435 réponses à ce sujet

[katamuro]

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.

[FlamingBoy]

Wolfva2 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

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.

Welllll, that's one way to look at it.  Of course, a comprehensive data base can also be considered 'all knowing', but I'm not about to consider Wiki.com a god. 

Reapers aren't like gods.  They're more like....giant thresher machines that are harvesting the wheat.  To them, WE are wheat.  Yes, they're very much more powerful then we are.  So?  Doesn't mean they're gods.

My definition of a 'god' is a being that requires active worship to survive.  The Leviathans very neatly fit that description, but you didn't address them so 'nuff said.  Now, YOU may consider Reapers gods.  There are plenty of examples from our own history where people, confronted by technologically advanced civilisations thought they were confronting gods or their messengers.  BUT:  At no time were the reapers shown as gods, or demons.  Instead, they are shown as technologically advanced synthetic organisms.  There is nothing spiritual about them.  They're just advanced bio-machines. 

I enjoy a good religion/spirtuality discussion.  But in this, I still don't see it.  What I DO see, and no offense is meant, is a person who thinks in highly spiritual terms judging the game through the ruby red lens of spiritualism.

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.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juillet 2013 - 11:31 .

[crimzontearz]

StreetMagic wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

I consider Shepards journey to be the Hero's journey.

He will return. Now we are at the stage of it being a Catastrophe.

The tide will turn. Be sure of that.

I hope you're right. I really do.

stranger things have happened, besides EA might force them to do if the sales of the next game are low (which if it is a prequel is likely given this year's receptions of prequels of famous and loved franchises)


 
At which point I would laugh so hard

[FlamingBoy]

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>.

Such a statement is ridiciulous, a person versed in any literally artform will be able to spot a biblical reference from a mile away.

[crimzontearz]

FlamingBoy wrote...

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>.

Such a statement is ridiciulous, a person versed in any literally artform will be able to spot a biblical reference from a mile away.

incorrect to an extent, it has happened before that people read religious undertones in books and mo ies where the author meant none

[FlamingBoy]

To analyze a text, to really consider it an artform. It must be analyzed fully, even if religious implications were unintended by the "artist" they must be considered. This is how it works.

To suggest that only a religious person can spot religious things implies such a thing is a waste of time, however I cannot think of any sci-fi show that did not reference spirituality in some way or form.

Sci-Fi is the imagination of our future, hence the story of our past is important, and this is why religion plays a key role in most sci-fi (except most of mass effect)

[FlamingBoy]

crimzontearz wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

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>.

Such a statement is ridiciulous, a person versed in any literally artform will be able to spot a biblical reference from a mile away.

incorrect to an extent, it has happened before that people read religious undertones in books and mo ies where the author meant none

If the author didn't intend such a thing (or at least aware that the reader could draw the conclusion) then he did not go to literature school of note. It is a rule but there are exceptions

[crimzontearz]

FlamingBoy wrote...

To analyze a text, to really consider it an artform. It must be analyzed fully, even if religious implications were unintended by the "artist" they must be considered. This is how it works.

To suggest that only a religious person can spot religious things implies such a thing is a waste of time, however I cannot think of any sci-fi show that did not reference spirituality in some way or form.

Sci-Fi is the imagination of our future, hence the story of our past is important, and this is why religion plays a key role in most sci-fi (except most of mass effect)

but that is not what he said is it? He said that a religious person is more likely to read it a certain way....which is true, we paint everything through our experience and culture.

Some people see Cain and Abel in Loki and Thor, that does not mean it was intended or at all relevant

[FlamingBoy]

crimzontearz wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

To analyze a text, to really consider it an artform. It must be analyzed fully, even if religious implications were unintended by the "artist" they must be considered. This is how it works.

To suggest that only a religious person can spot religious things implies such a thing is a waste of time, however I cannot think of any sci-fi show that did not reference spirituality in some way or form.

Sci-Fi is the imagination of our future, hence the story of our past is important, and this is why religion plays a key role in most sci-fi (except most of mass effect)

but that is not what he said is it? He said that a religious person is more likely to read it a certain way....which is true, we paint everything through our experience and culture.

Some people see Cain and Abel in Loki and Thor, that does not mean it was intended or at all relevant

No one spots everything on the first reading (also in regards to culture and  experiences), which is why we talk about it and find what another has taken away from the experience. Hence knowledge and perhaps a better understanding is gained.

Edit: my familiarity with norse mythology is pretty weak, so I respectfully avoid that comparison.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 05 juillet 2013 - 11:48 .

[crimzontearz]

Oh I meant Marvel's Loki and Thor (film not comic)


 
as for your point, once we venture there we are entering the realm of author's intent which is a whole different mess which Bioware managed to botch as well

Modifié par crimzontearz, 05 juillet 2013 - 11:51 .

[dorktainian]

oh i'll just throw a bone of speculation into this thread.

Cronos Station. TIMs control room is constantly looking at a star that changes it's colour from blue to red and vice versa. It's like the star is staring into the control room. The Star is smack bang in the middle of the view window. Like a huge Eye staring.

[Wolfva2]

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).

[ruggly]

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.

Modifié par ruggly, 05 juillet 2013 - 12:27 .

[Cheviot]

ruggly wrote...

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?

So what you're saying is that he isn't a Messiah figure, since if he were, he wouldn't need to make a leap of faith (this is something that the believers do, not the Messiahs themselves). 

[ruggly]

Cheviot wrote...

ruggly wrote...

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?

So what you're saying is that he isn't a Messiah figure, since if he were, he wouldn't need to make a leap of faith (this is something that the believers do, not the Messiahs themselves). 

No.

I guess I mean that Shepard is still turned into a Messiah figure after the fact.  Yes, there is that leap of faith, hoping that everything will turn out alright.  But there also that "I gave up my life for you, to absolve you of your sins, for a lack of a better term.  And after it all (and in all of the endings minus refuse), they are now referred to as "The Shepard."  How does that not seem Messianic to you? Shepard "delivered us from evil"

Here's a quote from Ieldra that I think does a good job of describing other religious aspects throughout the game

Leaving aside the question whether ME3's ending is really  irredeemable or not from a reasonably objective viewpoint, and regardless that ending options exist I can choose with a reasonable level of mental effort at interpreation, it does still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

The reasons for that, however, are not so easy to determine. Is it because the OE even existed which I found so
depressing? Is it because of the thematic inconsistencies in the Synthesis ending? Because of the forced sacrifice theme? Because of the fact that the EC is sugaring up the endings (which is appreciated) but
doing not so much for consistency? Because the trilogy started out as a reasonably good SF story and then veered off to deal with "essences of species" and "soul cannons"? Because the ending expects me to put my
faith in ME's god analogue who is also the Bigger Bad of this story?

Which of all these things are objective flaws, which contribute to my emotional dissatisfaction? I find this not easy to decipher. The ME3 endings have a history that does not leave my opinion of the final version untouched.

In hindsight, there were four defining moments in my experience of ME3's story, which made me increasingly
realize that it wasn't a a story written for me.

The first one was at Thane's deathbed, when I couldn't opt out of the line "You'll not be alone long". That was when I realized my protagonist wasn't my character any longer.

The second one was when unconscious Shepard started floating upwards on that platform and came face to face
with....the god-analogue of the MEU. The aesthetics of the scene are suggestive, and I felt the game kick me with the message "You mere human cannot hope to win. You need the help of a higher power."

The third one was when the Catalyst said "I control the Reapers", when I realized that I wouldn't only have to put my faith in a god-analogue, no, I had to put my faith in an *evil* god-analogue. Never mind that the
terms "good" and "evil" cannot be reasonably applied to the Catalyst, that's how it came across on an emotional level.

The fourth one was when I realized that whatever I chose, I ended up creating a universe which could be described as a luddite's dream (in the original endings). (note: I don't really agree with this one, but that's beside the point)

So what do all of these have in common? They all allude to religious themes (the last one alludes to Ragnarök). So asked "What did the most damage to ME3's endings" (leaving aside the question of whether they're really irredeemable) my answer is: religion did. Religious themes that were forced into a classic SF story, the attempt
to use the "higher power" allusion to exact unwarranted trust from the protagonist, a dark age defined as the desirable post-Ragnarök renewal, the barely masked idea of the protagonist "sacrificing their soul" in
Synthesis, the premonition of death and the dreams.

edit: fixed quote

Modifié par ruggly, 05 juillet 2013 - 01:13 .

[ruggly]

StreetMagic wrote...

edit: Eh, forget it. I'm not gonna touch this.

oh, I want to know what you said now

But yeah, this is something that will turn into a touchy subject real fast.

[katamuro]

I do agree that they went overboard with the whole "THE Shepard" thing and martyr thing too. Plus conversation pieces when you have no control over the words and lets not forget the godawful dream sequences.

[CronoDragoon]

Bad idea or not, I think most people agree the execution could have been much better. I probably would have been more receptive if the implementation hadn't made it feel like some junk plot twist in a terrible PSX JRPG.

It's why it's very interesting to hear perspectives from people playing the game through for the first time with the EC and Leviathan. While still not great it does help with the presentation of the Catalyst to 1. have some backstory going in and 2. actually understand some of what the dude is saying.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 juillet 2013 - 01:57 .

[ruggly]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Bad idea or not, I think most people agree the execution could have been much better. I probably would have been more receptive if the implementation hadn't made it feel like some junk plot twist in a terrible PSX JRPG.

It's why it's very interesting to hear perspectives from people playing the game through for the first time with the EC and Leviathan. While still not great it does help with the presentation of the Catalyst to 1. have some backstory going in and 2. actually understand some of what the dude is saying.

It really is.  I read a reddit thread from a guy who played ME3 with all of the DLC installed, and he couldn't understand why people hated the endings.  There was another thread who posted the end message of the EC and about how much he enjoyed the game as well, and that started the whole conversation about the last words of the original endings being downloadable content.  Now if that isn't a slap in the face..

[CronoDragoon]

Yeah, although if people had liked the endings then the end message wouldn't have been considered a slap. You get the same message after beating Dragon Age: Origins, after all.

[ruggly]

I have yet to beat DA:O, so I wouldn't have known.

[ioannisdenton]

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?  

Do not try to apply real world rules and lore to mass effect. Mass effect is about pseudo-science and it does it good.
Also the catalyst itself tells you that it is not an A.I.
Yes your reasoning that sapient contruct = A.i may be sound  but
then again i could just say by your logic that reapers=sapient constrcuts = a.i
This is the case.