you all the answers to your questions, like "can vorcha regrow a lost magic stick?", "do quarians get stomach aches from chicken?" and of course "is the original ending?"

[Iakus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

That you see a distinction here is deeply troubling to me. Can games not tell stories? Or, should they only tell uncomplicated, pathos-free ones?

Games can tell stories yes.  But this is a debate Chemilcord and I have had many times over many threads.  I believe that games are a different medium that, say novels and other passive forms of entertainment.  ANd therefore, tell their stories differently (for one thing, the audience is more invested in the protagonist).  Chemiclord seems to think otherwise.  I was merely reminding that this is one of those cases where simpy calling it a "story" doeesn't fully encompass what Mass Effect is.

I can agree with that, but you haven't addressed the "pathos-free, uncomplicated" parts either. Just because a game is a different type of story doesn't mean it should avoid conventions that other stories use.

Depends on the game.  Alan Wake tells a different story than Assassion's Creed, which is different from Deus Ex.

Btu Mass Effect tried to be something more than these.  A story that spanned a trilogy of games, which our choices would shape.

In that sense there should have been a multitude of stories, from fight pumpin "Frak Yeah!!!" as Reapers exploded, ending with Shepard dancing on Harbinger's corpse with his/her LI, to heroic self-sacrificial victory, to tragic-morally compromising bittersweet victory, to abject failure as the cycles continue, to mutually assured destruction.

What we have here, from Synthesis to Refuse, was simply tonally-similar arbitrary sacrifices regardless of how you played, what alliances were forged, what allies you made.  As I've ponted out in past threads, these endings are more appropriate for a nonimport Shep than for a Shepard who actually put effort into theh first two games.

Many divergent stories were told, but they all came together for the same endings, whether they made sense to or not.

[Eryri]

KingZayd wrote...

JasonShepard wrote...

Odd. I distinctly remember the Catalyst saying something to the effect of "You[/b] will Control the Reapers". Not "An AI that isn't really you and is just based on your memories will Control the Reapers."

On a more scientific note, sufficient computing power could accurately duplicate the human brain. Consciousness is almost certainly quantum in nature (we don't actually know), but destructive analysis allows for transfer of quantum states from one medium to another - in this case, from the human brain onto a Quantum Bluebox. In other words: with what we're given in game, I'm willing to believe continuity of consciousness between Shepard and the Shepard-AI. In other words, that AI is Shepard.

So how come you can copy an organic mind onto an AI, but you can't copy an AI? The lore tells us that AIs can't be copied or moved due to the quantum bluebox issue. The raw data (memory) will transfer but the personality will reset.

Also the Starchild also said Shepard also losing everything if he chose control. That makes more sense if he loses his personality.

And the EC does not actually confirm your idea at all. Instead the AI talks as if it's a different entity that remembers being Shepard. It's the whole reason it refers to Shepard either in the third person, or as "the person I was".The last one is because despite being a different entity, with its own personality, it still remembers having been Shepard.

Precisely. The Catalyst also says a few other things. Such as heavily intimating that Shepard, as a cyborg, will die himself if he picks destroy. Yet we have the breath scene. Even if the brat isn't actively lying, he's hardly entirely accurate in his predictions.

And as the mouthpiece of a species that have used traps and trickery as their MO for millions of years, it's hard for some of us to take a single word he says seriously without metagaming. I wouldn't trust that intangible little so-and-so as far as I could pick him up and throw him.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

JasonShepard wrote...

Odd. I distinctly remember the Catalyst saying something to the effect of "You will Control the Reapers". Not "An AI that isn't really you and is just based on your memories will Control the Reapers."

On a more scientific note, sufficient computing power could accurately duplicate the human brain. Consciousness is almost certainly quantum in nature (we don't actually know), but destructive analysis allows for transfer of quantum states from one medium to another - in this case, from the human brain onto a Quantum Bluebox. In other words: with what we're given in game, I'm willing to believe continuity of consciousness between Shepard and the Shepard-AI. In other words, that AI is Shepard.


Only if you play from the EC. The original endings allowed a lot more flexibility with what happened after Control. In any case, the EC Control epilogue can still be interpreted in more than one way. For example:

Repairing the Relays, sharing technology with the galaxy and proceeding to guard the galaxy against any external threats accomplishes all of the Shepard-AI's stated aims, without creating a big-brother state. It even explains what the Reapers were doing in London and on Rannoch in the slides - sharing knowledge before leaving for dark space.

And I don't believe any of that. I believe that in losing his humanity for a machine existence, Shepard became something terrifying. He may have his thoughts and memories, but he doesn't have his emotions, his feelings, his humanity. Regardless of whatever speech control Shepard gives, with his connection to his own kind lost. That I believe would change the thoughts that were continued, leaving the memories as a curious though pointless waste of software memory. I believe Control Shepard is more or less a ticking time bomb that may (even upon upload) come to a conclusion based on the prior information and programming of his predecessor. And since my Shepard believes that the entire logic behind both the Catalyst's programming and the problem stipulated to him is inherently flawed, only to now think along the same lines as the previous Catalyst in his new existence. This would probably just renew the cycle eventually, or cause Shepard to literally stifle the growth, advancement, and freewill of the galaxy to halt the inevitable conflict and maintain the status quo.

Even if the prior Catalyst's mandate is overridden, and Shepard now as an AI God with the Reapers on his will alone, do I still believe the galaxy is in dire hands. Eventually I think he's going to stop caring about the mandate from his previous organic self and start focusing more on his mechanical observation. The information that he accrues over years, decades, centuries, even millenia. He will focus more on his own intellectual pursuits, because now, that is all he has. Himself. Everything he does to act on will be for himself, as that is now the only perspective he has. And eventually he will come to a conclusion that is counter to what the galaxy believes on some issue. And he will try to stop it. Depending on what the issue is, he might just park a Reaper close by some event or location as a sign that he's watching, or that he doesn't approve, or whatever. But eventually a snag will rise when he goes against the galaxy on an opinion or decision that has galactic ramifications. Eventually, it'll just spiral out of control (pun intended) into a new hell of a cycle that may well be based off something completely different than the organic/synthetic issue. And in the interest of regulating peace, do you really think Shepard is going to let anybody build a Crucible to come and kick him out of power? Especially now that he knows exactly what it is and what it will do? He's likely to purge all data on it as one of his first acts.

And I think this is going to happen in Control, no matter what your Shepard's outlook is anymore.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 20 mai 2013 - 09:31 .

[chemiclord]

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

Here, I think is where the true impasse lies.

I guess.  Because I see no difference whatsoever.  The distinction is not a significant one.

I've seen people become distressingly invested emotionally in book series just as easily as games; the level of interaction is, to be perfectly blunt, irrelevant.

Games are merely another medium in which stories can be told.  By that extension, games are under no obligation to make you feel happy either.  I'm sorry it hurt you, but them's the breaks, buddy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

chemiclord wrote...

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

Here, I think is where the true impasse lies.

I guess.  Because I see no difference whatsoever.  The distinction is not a significant one.

I've seen people become distressingly invested emotionally in book series just as easily as games; the level of interaction is, to be perfectly blunt, irrelevant.

Games are merely another medium in which stories can be told.  By that extension, games are under no obligation to make you feel happy either.  I'm sorry it hurt you, but them's the breaks, buddy.

It doesn't hurt me at all, since it is just your opinion. An invalid one in my own opinion.

A game developer has to be pretty cynical or nihilistic if he's looking to make a game for the sheer purpose of screwing with them or making them feel bad.

[KaiserShep]

Imagine beating bowser, only to discover that the princess was dead the whole time, because she was turned into one of the many goombas you destroyed.

[jtav]

Regarding the Control entity, in ME memory and thought are identity (see CloneShep- for an example of the negative). That thing is Shepard for all intents. But it is a Shepard who exists in an altered form, separated from all he knew before. He died and exists in a technological afterlife.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

jtav wrote...

Regarding the Control entity, in ME memory and thought are identity (see CloneShep- for an example of the negative). That thing is Shepard for all intents. But it is a Shepard who exists in an altered form, separated from all he knew before. He died and exists in a technological afterlife.

I'd imagine the change from an organic nature to a mechanical one would also alter his thought process.

We're only told that his thoughts will continue. We aren't told what he'll be thinking about. We aren't told if his thoughts will be the same as before or if the new nature of his existence will alter the way he thinks.

His memories will be there, but eventually I predict it will just become a curiosity to analyze once, little more.

[Eryri]

chemiclord wrote...

I guess.  Because I see no difference whatsoever.  The distinction is not a significant one.

I've seen people become distressingly invested emotionally in book series just as easily as games; the level of interaction is, to be perfectly blunt, irrelevant.

Games are merely another medium in which stories can be told.  By that extension, games are under no obligation to make you feel happy either.  I'm sorry it hurt you, but them's the breaks, buddy.

Are they also under no obligation to make thematic or internal sense? Or to fullfil the promises about what sort of product we could expect to receive? Both those made implicitly by the tone and themes of the series' earlier installments, and explicitly by the game's creators prior to its release?

The endings do not make me feel "sad" at least not in any tragic sense intended by the writers. They make me feel irritation. I am annoyed that I spent £49 on what I had been led to believe by the previous games would be an exciting and diverting, character-driven space opera. For most of the game that's what I received, until I reached it's most important part, and the product suddenly turned into something I would not have purchased - a pretentious, tedious and self indulgent musing on the apparently inevitable conflict between organic and synthetic life. One that was unsupported by the narrative.

I bought this entertainment product to perform a particular function. To entertain me. It fails in that regard.

And while individual stories have no obligation to be happy, those in a series, purchased in the understandable expectation that they will be similar in tone and content to the previous entries arguably are, when said earlier intallments had happy endings. One would be understandably annoyed if one purchased a gritty detective novel, only to have it inexplicably turn into a florid, Mills and Boon-esque romance part way through.

Modifié par Eryri, 20 mai 2013 - 09:59 .

[chemiclord]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It doesn't hurt me at all, since it is just your opinion. An invalid one in my own opinion.

A game developer has to be pretty cynical or nihilistic if he's looking to make a game for the sheer purpose of screwing with them or making them feel bad.

Well... there are a lot of cynical and/or nihilistic people out there.

There are also some people who find comfort in the "bittersweet" resolution of stories; helping them cope with the fact that sometimes, bad things happen even when you do everything right, and it's going to be okay.

There are some people who find "happy" endings to stretch their suspension of disbelief too far.  They can't "break" from what they perceive to be reality to enjoy it.

There's a ton of perspectives in the world, and a ton of personal tastes.  To reject all but a narrow perspective because somehow "games are different" is awfully elitist, in a sense.

I have yet to see a compelling argument why games supposedly ARE different.  The level of interaction has little to do with the emotional investment of the audience.  I mean, look at the incendiary pushback writers like Doyle got, or Rowling did when there was a "leaked" ending to Deathly Hollows.  I see no reason to believe gamers are any more "attached" to the characters of a game than readers are to characters in books.

If you don't like how someone tells their stories, don't support them, and find somone who tells the stories you like.  I can guarantee you they exist.

Modifié par chemiclord, 20 mai 2013 - 09:54 .

[chemiclord]

Eryri wrote...

Are they also under no obligation to make thematic or internal sense? Or to fullfil the promises about what sort of product we could expect to receive? Both those made implicitly by the tone and themes of the series' earlier installments, and explicitly by the game's creators prior to its release?

The endings do not make me feel "sad" at least not in any tragic sense intended by the writers. They make me feel irritation. I am annoyed that I spent £49 on what I had been led to believe by the previous games would be an exciting and diverting, character-driven space opera. For most of the game that's what I received, until I reached it's most important part, and the product suddently turned into something I would not have purchased - a pretentious, tedious and self indulgent musing on the apparently inevitable conflict between organic and synthetic life.

I bought this entertainment product to perform a particular function. To entertain me. It fails in that regard. While individual stories have no obligation to be happy, those in a series, purchased in the understandable expectation that they will be similar in tone and content to the previous entries arguably are, when said earlier intallments had happy endings. One would be understandably annoyed if one purchased a gritty detective novel, only to have it inexplicably turn into a florid, Mills and Boon-esque romance part way through.

Well, you are arguing something a little different than what I'm addressing.  I will not claim that ME3's ending is in any way well executed; because it's not.  There are plenty of rational criticisms that can and should be leveled.  Mass Effect was not a series that should have tried to get "cute" at the end; but at the same time, I am not going to rake them over the coals for the attempt.

Now, what I will disagree with is the idea that a series tone MUST remain consistent.  It's certainly EASIER for an audience to absorb and appreciate a story if it does so, but it's also true that the majority of our most memorable stories DO shift its tone over the course of the tale, sometimes doing so repeatedly.

[KaiserShep]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Regarding the Control entity, in ME memory and thought are identity (see CloneShep- for an example of the negative). That thing is Shepard for all intents. But it is a Shepard who exists in an altered form, separated from all he knew before. He died and exists in a technological afterlife.

I'd imagine the change from an organic nature to a mechanical one would also alter his thought process.

We're only told that his thoughts will continue. We aren't told what he'll be thinking about. We aren't told if his thoughts will be the same as before or if the new nature of his existence will alter the way he thinks.

His memories will be there, but eventually I predict it will just become a curiosity to analyze once, little more.

Not only the transition from being organic to synthetic/mechanical, but also the prospect of immortality and the loss of a physical self. What happens to that mind in 100 years? 200 years? 50,000 years? The memories you enter with will just become part of a much larger archive, spanning over countless lifetimes. How would a [formerly] mortal mind deal with this transition? Seems to me that the humanity you enter with will slowly evaporate over time, because living forever and having no fear of death or responsibilities would likely create a detached, dispassionate mind. 

[AresKeith]

KaiserShep wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Regarding the Control entity, in ME memory and thought are identity (see CloneShep- for an example of the negative). That thing is Shepard for all intents. But it is a Shepard who exists in an altered form, separated from all he knew before. He died and exists in a technological afterlife.

I'd imagine the change from an organic nature to a mechanical one would also alter his thought process.

We're only told that his thoughts will continue. We aren't told what he'll be thinking about. We aren't told if his thoughts will be the same as before or if the new nature of his existence will alter the way he thinks.

His memories will be there, but eventually I predict it will just become a curiosity to analyze once, little more.

Not only the transition from being organic to synthetic/mechanical, but also the prospect of immortality and the loss of a physical self. What happens to that mind in 100 years? 200 years? 50,000 years? The memories you enter with will just become part of a much larger archive, spanning over countless lifetimes. How would a [formerly] mortal mind deal with this transition? Seems to me that the humanity you enter with will slowly evaporate over time, because living forever and having no fear of death or responsibilities would likely create a detached, dispassionate mind. 

Many people have called immortality a curse

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well see, I think the whole issue with BW's ending is that they made it outside the rest of the game.

BW didn't make the ending to fit Mass Effect.

They changed Mass Effect in the eleventh hour to fit their ending.

I want an ending that makes sense within the story, the lore, the narratiive, and satisfies core themes.

I'd have no problem with the "bittersweet ending", the "happy ending", the "downer ending" and "the terrifying ending". Or even the "MAD ending" that someone else described.

Problem is, BW made the ending to shoehorn everything into the bittersweet. They had a big branching story that was then shoe-horned into one variation. And really most of the endings were more bitter than sweet.

As for gamers, I've always felt a greater attachment to games, especially games like Mass Effect where I can literally control how certain events play out, and even the main character.

You don't get that with books, TV Series, or other mediums. I'm not saying the investment in the universe is any less or any more.

I'm saying that you, as an audience, have less control over other mediums than you do for games. Games require direct audience interaction to progress the story. The storyteller leaves the storytelling to the audience. And in RPG's, they can even choose how aspects of the story that they like or prefer.

See what I'm getting at? I understand if you don't agree, but I do believe games, especially RPG's, are inherently more immersive due to the audience's ability to partially, even mostly, craft a story along the way they desire. 

There is more than one way to tell a story. 

With a non-game medium, you're getting one perspective. 

With a game, you're adding the audience perspective to a game.

BW, towards the end (and indeed through auto-dialogue) took away a lot of the player capability, the player agency, with the game to forcefully impose their perspective on the story.

They took away the audience's ability to inflect their own perspective. And I'm not talking the ending options. I'm talking the theme and the premise of the ending, and the reasons behind why you're being made to choose the ending.

*EDIT* Bolded is what your main point is.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 20 mai 2013 - 10:10 .

[JasonShepard]

Two responses in one - Eryri, I've responded to you in the second half of this post.

KingZayd wrote...

So how come you can copy an organic mind onto an AI, but you can't copy an AI? The lore tells us that AIs can't be copied or moved due to the quantum bluebox issue. The raw data (memory) will transfer but the personality will reset.

The difference between what is possible for Citadel tech (which is what the Codex is based on - remember that it is written in-universe. This is the same Codex that referred to Sovereign as a Geth Dreadnought.) and what the Crucible appears to be capable of. Transfer of quantum states and information isn't just theoretically possible - we've done it in the real world. It's how Quantum Teleportation works. However, doing it on a scale beyond a handful of particles is entirely beyond us - but not necessarily beyond the Crucible.

KingZayd wrote...

Also the Starchild also said Shepard also losing everything if he chose control. That makes more sense if he loses his personality.

I'll admit that I can't really argue against this point, but that actual statement is painfully vague (which is a criticism of how the endings were written). Shepard clearly doesn't lose his memories, or his tone of voice, or his values (Shepard-AI mentions that his purpose has not changed).

KingZayd wrote...

And the EC does not actually confirm your idea at all. Instead the AI talks as if it's a different entity that remembers being Shepard. It's the whole reason it refers to Shepard either in the third person, or as "the person I was".The last one is because despite being a different entity, with its own personality, it still remembers having been Shepard.

I refer to the person I was four years ago in the third person - for example, he hadn't played Mass Effect yet. "The man/woman I was" implies a continuity of persona to me.

*****

Eryri wrote...

Precisely. The Catalyst also says a few other things. Such as heavily intimating that Shepard, as a cyborg, will die himself if he picks destroy. Yet we have the breath scene. Even if the brat isn't actively lying, he's hardly entirely accurate in his predictions.

He doesn't say you will die (with Destroy). He says you might. In that regard, he's perfectly accurate, since it depends on EMS.

Eryri wrote...

And as the mouthpiece of a species that have used traps and trickery as their MO for millions of years, it's hard for some of us to take a single word he says seriously without metagaming. I wouldn't trust that intangible little so-and-so as far as I could pick him up and throw him.

I do trust him, and that's without metagaming. I do notice that you said "some of us" there, which clearly doesn't include me. The reason I trust him is because to do otherwise is to guarrantee our own destruction. The Crucible isn't working - Hackett told us that. If I am going to act, I have to act based on the information that the Catalyst has given me. If I believe the Catalyst is trying to decieve me, then I can't trust any of the choices, which means I've already lost. (To briefly acknowledge the theory referenced in your sig image - I don't believe Indoctrination works that way.)

Modifié par JasonShepard, 20 mai 2013 - 10:06 .

[Eryri]

chemiclord wrote...

Well, you are arguing something a little different than what I'm addressing.  I will not claim that ME3's ending is in any way well executed; because it's not.  There are plenty of rational criticisms that can and should be leveled.  Mass Effect was not a series that should have tried to get "cute" at the end; but at the same time, I am not going to rake them over the coals for the attempt.

Now, what I will disagree with is the idea that a series tone MUST remain consistent.  It's certainly EASIER for an audience to absorb and appreciate a story if it does so, but it's also true that the majority of our most memorable stories DO shift its tone over the course of the tale, sometimes doing so repeatedly.

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree about the acceptability of shifts in tone, at least ones as radical and discordant as that at the end of ME 3, but thank you for a well-argued and thoughtful post.

[JasonShepard]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And I don't believe any of that. I believe that in losing his humanity for a machine existence, Shepard became something terrifying. He may have his thoughts and memories, but he doesn't have his emotions, his feelings, his humanity.

Do we know  that Shepard's emotions would not be carried through? EDI and Legion certainly seem capable of experiencing synthetic versions of emotions, and at no point is it stated that synthetics are incapable of experiencing emotion. As for continuity of his thoughts - I take that to be  Shepard's personality - as jtav said above, people are their thoughts and memories.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I believe Control Shepard is more or less a ticking time bomb that may (even upon upload) come to a conclusion based on the prior information and programming of his predecessor.

I disagree, since at no point is it implied that the Shepard-AI will be bound by the Catalyst's programming. If your Shepard does not believe in the Catalyst's problem, or its solution to that problem, neither will the Shepard-AI.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Even if the prior Catalyst's mandate is overridden, and Shepard now as an AI God with the Reapers on his will alone, do I still believe the galaxy is in dire hands. Eventually I think he's going to stop caring about the mandate from his previous organic self and start focusing more on his mechanical observation. The information that he accrues over years, decades, centuries, even millenia. He will focus more on his own intellectual pursuits, because now, that is all he has. Himself. Everything he does to act on will be for himself, as that is now the only perspective he has. And eventually he will come to a conclusion that is counter to what the galaxy believes on some issue. And he will try to stop it. Depending on what the issue is, he might just park a Reaper close by some event or location as a sign that he's watching, or that he doesn't approve, or whatever. But eventually a snag will rise when he goes against the galaxy on an opinion or decision that has galactic ramifications. Eventually, it'll just spiral out of control (pun intended) into a new hell of a cycle that may well be based off something completely different than the organic/synthetic issue.

This thread might interest you - it's not mine, but the author argues that if the Shepard-AI does become 'disconnected' over time, it is more likely to simply leave the galaxy such that it can follow its own desires.

Furthermore, if the 'young' Shepard-AI has reason to believe that, after a few millenia, it might itself become a threat to the galaxy, then it will probably at some point dismantle the Reaper fleet and remove itself from power to avoid that very outcome. I know I would. Who wants to live forever?

EDIT:
At the end of the day, I'm offering an alternative, more hopeful interpretation of Control which doesn't contradict anything in game and allows me to get a happy ending. Forgive me, but, is there a problem with that?

Modifié par JasonShepard, 20 mai 2013 - 10:18 .

[chemiclord]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Well see, I think the whole issue with BW's ending is that they made it outside the rest of the game.

BW didn't make the ending to fit Mass Effect.

They changed Mass Effect in the eleventh hour to fit their ending.

I want an ending that makes sense within the story, the lore, the narratiive, and satisfies core themes.

I'd have no problem with the "bittersweet ending", the "happy ending", the "downer ending" and "the terrifying ending". Or even the "MAD ending" that someone else described.

Problem is, BW made the ending to shoehorn everything into the bittersweet. They had a big branching story that was then shoe-horned into one variation. And really most of the endings were more bitter than sweet.

As for gamers, I've always felt a greater attachment to games, especially games like Mass Effect where I can literally control how certain events play out, and even the main character.

You don't get that with books, TV Series, or other mediums. I'm not saying the immersion or investment in the universe is any less or any more.

I'm saying that you, as an audience, have less control over other mediums than you do for games. Games require direct audience interaction to progress the story. The storyteller leaves the storytelling to the audience. And in RPG's, they can even choose how aspects of the story that they like or prefer.

See what I'm getting at?

You don't have any "control" in games either.  There is literally NOTHING you can do that the game does not allow you to do.  You aren't interacting.  You're reading from a script.  A script that was written and completed long before you ever ran the program the first time.

If you go to your job, and your superior says, "You can do [A] or you can do [B], but you have to do one," that isn't control.  Being given options does not mean you control the situation.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

JasonShepard wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And I don't believe any of that. I believe that in losing his humanity for a machine existence, Shepard became something terrifying. He may have his thoughts and memories, but he doesn't have his emotions, his feelings, his humanity.

Do we know  that Shepard's emotions would not be carried through? EDI and Legion certainly seem capable of experiencing synthetic versions of emotions, and at no point is it stated that synthetics are incapable of experiencing emotion. As for continuity of his thoughts - I take that to be  Shepard's personality - as jtav said above, people are their thoughts and memories.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I believe Control Shepard is more or less a ticking time bomb that may (even upon upload) come to a conclusion based on the prior information and programming of his predecessor.

I disagree, since at no point is it implied that the Shepard-AI will be bound by the Catalyst's programming. If your Shepard does not believe in the Catalyst's problem, or its solution to that problem, neither will the Shepard-AI.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Even if the prior Catalyst's mandate is overridden, and Shepard now as an AI God with the Reapers on his will alone, do I still believe the galaxy is in dire hands. Eventually I think he's going to stop caring about the mandate from his previous organic self and start focusing more on his mechanical observation. The information that he accrues over years, decades, centuries, even millenia. He will focus more on his own intellectual pursuits, because now, that is all he has. Himself. Everything he does to act on will be for himself, as that is now the only perspective he has. And eventually he will come to a conclusion that is counter to what the galaxy believes on some issue. And he will try to stop it. Depending on what the issue is, he might just park a Reaper close by some event or location as a sign that he's watching, or that he doesn't approve, or whatever. But eventually a snag will rise when he goes against the galaxy on an opinion or decision that has galactic ramifications. Eventually, it'll just spiral out of control (pun intended) into a new hell of a cycle that may well be based off something completely different than the organic/synthetic issue.

This thread might interest you - it's not mine, but the author argues that if the Shepard-AI does become 'disconnected' over time, it is more likely to simply leave the galaxy such that it can follow its own desires.

Furthermore, if the 'young' Shepard-AI has reason to believe that, after a few millenia, it might itself become a threat to the galaxy, then it will probably at some point dismantle the Reaper fleet and remove itself from power to avoid that very outcome. I know I would. Who wants to live forever?

The catalyst never says that Shepard's humanity will be preserved. In fact it stresses that Shepard's connection to his humanity will be forever lost. And as I said to jtav (who'm I think you're misunderstanding), Shepard's thoughts continue. But do they continue the same way as before? He's now in a different level of existence. He has his memories and prior organic thoughts, but with his new nature, these may be rendered irrelevant. And I don't doubt he can feel the synthetic facsimile of emotion, but I do believe that this facsimile is now something that can and will be changed upon acquisition of further information and data. This Shepard is fundamentally different from the one you know as an organic. 

I think that with his new nature, he would have (possibly instantaneously) developed a new, different perspective.

I addressed your second point in my original post. Suffice to say, do you know that he didn't gain the prior Catalyst's perspective? 

As for your third point, that is indeed a possibility. I've seen that thread before. But I don't think the Shepalyst would view himself as a threat. My organic Shepard felt the same way. It's why he didn't choose control in the first place. How would he know he wouldn't be changed permanently by his new nature. Upon upload, I don't think the Shepalyst will remove himself. I think his nature for preservation of the galaxy will prevent him from doing so.

And perhaps you would want to eventually remove yourself from power. Now put yourself in the AI Shepard's position. You can't. He's unpredictable now. As an organic, you have no idea what he's going to do anymore with his fundamental difference in perspective. He views the universe differently from you now.

[Eryri]

JasonShepard wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Precisely. The Catalyst also says a few other things. Such as heavily intimating that Shepard, as a cyborg, will die himself if he picks destroy. Yet we have the breath scene. Even if the brat isn't actively lying, he's hardly entirely accurate in his predictions.

He doesn't say you will die (with Destroy). He says you might. In that regard, he's perfectly accurate, since it depends on EMS.

Which is why is wrote "intimated". His dialogue doesn't change based on EMS. He still suggests that Shepard is at risk even if you have high EMS. This suggests he is not infallible, even if he is sincere. What the Catalyst might regard as an acceptably accurate copy of Shepard, might not be what we would regard as such.

Eryri wrote...

And as the mouthpiece of a species that have used traps and trickery as their MO for millions of years, it's hard for some of us to take a single word he says seriously without metagaming. I wouldn't trust that intangible little so-and-so as far as I could pick him up and throw him.

I do trust him, and that's without metagaming. I do notice that you said "some of us" there, which clearly doesn't include me. The reason I trust him is because to do otherwise is to guarrantee our own destruction. The Crucible isn't working - Hackett told us that. If I am going to act, I have to act based on the information that the Catalyst has given me. If I believe the Catalyst is trying to decieve me, then I can't trust any of the choices, which means I've already lost. (To briefly acknowledge the theory referenced in your sig image - I don't believe Indoctrination works that way.)

Indoctrination doesn't even need to come into it. The child is a representative of Shepard's enemies, and an enemy known for being manipulative and deceitful at that. The child could just be using good old fashioned lying to induce Shepard to commit suicide in one of three amusingly symbolic and grotesque ways. The fact that it would take the trouble to do so, implies that Shepard may still be a threat to it. Which may mean that there really is a "kill reapers" button somewhere on the Citadel, possibly even on the control panel next to TIM and Anderson's softly cooling corpses, that the Catalyst would really rather Shepard didn't find.

And while I make no secret that I think something like the Indoctrination Theory could have made far more sense out of the endings, (and still maintain a shred of hope that Bioware will make use of it in their creation of a sequel) apparently Bioware do not agree, and would rather we didn't discuss it here. So therefore, while on the BSN, I will view the ending of the game as occuring entirely literally. This has the unfortunate side effect of making me see it as incoherent rubbish, but that is by the by. 

Modifié par Eryri, 20 mai 2013 - 10:31 .

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...
I guess.  Because I see no difference whatsoever.  The distinction is not a significant one.

I've seen people become distressingly invested emotionally in book series just as easily as games; the level of interaction is, to be perfectly blunt, irrelevant.

Games are merely another medium in which stories can be told.  By that extension, games are under no obligation to make you feel happy either.  I'm sorry it hurt you, but them's the breaks, buddy.

It doesn't hurt me at all, since it is just your opinion. An invalid one in my own opinion.

A game developer has to be pretty cynical or nihilistic if he's looking to make a game for the sheer purpose of screwing with them or making them feel bad.

Wait... the only two possible emotional responses to a story are feeling happy or feeling bad?

[chemiclord]

Eryri wrote...

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree about the acceptability of shifts in tone, at least ones as radical and discordant as that at the end of ME 3, but thank you for a well-argued and thoughtful post.

It all boils down to the skill of execution.

There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to storytelling.  Nearly ANYTHING can be accepted and appreciated if it is performed brilliantly and/or is signficantly unique and unlike anything previously experienced.  Audiences as a rule are quite flexible and forgiving in that regard.

But if you're going to do something like what Bioware tried to do at the end of ME3, then you better damn well have every little thread woven nice and tight, and every little detail accounted for, or may God have mercy on your soul.  To say Bioware didn't pull it off would be like saying the K-T boundary caused a few species to go extinct.