233 réponses à ce sujet

[KoyoteN7]

Kel Riever wrote...

Clearly, you were supposed to accept the premise for Synthesis without really thinking too hard about it. In fact, you weren't supposed to think really hard about any of the ending choices given the nonsense premise of making them. You were just supposed to listen to the music, watch the lights shoot through the Relays, and cry in sadness and joy.

Such is the nature of all shallow forms of entertainment.

Nailed it.

The whole ending sequence, what with Shepard first triumphantly going back to Earth and culminating in him being invited by the Catalyst, was there because we were playing a video game. The moment you had to think about an ending that was needed to look as spectacular as possible and as accessible was the moment the whole "science" thing was going out of the window and you are left with drama only. Of course these moments are not exclusive to ending only, they are scattered throughout the trilogy.

Philosophically and ethically there could have been a great deal of discussion, only if they didn't fail in their premise.

Modifié par KoyoteN7, 18 juin 2013 - 10:55 .

[Jukaga]

Kel Riever wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Clearly, you were supposed to accept the premise for Synthesis without really thinking too hard about it. In fact, you weren't supposed to think really hard about any of the ending choices given the nonsense premise of making them. You were just supposed to listen to the music, watch the lights shoot through the Relays, and cry in sadness and joy.

Such is the nature of all shallow forms of entertainment.

When did you ever get the impression that ME was going to be anything other than 'shallow entertainment'? And since when is that a bad thing?

First, this is not shallow in the sense of good shallow.

So having said that, since ME1 which is either not shallow or good shallow, depending on how you want to define it.

Of course it is my friend! Take off the rose-tinited glasses for a second. ME1 was a great fun game in a great fun series but to pretend it was anything other than a popcorn sci-fantasy adventure is deluding yourself. It's essentially Star Trek, Star Wars, B5, BSG, Terminator and a bunch of other franchises tossed in a blender and made into a sci-fantasy smoothie.

Again, this is not a bad thing. Mass Effect has never been deep and insightful, it's been epic, tragic and fun and that's all it ever set out ot be.

[AlexMBrennan]

All the options suck, and I'm pretty sure that it was intentional.

[Kel Riever]

Jukaga wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Jukaga wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Clearly, you were supposed to accept the premise for Synthesis without really thinking too hard about it. In fact, you weren't supposed to think really hard about any of the ending choices given the nonsense premise of making them. You were just supposed to listen to the music, watch the lights shoot through the Relays, and cry in sadness and joy.

Such is the nature of all shallow forms of entertainment.

When did you ever get the impression that ME was going to be anything other than 'shallow entertainment'? And since when is that a bad thing?

First, this is not shallow in the sense of good shallow.

So having said that, since ME1 which is either not shallow or good shallow, depending on how you want to define it.

Of course it is my friend! Take off the rose-tinited glasses for a second. ME1 was a great fun game in a great fun series but to pretend it was anything other than a popcorn sci-fantasy adventure is deluding yourself. It's essentially Star Trek, Star Wars, B5, BSG, Terminator and a bunch of other franchises tossed in a blender and made into a sci-fantasy smoothie.

Again, this is not a bad thing. Mass Effect has never been deep and insightful, it's been epic, tragic and fun and that's all it ever set out ot be.

Your accusation fails to address the obvious point which is ME3 is a shadow of ME1.  I don't consider Star Trek, Star Wars B5, or BSG to be shallow in any way shape or form.  ME3 is shallow, or superficial, as far as I am concerned, and the fact that they both have aliens running around or laser guns shooting gives it any credibility to stand next to the other media you mentioned.  With the exception of Terminator.  Which is relatively shallow, but still better executed than ME3.  At least for Terminater 12& 4.  3 was awful.

[Jukaga]

Kel Riever wrote...

Your accusation fails to address the obvious point which is ME3 is a shadow of ME1.  I don't consider Star Trek, Star Wars B5, or BSG to be shallow in any way shape or form.  ME3 is shallow, or superficial, as far as I am concerned, and the fact that they both have aliens running around or laser guns shooting gives it any credibility to stand next to the other media you mentioned.  With the exception of Terminator.  Which is relatively shallow, but still better executed than ME3.  At least for Terminater 12& 4.  3 was awful.

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree, but yeah T3 was awful. 4 was a hair better, but not much.

[Applepie_Svk]

bad taste is bad taste no matter how many sprinkles you´ll put in there...

I am still wandering about how ignorant they had to be to release such a nightmare.

[KoyoteN7]

ME1 is hardly deeper or "not shallower" than the rest of the trilogy. It has some deeper moments, mainly the whole world building and initial idea of Reapers as post-singularity species but ultimately it fails in any characterization and while ME2 and ME3 fail in a lot of things, they succeed in much, much better characterization. And character development is important if you are going to assess a work of art.

And I don't see how are Star Wars movies not a shallow form of entertainment, they basically have the exact same problems and strengths Mass Effect has.

If we are going to talk about deep sci fi works you need to look at Zelazny, Simak, Asimov etc, neither video games nor blockbuster movies are ever going to be anything less than accessible and ultimately will be on a more shallower side.

Modifié par KoyoteN7, 18 juin 2013 - 11:23 .

[CapnManx]

Maybe the writer was just a fan of the original Deus Ex, and thought 'If it was good enough for J C Denton...'. 'Synthesis' is just the new 'Merge with Helios'.

[Kel Riever]

Jukaga wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Your accusation fails to address the obvious point which is ME3 is a shadow of ME1.  I don't consider Star Trek, Star Wars B5, or BSG to be shallow in any way shape or form.  ME3 is shallow, or superficial, as far as I am concerned, and the fact that they both have aliens running around or laser guns shooting gives it any credibility to stand next to the other media you mentioned.  With the exception of Terminator.  Which is relatively shallow, but still better executed than ME3.  At least for Terminater 12& 4.  3 was awful.

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree, but yeah T3 was awful. 4 was a hair better, but not much.

And yes, I have no problem with that kind of disagreement!

[MrFob]

I think this is mainly a problem with the extended cut.
In the original cut, we, the audience were left with a good deal of ambiguity. That was certainly not very nice but I don't think the explicitly happy endings in the extended cut were better (on the contrary).
In the original cut, we only know that synthesis seems to work out for Joker and EDI (which is not surprising) but we are left in the dark about everyone else and with even the plants being synthesized on the jungle planet, it certainly had a weird touch to it and we really don't know if we saved or doomed the galaxy with this option. That ending - as badly executed as it was - was kind of fitting for the option.
EDI's epilogue however, very much feels like a white wash. We now know that it all works out for the best for everyone. There is no ambiguity anymore, no moral question. Synthesis is the best option for everyone and all the potential problems are either non-existent or remain unmentioned.
So I'd say, the writers lost (or deliberately ignored) their view of the implications for the endings when they made the EC (which makes the whole "artistic integrity" argument even more of a joke IMO). The EC ultimately did cater to the "happy ending crowd" by altering the implications of all the endings, not just synthesis. Where are the Geth mentioned in Destroy? Where is a hint or even a question about reaper-Shepard's ability to keep his firm but benevolent nature over time? And where is ever a word heard about the possible darker sides of synthesis?
Nowhere. That is the big failure of the EC IMO.

BTW, this is also the main reason why refuse feels so weird in the EC. After the original endings, people (me included) asked for a refuse option (I just remember this fan made video which was linked a lot at the time). It made sense back then because, depending one every person's interpretation, the endings had really dark implications. After the EC and after we know the outcome of any of the three choices is ultimately a best case scenario, refuse just looks a bit stupid at least from a metagame perspective.
So no, in the end, I don't think any of the writers who contributed here thought very hard about what exactly they were saying and implying in these endings.
Or maybe they did and the whole thing has even another layer that I am not able to grasp. This is why I asked repeatedly to have an open and honest discussion with them about the endings (not even a discussion but just an honest statement from them which is not just ambiguous PR nonsense would have been nice). We had it after ME1 but maybe the franchise (and possibly the company) just grew so much in the last 6 years that this kind of interaction is no longer an option.

[KaiserShep]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Centuries? The Morning War didn't last the whole three hundred years of the quarian's exile from Rannoch.

No, it didn't, but geth-quarian conflict didn't end with The Morning War.

They remained in violent conflict for the next 300 years, be it on Haestrom or even in the Flotilla.

False. Had the geth decided to actively pursue the Quarians in force, they would've rendered them extinct. Sovereign was using the geth for other means entirely, which is the only reason why any sizable geth forces ventured beyond the Veil. If not for pesky reaper instigation, the entirety of the geth would probably have stayed in isolation. 

The Reapers have been around for a billion years and have killed the entire populations of about twenty thousand cycles.

Pfft! As if we have such great ability to emphathize. Only our own personal grievances matter to us, not what they did to others. Again, take the geth-quarian conflict, or even the krogan-turian/salarian one. It's damned easy for us to expect them to just drop their grievances on a dime.

Empathy is irrelevant, and dismissal of the facts won't help this argument. All that matters is the pattern set by their behavior. Their singular purpose is to destroy with the misguided ideology of "saving" organics. The catalyst itself compares them to a natural fire, which is hogwash in itself. 

The geth are also not single mindedly murderous robots and never have been.

Well, good thing the Reapers aren't, either. [& refer to top of sig]

I guess that reaper manufacturing process is just misunderstood. It's nothing but ooey gooey hugs and kisses. 

Synthesis is a hell of a drug. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juin 2013 - 12:02 .

[Reorte]

The way it's presented really feels like it never even occured to the writers that anyone would have a problem with it, which is very disturbing. It seems like they felt that it would be something everyone would want even if there was no Reaper issue to be dealt with, and that's really rather scary.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Maxster_ wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Can you prove it changed their minds? I mean forcibly changed them, and not just made them aware of new information they hadn't been aware of before.

This has always been why people who criticize or denounce synthesis bothered me so much. There's a lot of assumptions that negative things are going on to people, but theres little actual evidence of this. It's like saying that because someone who didn't belive in global warming before learned of new information that convinced him it was real, that he had his mind forcibly altered and that it was unethical to show him that new information.

I'm not going to defend synthesis by much at all, it's not the option I particularly like, but this kind of talk still rubs me the wrong way and seems kinda disingenuous.

Well considering that everyone seems hunky dorey with the Reapers now, and that I doubt everyone will be ok with that.. I'd say it's a fair chance. However, like dealing with most of Synthesis and the other endings... there's not much to work with.

I still don't think everyone will be all along with the idea to jump on the "Reapers are your friends" bandwagon as some others.

Everyone seemed hunky dorey with working with geth, krogan, batarians, quarians, and humans by the end of mass effect 3 as well, despite the many instances of bad blood and differences present.

People can put past grudges aside if something more important arises, such as rebuilding wrecked planets back to normal.

Sure.
Like just how well it worked in the real world :lol:
Hatred, distrust and old grudges are going on for centuries.

But it does happen in the real world, all the time.

The closiest equivalent for reapers in the real world - **** Germany, with its deliberate genocide politics.
Looks how great that worked for them and their leaders. And reapers are all guilty, in comparison to.

You were talking about old enemies working together after the war ends. The allied nations worked with germany, and with japan, and with italy, after world war 2 ended. We didn't just glass everyone because of how evil they were and made sure the countires were eternally wipped off the face of the planet. And if you look back even further, you see hundreds of examples of formerly hostile countries working together after their war ends.

The only countries who don't try to work together after a war ends tend to be war torn, third world, failed or failing states.

[KiwiQuiche]

Not even five full pages and we've already invoked Godwin's Law. Good grief.

[Malanek]

IIRC, there was an option for Shepard to challenge the catalyst about the ethics of synthesis which showed that Mac paid at least a little consideration to it. Can't recall if it was in the original or just the ec.

[KiwiQuiche]

Malanek999 wrote...

IIRC, there was an option for Shepard to challenge the catalyst about the ethics of synthesis which showed that Mac paid at least a little consideration to it. Can't recall if it was in the original or just the ec.

In the original Shepard basically just stands there and the Starbrat is even more vague and nonsensical.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 19 juin 2013 - 01:24 .

[MrFob]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

IIRC, there was an option for Shepard to challenge the catalyst about the ethics of synthesis which showed that Mac paid at least a little consideration to it. Can't recall if it was in the original or just the ec.

In the original Shepard basically just stands there and the Starbrat is even more vague and nonsensical.

That's true. Shepard's role in the discussion with the catalyst was improved substantially in the EC. The endings themselves were not though.

[His Name was HYR!!]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I honestly don't think there are exponentially larger strides or variations to either synthesis or Destroy.

Come on. You don't really believe that.

Even if there are, I'll stick to not making an unacceptable change and going up at a slower rate.

That's more like it. Still disagree though! 

I didn't really clarify what I meant by the Kenobi quote.

Synthesis, as presented by the Reapers and Catalyst, it's terms dictated by him and revealed as such, could potentially be a Reaper huskifying process.

Are we not all connected now as Reapers? Is conflict no longer possible if everyone is a Reaper subject? Are we not  all "ascended", going by the Reapers idea? "Perfect", going by what the Catalyst says?

If everyone is now huskified forever, is the purpose of the Reapers not irrelevent now? That's what I interpret synthesis to do.

Everything is changed via a Reaper synthesis, huskification if you will. We're all 'perfect' and 'ascended' permanently. All life is. Conflict is no longer possible. We're all in a state of bliss from accepting the Reapers or being entirely indoctrinated.

Does that meet the Catalyst's goal? Yes.

Is that what Synthesis is? Maybe not. But can you prove it otherwise?

Oh dear.

Well yes, I can use a little simple common sense and deduction to soundly put many of those claims to rest.

I'm trying to determine whether or not it's worth doing. 

Where did I fail to explain it before?

You simply stated you don't agree. Which is fine, ofc, and I think I can imagine what you're reasons are (it's probably the same as everyone else who feels the same on this topic) anyway.

[His Name was HYR!!]

[quote]The Night Mammoth wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

No, it didn't, but geth-quarian conflict didn't end with The Morning War.

They remained in violent conflict for the next 300 years, be it on Haestrom or even in the Flotilla.[/quote]

I have heard absolutely no mention of continued hostilities that were anything like open war in that period.[/quote]

Not even the very two examples I just provided? No offense, but that's rather telling.


[quote][quote]Pfft! As if we have such great ability to emphathize. Only our own personal grievances matter to us, not what they did to others. Again, take the geth-quarian conflict, or even the krogan-turian/salarian one. It's damned easy for us to expect them to just drop their grievances on a dime.

When it comes to asking us to do the same, well, look no further than the BSN. When asked to do the same, many don't even want to accept their leader's help in destroying them, much less would most want to make friends with them (which is what got this ball rolling in the first place -- "how can the galaxy make friends with the Reapers?")[/quote]

Right, so if people are inherently selfish and only we only care about our personal grievances (which is a real speak for your f*cking self statement), why does the fact that they've killed less people than the geth did matter?[/quote]

Woahhh there, buddy. I'm not sure how you can -- for one thing -- prove I'm speaking for myself. No reason to get so worked up about it either, but people around here seem to really hate topics on "the nature of man" when it deals with where we are not particularly pro-social (knee-jerk reaction that the Catalyst must have left us with, I suppose). I happen to know a bit about this topic though, if you don't believe me. Just revised some of my texts to check the accuracy.

As to your question: people can and do get over things like grievances. Sometimes it's in our best interest to do so. If we accept Rannoch as an example of that, then it shouldn't be hard to apply the same principle to the Reapers themselves -- especially if you consider they probably haven't been as destructive to us as some of our own have been to each other. That's about the only point I was trying to make there. Why the double-standard?

(I mean, I know why, but that's a question people should ask themselves).


[quote]
[quote]Well, good thing the Reapers aren't, either. [& refer to top of sig][/quote]Show me a single instance of a Reaper doing something, indepentantly and without third-party influence that wasn't either killing someone, or furthering their goal of killing everyone.[/quote]



[&refer to top of sig]

Handwavey response in 10, 9, (...)


[quote][quote]Kind of irrelevant as it relates to asking the quarians to accept them. We don't know that 'til after the fact.
I mean, this after they sided with the Reapers to begin with.[/quote]
And since the quarians are clearly willing to take the step to cooperate with the geth, the fact that the geth had perfectly clear and obvious reasons for their actions is relevant, else why would the quarians even bother?[/quote]

Your first problem was assuming that, because Han'Gerrel agreed to a seize-fire, that the quarians are "clearly willing" to cooperate with them. If we're to make that assumption, why challenge the notion the galaxy and Reapers are getting along?


[quote]I'm not basing that on Legion alone, but even so, the fact that Legion is capable of those things is actually fairly good indicator of what the geth are capable of, since, you know, they operate by consensus.[/quote]

Legion did not form a consensus with all geth, just his own programs.

If you don't believe me, try to find/show me evidence to the contrary first rather than have me do it for you. I'm lazy.

Regardless, the Geth VI is the same thing and his character could not be more different than Legion's.


[quote]KaiserShep wrote...

False. Had the geth decided to actively pursue the Quarians in force, they would've rendered them extinct. Sovereign was using the geth for other means entirely, which is the only reason why any sizable geth forces ventured beyond the Veil. If not for pesky reaper instigation, the entirety of the geth would probably have stayed in isolation.[/quote]

So what's their excuse for other bloody encounters with organics in the 'Veil?

You know: Council envoys, quarians on Haestrom...


[quote]Empathy is irrelevant, and dismissal of the facts won't help this argument. All that matters is the pattern set by their behavior. Their singular purpose is to destroy with the misguided ideology of "saving" organics. The catalyst itself compares them to a natural fire, which is hogwash in itself.[/quote]

Dismissal of facts?

The ending establishes clearly the Reapers did not have fully autonomy to begin with.

I don't see you addressing that while making this claim.


[quote][quote]Well, good thing the Reapers aren't, either. [& refer to top of sig][/quote]

I guess that reaper manufacturing process is just misunderstood. It's nothing but ooey gooey hugs and kisses. 

Synthesis is a hell of a drug.[/quote]

LOL... by what abortion of logic did you reach that conclusion from my post??

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 19 juin 2013 - 02:15 .

[Clayless]

dreamgazer wrote...

They knew the ending was going to be controversial, so I'd say yes, they did.

/thread.

[Bourne Endeavor]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Ifthey want to die,let them die.What is this natural disaster you're talking about?

The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.

But then, I also think Bioware did a bad job of making Synthesis seem monstrous.

The inherent flaw is within the narrative and the poor to near nonexistent exposition. Synthesis itself could be an intriguing concept, however when presented by the antagonist, the narrative must provide us reason to trust its judgment. How are we to know choosing Synthesis will not impose Reaper subjection, ala Saren? None of the endings properly articulate their message, leaving the audience to infer their own, which is essentially fanfiction.

Do they have the cognitive ability to "shoot themselves?" Or have we become an intellectual machine race? Furthermore, we witness a husk seeming to regain self awareness. Can you fathom having become a hideous monster, ravaging and mutilating everything in sight, only to suddenly remember it all? The psychological damage would be unbearable and many would devolve back into a monster due to the overwhelming guilt. Imagine PTSD, just a ten times worse.

Synthesis is a horrid choice because BioWare chose not to research and presented everything as a faux utopia. Put into the context they provided and it cannot hold up to scrutiny.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 19 juin 2013 - 04:24 .

[Nightwriter]

Jukaga wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Clearly, you were supposed to accept the premise for Synthesis without really thinking too hard about it. In fact, you weren't supposed to think really hard about any of the ending choices given the nonsense premise of making them. You were just supposed to listen to the music, watch the lights shoot through the Relays, and cry in sadness and joy.

Such is the nature of all shallow forms of entertainment.

When did you ever get the impression that ME was going to be anything other than 'shallow entertainment'? And since when is that a bad thing?

It may please our inner cynic to say that Mass Effect was shallow entertainment all along and we should have expected no better from the ending, but I think we must be brave enough to admit that Mass Effect had much in it that was promising in terms of depth, and that is why we were so disappointed.

Mass Effect was a very mixed bag. There was a lot of action movie in there, but there was also a lot of deeper material that attracted thoughtful gamers and kept the story forums buzzing for the better part of a decade. The game repeatedly calls upon you to pew pew at bad guys, but it also repeatedly calls upon you to scrutinize moral and political concepts that are clearly intended to stimulate your brain.

It really doesn't surprise me that some people were then let down by an ending which disdains all scrutiny, utterly crumbles upon examination, and attempts to persuade you with pretty colors. 

Modifié par Nightwriter, 19 juin 2013 - 05:22 .

[o Ventus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Hey, if you're so spiteful that you'd rather condemn everyone to death, go for it.

So do Control and Destroy just not exist anymore?

[Tron Mega]

the notion that they applied any sort of thought to the ending just makes me LOL.

lol, bioware.

[Bill Casey]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Forcing people to change thier bodies and minds is NOT ethical. The fact that people think this is ok disturbs me.

Says it all, really...