435 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

ioannisdenton wrote...
Also the catalyst itself tells you that it is not an A.I.

No, he says that he IS an A.I., just a highly evolved one. He's an A.I. "inasmuch as you are animal". Humans are animals, so he's making the point that calling him an A.I. doesn't accurately capture just how advanced an A.I. he is.

[ioannisdenton]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...
Also the catalyst itself tells you that it is not an A.I.

No, he says that he IS an A.I., just a highly evolved one. He's an A.I. "inasmuch as you are animal". Humans are animals, so he's making the point that calling him an A.I. doesn't accurately capture just how advanced an A.I. he is.

i stand corrected.
he is not just an A.I

[Wolfva2]

All this AI talk is making me think they should have made the catalyst look like Hayley Joel Osmont. The Crucible could be the Blue Fairy.

ibelieveibelieveibelieveibelie.....

[remydat]

katamuro wrote...

The who starchild thing was basically an afterthought during the me3 development cycle. And while ME1 and ME2 have roughly the same Reaper idea ME3 just deviated from it. Its all because they did not have an idea why and who the reapers really are back in ME1 as well as protheans. Just look at the stylistic changes in technology during ME1 to ME2 to ME3. They were adapting the look of the game as they went along thinking up new ideas.

The Dark Energy Plot was still going to make the Reapers not the big meanies that kill organics because the Reapers are evil.  In that ending they killed organics to prevent them from wrecking the universe.

So it seems clear to me the original intent was always that what you saw in ME1 of the Reapers was going to be change by the time the story was over.  

[AlanC9]

Wolfva2 wrote...

The catalyst's words aren't dogma.  He states a simple truth.  In ANY confrontation, there are 4 possible actions:
1)Win the fight
2) Lose the fight
3)Join the other guy
4)Avoid the fight

Does my saying that make me God?  Of course not.  What other choices are there for Shep?  There are none.  He's got this gun called the crucible.  It shoots a beam of data that is carried along the relays that can do 1 of 3 things.  It can destroy the relays and the reapers.  It can control them.  It can make you one with them.  There's a 4th choice.  Refusal, in which case it's status quo.  There is no leeway, negotiation, or discussion because there can't be.  THIS is what the gun does.  THESE are your choices.  It's not God telling Shepard that; it's LOGIC.  There aren't any other choices because THOSE are all the choices ANY of us will ever have.

Well, the Catalyst does state some other things that are essentially dogma, in addition to the simple facts.  But the dogma's only of historical interest unless Shepard decides that those ideas are worth listening to.

[AlanC9]

remydat wrote...

The Dark Energy Plot was still going to make the Reapers not the big meanies that kill organics because the Reapers are evil.  In that ending they killed organics to prevent them from wrecking the universe.

So it seems clear to me the original intent was always that what you saw in ME1 of the Reapers was going to be change by the time the story was over.  

Remember, the D.E. plot was only one of several ideas kicking around at Bio. It's conceivable that there was another ending idea where the Reapers killed organics simply because Reapers are eeevill, just as they might have considered a conventional victory at some point.

There's no evidence that Bio ever considered either, but we can't rule them completely out.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 juillet 2013 - 05:34 .

[Bill Casey]

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

MrStoob wrote...

Only a religious person will see religious implications where there are none, IMHO by definition.

Is that implying a "religious" person is somehow bad
Perhaps you should educate yourself in your history and if not yours, the history of the world. To deny the existance of biblical (and qu'ranic) references with in Mass Effect is pure denial.

I think Stoob is 100% correct.  Of course, I basically said exactly what HE said, albeit MUCH more verbosely...<LOL>.

A religious person will see religious implications where there are none.  That YOU knee jerk react that to be a bad thing, and assume that you are being attacked, is intereseting.  He's not attacking you, he's stating a fact.  Nor did he deny any references, biblical or qu'ronic. 

Take a deep breath and step back.  No one is attacking you.  For a change <G>.

He did not say a religious person will see religious implications where there are none...
He said only a religious person will see religious implications where there are none...

And that's all moot because there's a crapload of religious references in Mass Effect...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:24 .

[FlamingBoy]

ruggly wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

Catalyst is NOT an just A.I. what is wrong with you people?
It says it is an a.i as much shepard is an animal.
It is a sapient construct designed to solve a problem. It's masters , the leviathans were arrogant enough to create it.
it is not bad.
Reason we most hate the catalyst is due to original miminalistic vague ending and the minimlistic catalyst dialogue. oh and No leviathans. at it's current form it is good. Ask the people who FIRST finished leviathan and then ended the game.

So, he's not an artificial intelligence, he's a sapient construct. 
<blink><blink>
<blink>
<blink><blink><blink>

Flamingboy, did they really tack on spirituality issues?  I don't see it.  What is so spiritual about the catalyst?  Or reapers?  

With all do respect if you cannot see the religious references and spiritual implication within the ending of me3... well I have no desire to guide you through it.
But I will answer your questions. To the best of my abilities

Catalyst?
The catalyst was implied to be all knowing or a seer if you will, a genie that grants wishes. Evidence of this, in the story 1000 arabian nights there is a famous story of Aladdin in which he rubs a lamp for 3 wishes.
3 wishes, lamp, genie
3 functions, crucible, catalyst

This is just one of many

Edit: in islam, genies also known as Jinn are believed to be the 3rd sentient race created by god.

Reapers?
The reapers are among the most arrogant antagonists I have ever encountered in storytelling, but what makes them different is there power is justified. Just like a god, the reapers power are real and they are beyond the current understanding of sentient life. They are superior in every concievable way (except they are not "organic")
How could this not be a definition of a god?




I know talking about religion and spirtuality makes some (most) people uncomfortable. However ignoring the issue which is in the ending will serve no purpose


Edit: for autrocious spelling, apologies.

Not only that, turning Shepard into a Messiah figure, especially in synthesis.  Swan diving into the beam of light (or a literal leap of faith), looking like they're attached to a crucifix? "The Shepard." Sacrificing yourself to clean the others of their "sins." That really bugs the hell out of me. And I'm not religious at all.

Yeah I noticed the "leap of faith" as well, I couldn't believe they went with something so... on the nose.

Its not really a matter of being religious, such references can do a lot to enhance a story. But it was so contrived for bioware to tack it on, in order to explain issues that it was not willing to even consider explaining.

Religious conflict in stories are interesting, but the dogma of the catalyst (or leviathans or whatever ) is not interesting.

[David7204]

This just seems to boil down to people not liking that Synthesis is portrayed warmly.

As I've said many times, that's exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. And 'moral ambiguity' is what countless people on the BSN have demanded. All choices must be roughly equal, so Synthesis must be presented as warmly as Destroy.

Modifié par David7204, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:31 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Moral ambiguity =/= equality.

[crimzontearz]

David7204 wrote...

This just seems to boil down to people not liking that Synthesis is portrayed warmly.

As I've said many times, that's exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. And 'moral ambiguity' is what countless people on the BSN have demanded. All choices must be roughly equal, so Synthesis must be presented as warmly as Destroy.

where is my reunion scene?

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Moral ambiguity =/= equality.

Doesn't it?

How can there be ambiguity if one scenario is clearly portrayed to be warmer than another?

[FlamingBoy]

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...
I don't want to get in to deep beyond the ending, so I will avoid talking about the reapers in terms of the entire series.

Your right the game is not a spiritual one, however the ending has a spiritual/religious focus. The catalyst words (a metaphor for bioware) are dogma and you as the duitiful reader cannot question them (this is my issue), as proven by refuse, to question the word of god (I mean the catalyst ) results in your death and the death of those around you. There is no leway, no negotiation, no discussion, no exchanging of words of any importance. Just the supreme being and his instruments that will act out his will.

The crucible was the plan the same way moses led the hebrews through the desert to the synthesis (I mean promise land ). Its not about plausbility or rationality it is because the catalyst (and those before him) said so.

The catalyst's words aren't dogma.  He states a simple truth.  In ANY confrontation, there are 4 possible actions:
1)Win the fight
2) Lose the fight
3)Join the other guy
4)Avoid the fight

Does my saying that make me God?  Of course not.  What other choices are there for Shep?  There are none.  He's got this gun called the crucible.  It shoots a beam of data that is carried along the relays that can do 1 of 3 things.  It can destroy the relays and the reapers.  It can control them.  It can make you one with them.  There's a 4th choice.  Refusal, in which case it's status quo.  There is no leeway, negotiation, or discussion because there can't be.  THIS is what the gun does.  THESE are your choices.  It's not God telling Shepard that; it's LOGIC.  There aren't any other choices because THOSE are all the choices ANY of us will ever have.

Crimzon Tearz made a good clarification.  We paint everything through our culture, through our knowledge.   You see Christian overtones because that's where your knowledge lies.  Being an atheist who isn't spiritual, I don't see it.    And still don't.  I'm sure a Hindu would see other aspects of ME that were familiar to him (probably Thane).

In no way is me3 is capable of anything close to basic logic or rationality, to build a weapon which you don't know how it works is not a rational militaristic decision.
For a weapon to be built with 3 functions as if making an atomic bomb that either blows up, becomes a theme park, and delievers new born babies to their mother is just as logical.
The catalyst cannot be destroyed (easily), he has "prophecies", he has great "wisdom" of the galaxies past, and he can determine the life and death of every individual in the galaxy. He can be easily classified as a god.

Hindi polythesism ties very closely with juedo-christian beliefs which is all really needs to be said about it.

[David7204]

crimzontearz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This just seems to boil down to people not liking that Synthesis is portrayed warmly.

As I've said many times, that's exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. And 'moral ambiguity' is what countless people on the BSN have demanded. All choices must be roughly equal, so Synthesis must be presented as warmly as Destroy.

where is my reunion scene?

This is what exactly what players asked for. Moral ambiguity means no reunion scene.

So perhaps you should go find the people advocating it and ask them.

[crimzontearz]

David7204 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This just seems to boil down to people not liking that Synthesis is portrayed warmly.

As I've said many times, that's exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. And 'moral ambiguity' is what countless people on the BSN have demanded. All choices must be roughly equal, so Synthesis must be presented as warmly as Destroy.

where is my reunion scene?

This is what exactly what players asked for. Moral ambiguity means no reunion scene.

So perhaps you should go find the people advocating it and ask them.

uh....Sheppard survival is NOT about moral ambiguity, his choices and their consequences are

I will gladly watch joker rash on him for killing EDI...ZERO issue with that

[David7204]

No. Having a warm reunion scene would give way too much credit to the Destroy ending. I'm guessing you do want it to be warm? A reunion of the squadmates all telling Shepard they hate him/her would certainly be acceptable.

Modifié par David7204, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:44 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Moral ambiguity =/= equality.

Doesn't it?

How can there be ambiguity if one scenario is clearly portrayed to be warmer than another?

That's not a matter of ambiguity. That's a matter of equality.

[crimzontearz]

David7204 wrote...

No. Having a warm reunion scene would give way too much credit to the Destroy ending. I'm guessing you do want it to be warm? A reunion of the squadmates all telling Shepard they hate him/her would certainly be acceptable.

uh...warm and hateful are the end of the spectrum and thus not ambiguous if they are the only response, ambiguity would be Liara, James and garrus backing Shepard for different reasons and Joker, tali and ....I don't know someone else hating him

but who else is gonna hate him if you killed off the geth on rannoch? no really, aside for joker WHO would hate Shepard for sacrificing ONE AI and killing off all the Reapers?

Modifié par crimzontearz, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:49 .

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This just seems to boil down to people not liking that Synthesis is portrayed warmly.

As I've said many times, that's exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. And 'moral ambiguity' is what countless people on the BSN have demanded. All choices must be roughly equal, so Synthesis must be presented as warmly as Destroy.

where is my reunion scene?

This is what exactly what players asked for. Moral ambiguity means no reunion scene.

So perhaps you should go find the people advocating it and ask them.

I recall asking for tough moral choices such as the classics
"to save many or the one you love"
"to gain "evil technology" at the expense of your soul"
"to compromise your ethics for greater rewards"
"to save many while sacrificing the few"

These are real moral questions with realistic implications, choosing from a equal set of bad options is not a moral ambiquious situation it is a dilema.

[David7204]

Shepard, the geth, and EDI dying while the rest of the galaxy is saved? That sounds to me exactly what you asked for. Sacrificing the few for the many?

Modifié par David7204, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:56 .

[Bill Casey]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Flamingboy, did they really tack on spirituality issues?  I don't see it.  What is so spiritual about the catalyst?  Or reapers? 

Heretics...
Indoctrination...
Old Machines...


No?
How about this?

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Bill Casey, 05 juillet 2013 - 10:57 .

[crimzontearz]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard, the geth, and EDI dying while the rest of the galaxy is saved? That sounds to me exactly what you asked for. Sacrificing the few for the many?

yeah...no, Shepard survival is not morally ambiguous, his choices are, try again

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard, the geth, and EDI dying while the rest of the galaxy is saved? That sounds to me exactly what you asked for. Sacrificing the few for the many?

That's not moral ambiguity.

Those are the consequences of actions.

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard, the geth, and EDI dying while the rest of the galaxy is saved? That sounds to me exactly what you asked for. Sacrificing the few for the many?

Because its contrived, choosing from 3 functions of a superweapon is not a real moral choice. When you make a choice its based on social context and recognizing the experiences that got me their to make the choice in the first place.

Destroyed involved genocide hence the morality of "the few to destroy the many" does not apply, the question was if you thought synthetic life was worth living (or something, honestly it doesn't make sense). This is not a good moral choice.

I never asked for this nonsense, and if anyone did this is sure as hell what not what they meant. They meant for tough choices which you make on experience and your "gut" from meeting people with different view by balancing the risks, incentives, and rewards (that are tangible, like wealth, ships, or moral integrity. Not because "I want the galaxy to live this way) of each choice and the consequences to show for them.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard, the geth, and EDI dying while the rest of the galaxy is saved? That sounds to me exactly what you asked for. Sacrificing the few for the many?

  Sacrificing the one for the many is even better.