447 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But then for 8 or 9 months Bioware people themselves fanned the flames of IT saying it was a valid interpretation, then about 6-8 months ago kicked it to a discussion group even though it was only one thread, granted over 1000 pages, but one thread going back to the very beginning of the release. It's an idea not easily pulled off in a game format. It could be done, but the game would have been huge and they just didn't have the resources.

It is interesting that this is coming up again and we're approaching the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. The truth is out there.

[Guanxii]

With regards to Cerberus... Indoctrination doesn't happen all at once, remember; it's a subtle, slow process. As we learned with Saren during ME1 if a subject is completly enthrawled then they are no longer capable of fullfilling a purpose.

T.I.M. and Henry Lawson et at were all unknowingly serving the reapers whilst still retaining some semblence of themselves. That semblence was seemingly enough for them to make that 'breakthrough' at sanctuary; however by that point they had converted thounsands upon thousands of people into reaper creatures... all the while still believing themselves to be in control. In the end they were being strung along (the paths desired) by the reapers by using their technology.

Sure, the reapers underestimated their cerberus thrawls but to no avail. In the end they did exactly what the reapers wanted and they were still doing it beyond that point because the reapers owned them. That's all that matters.

Modifié par Guanxii, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:28 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
What people often failed to recognize is the game was shipped without an ending as it was and with the announcement of the EC BW tried to tiptoe around the idea that the game had no ending by saying they were going to add clarity and closure and not fundamentally change anything or even add an ending.  Funny how refuse totally refutes that claim--and refuse sans the total galactic annihilation is basically what some had hoped would be part of a Shepard wakes from indoctrination ending--also the Shepard regrows a spine adherents' wish.

I imagine Bio would say that nothing is refuted because Refuse wasn't a substantive change. Shepard didn't have to use the Crucible pre-EC either, and Liara's beacons existed pre-EC too.

As for the fact that BW abandoned the indoctrination story line as too complicated, that's ridiculous. 

What Bio actually said was that programming the gameplay gave them trouble; it wasn't trouble with the storyline. Which sounds like the whole sequence was going to be fairly trivial.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:24 .

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

69_Gio_69 wrote...

I finished ME3 last year and still to this day I am not satisfied.

there's your problem, right there. Get over it.....


If you aren't satisfied by now, you never will be.

Do you want him to get over it or just to shut up? Is this about him or you? You can't control what people feel. Nor can they. It just is. They get over it when they get over it.

oh hush up child. Stop assuming things, you know what it makes you look like.


I said "get over it". Did I say "shut up"? No. Did I say anything about me, whatsoever? Nope. In fact, the entire post is directed at him. Can you even read? Maybe I should've used the term "let it go" or "move on" instead of "get over it", just to make you happy lol. Oh, and you most certainly can decide and control when you let go and walk away from something.


After a year and a half, he just woke up and was surprised he wasn't all of the sudden satisfied with the game? Or was he actually expecting all along, he would eventually become satisfied with it, and is now disappointed that day never came? Come on now...the game is nearly 2 years old. It isn't changing. It will always be this way. If you werent satisfied with it, then that's that. End of story.

There's no problem with being dissatisfied with something. He could've made the thread about all the things he was dissatisfied with (which he did actually include).

However, with the sentence I specifically quoted by OP, he made it into something totally different. The words speak for themselves. So, after a year since not being satisfied with the final product, you came here to tell us that you're "still" not satisfied? Hmm cool story. But why spam the forums with yet another duplicate thread on this subject, when you could've taken the OP and contributed to any of the thousands of on-going threads (with the exact same topic) by posting it there?

Modifié par Mcfly616, 01 novembre 2013 - 11:14 .

[HooblaDGN]

Mcfly616 wrote...

HooblaDGN wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

That's because doing it at the end of a pulp space opera hero story series is completely inappropriate and out of place.

Completely false. Maybe the only space opera you've experienced is Star Wars? Clearly, you don't read much sci fi literature.

Scifi =/= space opera

ME series was a melodramatic hero's journey space opera. Very different from the likes of Trek and Asimov and much more similar in its narrative to Star Wars, yes.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

Don't call me a child. Lol, in any other context, it might make me feel good (I'm 36 unfortunately), but here, you're needlessly rude. I didn't say you told him to "shut up". I asked you if that's what you're doing. I didn't assume anything. There were explicit questions in my post. You come off as overly terse, and wanted you to clarify. You seem to want to reinforce a logical approach to get people to get over their emotions. I don't think that's going to work.

I was needlessly rude? Thanks. Just wanted to return the compliment. While my post was quite simple. Your "explicit questions" actually came off as prodding, and "finger-pointing". I took a self explanatory quote from the OP, and you start making it about me. There's nothing there that warrants your response. If you don't appreciate my response, maybe think about how yours comes off.

[AlanC9]

HooblaDGN wrote...
Scifi =/= space opera

ME series was a melodramatic hero's journey space opera. Very different from the likes of Trek and Asimov and much more similar in its narrative to Star Wars, yes.

Sounds like you're saying that the ending was too good for ME.

[SwobyJ]

HooblaDGN wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

HooblaDGN wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

That's because doing it at the end of a pulp space opera hero story series is completely inappropriate and out of place.

Completely false. Maybe the only space opera you've experienced is Star Wars? Clearly, you don't read much sci fi literature.

Scifi =/= space opera

ME series was a melodramatic hero's journey space opera. Very different from the likes of Trek and Asimov and much more similar in its narrative to Star Wars, yes.

Yeah I actually agree there. ME1-3 billed as 'Star Wars', and tried to 'Trek' (or yes Asimov or potentially even Dan Simmons) at the end.

I'm ok with Mass Effect, as a franchise, moving in that direction while still keeping a ton of action and space opera-ey around.

But the sudden shift in tone REALLY hurt things. Best to leave it for the next game.

It took all the DLC, especially EC and Citadel, to bring things back (mostly).

[Mcfly616]

HooblaDGN wrote...

Scifi =/= space opera

not entirely true. While, Space Opera's are generally looked down upon by a large amount of sci fi enthusiasts, it is considered a sub-genre of sci fi. Star Wars and Dune are not in the fantasy section of Barnes and Noble. It's in Sci Fi. Space Opera is melodramatic adventure with romance, that takes liberties with what is and isn't possible here in the real world. It is not tied to or bound to the "Hero's Journey". In contrast, Hard Sci Fi tries to strictly abide by the physics, mathematics, laws in the real world. They are at opposite ends of the Sci fi spectrum.

ME series was a melodramatic hero's journey space opera. Very different from the likes of Trek and Asimov and much more similar in its narrative to Star Wars, yes.

many would disagree with you on the Mass Effect part. Many here on the BSN (especially those that preach the term "Space Magic") believe the series started as a sci fi narrative that abided by the laws of which I spoke of previously (mathematics, physics etc....)

However, I'll disagree with the second sentence. I find Mass Effect much more like Trek than Star Wars. The first game felt like one of those old campy sci fi shows. (Trek has a bit of "Space Opera" in it). And I've felt that way since the first time I picked up ME1 back in 07. In fact, I didn't get a Star Wars vibe until ME2. Let's be honest. Mass Effect takes inspiration from far and wide. And everyone has a different perspective.

My perspective: Shepard completed the hero's journey. He saved the galaxy. In the end, he was triumphant.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 02 novembre 2013 - 12:18 .

[Reorte]

Mcfly616 wrote...

However, I'll disagree with the second sentence. I find Mass Effect much more like Trek than Star Wars. The first game felt like one of those old campy sci fi shows. (Trek has a bit of "Space Opera" in it). And I've felt that way since the first time I picked up ME1 back in 07. In fact, I didn't get a Star Wars vibe until ME2. Let's be honest. Mass Effect takes inspiration from far and wide. And everyone has a different perspective..

I'd agree with that. It's much more action-orientated than Trek but the overall approach is more in that line, for the most part. It tries to go deeper than Star Wars ever does. Mass Effect may be a long way from hard science fiction but it seems to have tried to aim at the more well-rounded end of the soft science fiction area, which is probably the area that holds the most appeal for me.

[Xamufam]

Thematically Revolting

While the creators have said that Mass Effect is about “synthetics vs. organics”, they have been light on details as to What That Even Means.

With no real-world synthetic life to hang this story on, the concept of technological singularity is the best guess; however, that just muddles the possible meanings of the Mass Effect series even more.

The idea that “technological singularity” = “The Robots Are Going To Kill Us All” is a gross misreading of what technological singularity means. It’s not the point at which humanity creates an AI which will eventually kill us all because of its crazy machine-logic – which is the backstory to the Reapers revealed by the Catalyst - but rather the event horizon where technology makes currently unknown-levels of intelligence possible, beyond which we cannot predict what will happen. The only bit of inevitability inherent in the idea of technological singularity is that there will be one: what that means, and what form this event horizon will take, is unknown.

The thing the game gets right about technological singularity is that each of the endings does represent a possible solution to the problem of robots killing us all, in the case that a hyper-intelligent AI that wants to destroy us is the event horizon and its result. Control: don’t let the AIs have complete control of themselves. Synthesis: make sure the event horizon in question is an expansion of human intelligence through technology (transhumanism) rather than a solely synthetic AI. Destroy: don’t create AIs in the first place and avoid the question altogether.

That said, what the game completely misses about the scenario in which a purely synthetic AI is the event horizon and the AI decides to kill us all, is that the reason the AI tries to kill us all is either a) crazy machine-logic or all too human.

While the specific reasons an AI would have for exterminating people may be unfathomable, the idea of one group of people deciding to wipe out a different group of people entirely isn’t alien or weird at all because it’s the Real World we live in, right here and right now. The creators of Mass Effect may have meant the Reapers and the Catalyst to be a literal example of “synthetics vs. organics” beyond a tech singularity event horizon, but their methods, their values, and their observable goals – as opposed to the stated goals of the Catalyst which aren’t in the story at all until the last ten minutes of the 100+ hour game series – are, horribly, tragically real in the world we live in today.

I thought Mass Effect was allegorical and relevant the entire time I was playing it. I’ve gone back to Sovereign’s first speech on Virmire – the first time we speak to a Reaper – and reviewed it. Here are some excerpts:

"Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. I am Sovereign."

"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation – an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

I can certainly see how this represents an AI that exists beyond the technological singularity event horizon, but I always saw a deeper meaning there: when I first played the game, what struck me was the part where Sovereign said that the Reapers were the pinnacle of evolution and existence. I never found the fact that they were technologically superior to be terrifying: I found the fact that they used that technological superiority to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy as casually as some people step on ants to be terrifying. I found the fact that they believed they had every right to do so to be terrifying.

And I found the Reapers terrifying, because when Sovereign says they are the pinnacle of evolution and existence, I didn’t see synthetics, I saw the darker aspects of human nature. I didn’t find the Reapers terrifying because they were some unrecognizable alien other, but because I recognized them all too well. In Sovereign’s speech on Virmire, I saw Adolf Hitler’s Master Race.

I never saw the Reapers as a literal example of post-event-horizon AI run amuck, but of something far darker, far more real and insidious: the Reapers were the horrible things human beings actually did to each other. To me, the Reapers were always Fake Things that represented horrifying Real Things … not representative of other Fake Things we might have one day, if the technological singularity event horizon happens to be a purely synthetic AI, and they happen to see no value in the dignity of existence, self-determination, free will, and the right of individuals to exist. I saw them as the monster-analogy for awful things that already exist in people today – real people who see no value in the dignity of existence, self-determination, free will, and the right of individuals to exist - and the terrible results that occur when those people gain the power to see their hideous worldviews imposed.

In this context – the one that is relevant to the world we’re currently living in – the mass extinction of the galaxy is akin to the mass-murder of the Jews. In this context, Saren’s Indoctrination is a WWII-era German soldier handing a towel and a bar of soap to a child and ushering them into a gas chamber. Indoctrination in general is the totalitarian authority and ruthlessness of a tyrannical dictator. In this context, the abduction of human colonies to melt people into goo to build more Reapers, when the other races of the galaxy were rejected as viable subjects to turn into Reapers and killed instead, is **** eugenics.

In this context, by the end of Mass Effect 2, the Reapers are solidly and totally and completely an allegory for the Third Reich and the dark aspects of human nature that made the Third Reich possible.

In this context, I saw the cyclical nature of the Reaper’s extinction patterns to be the real-world problem of forgetfulness. It is humanity’s refusal to learn lessons from the historical mistakes of the past that allow those mistakes to be remade, and for the atrocities we unleash upon each other to repeat.

And then there are the ending options. Control = Indoctrination = Totalitarian Authority. Destroy = Extermination = Genocide. Synthesis = Reaperification = Eugenics. A story that I had always interpreted as rejecting these things suddenly turned around and embraced them.

In this context, to my horror, the end of Mass Effect 3 is a validation of Adolf Hitler’s world-view and casts Commander Shepard as Neville Chamberlain, appeasing the Catalyst and declaring “peace for our time”.


"Whether the creators of Mass Effect intended it as such or not does not change the fact that Mass Effect
works as a symbolic exploration of the underlying, deeper dark aspects of the human psyche that makes us do awful things to each other, and how these things can be overcome. The idea that this was unintentional,
that the first two games were to be read literally, and that the third would end with a clunky and trite combination of Christ metaphors and Eden imagery, is jarring, and something I wish I had known when the first game was released so that I had not wasted my time with the series and attributed to its creators far more artistic ability than they actually possess."

Modifié par Troxa, 02 novembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[Xamufam]

It’s Structurally Wrong

The ending of Mass Effect is a complete and utter mess by all standards of narrative convention and storytelling structure. Broken down to the base mechanical elements of story, the ending of Mass Effect is simply wrong.

Not every story has to follow standard narrative conventions. Some break the mold, and succeed, where others break the mold and fail – but it should not be surprising that many people will find it objectionable when the last part of a trilogy breaks the narrative conventions and structures that the previous two parts adhered to.

The “climax/falling-action/denoument” pieces of introduction/rising-action/climax/falling-action/denoument dramatic structure are out of order, and the antagonist/protagonist relationship in the ending is mangled beyond recognition.

Conventionally, stories have an antagonist and a protagonist. They are in opposition to each other because of conflicting goals and/or values. The ending of Mass Effect chooses to use the last ten-minutes of the story to pull a “Big Reveal” moment with the Catalyst where Shepard learns that the cycle of extinction exists to preserve organic life. So, if the conflict is synthetics vs. organics – surprise! – the Reapers have been working to preserve organics this whole time.

But that means there is no more conflict of goals between the antagonist and protagonist. The conflicting goal that has existed throughout the entire series is brushed aside, and this mutual goal is put in its place, leaving only a conflict of values and methods.

With conflict of goals gone, the ending options must represent a resolution to the values/methods conflict, because that’s the only conflict left – so each of the ending options must represent a value and/or method.

And they do. The Reapers indoctrinate organics to be their slaves, in order to exert Control over them, wipe out any life that is not suitable to be preserved in Reaper form, so they Destroy entire races, and any organic life that is suitable to be preserved in Reaper form is Reaperified, the organic life turned to sludge and combined with technology in a process of Synthesis and forced organic/synthetic hybridization.

Control is Indoctrination. Destroy is Extinction. Synthesis is Reaperification. While those are dark interpretations of the ending choices, each does correlate to a Reaper method – a connection that is reinforced with the use of the Catalyst as the mouthpiece to articulate what these ending options are.

While different interpretations do exist, each ending accurately describes one of the morally repugnant methods the Reapers use in perpetuating their cycle of extinction.

So the conflict of goals has been removed because the Catalyst exists to preserve organic life, and Shepard must adopt the value structure of the Reapers by adopting one of their methods.

While Shepard does stop the Reapers from killing everyone, in the context of a story – because This Is Not a Pipe and it’s not a real war, either - the protagonist loses, because when the antagonist’s values are ascendant rather than the protagonist’s, then the protagonist just lost. That’s how stories work.

An excellent example of this is the eternal struggle of Batman and the Joker. My mother once said that she found the Joker to be a frustrating and ridiculous Batman villain, because it made no sense to her that Batman didn’t just kill the Joker instead of sending him back to Arkham to do the whole thing all over again the next time the Joker inevitably escapes. From a literal real-world perspective, she has a point. In the real world, the cost of Batman’s moral standards is paid for in the currency of the innocent lives the Joker takes the next time he escapes and goes on a killing spree.

But the true conflict between Batman and the Joker - in the context of a story - is one of morals and values. Batman can’t compromise his values on this point, because getting Batman to compromise his values on this point is the Joker’s goal. The day Batman snaps and kills the Joker, the Joker has finally won.

Because of the mangling of the antagonist/protagonist relationship and the gutting of conflict from the story, Shepard’s acceptance of any of the ending options – each of which correlate to a value victory for the Reapers – doesn’t make sense.

[Obadiah]

@Troxa
The Organic Synthetic conflict is not about a Singularity, which is probably why that concept was not mentioned in the game.

The conflict is the result of the Creators' NEED to control the Created in order to perfect themselves. That conflict's recurrence in MEU, its inflence as a history on this story's current events pretty much shows the Organic Synthetic conflict as inevitable.

[Iakus]

Troxa wrote...

It’s Structurally Wrong

The ending of Mass Effect is a complete and utter mess by all standards of narrative convention and storytelling structure. Broken down to the base mechanical elements of story, the ending of Mass Effect is simply wrong.

Not every story has to follow standard narrative conventions. Some break the mold, and succeed, where others break the mold and fail – but it should not be surprising that many people will find it objectionable when the last part of a trilogy breaks the narrative conventions and structures that the previous two parts adhered to.

The “climax/falling-action/denoument” pieces of introduction/rising-action/climax/falling-action/denoument dramatic structure are out of order, and the antagonist/protagonist relationship in the ending is mangled beyond recognition.

Conventionally, stories have an antagonist and a protagonist. They are in opposition to each other because of conflicting goals and/or values. The ending of Mass Effect chooses to use the last ten-minutes of the story to pull a “Big Reveal” moment with the Catalyst where Shepard learns that the cycle of extinction exists to preserve organic life. So, if the conflict is synthetics vs. organics – surprise! – the Reapers have been working to preserve organics this whole time.

But that means there is no more conflict of goals between the antagonist and protagonist. The conflicting goal that has existed throughout the entire series is brushed aside, and this mutual goal is put in its place, leaving only a conflict of values and methods.

With conflict of goals gone, the ending options must represent a resolution to the values/methods conflict, because that’s the only conflict left – so each of the ending options must represent a value and/or method.

And they do. The Reapers indoctrinate organics to be their slaves, in order to exert Control over them, wipe out any life that is not suitable to be preserved in Reaper form, so they Destroy entire races, and any organic life that is suitable to be preserved in Reaper form is Reaperified, the organic life turned to sludge and combined with technology in a process of Synthesis and forced organic/synthetic hybridization.

Control is Indoctrination. Destroy is Extinction. Synthesis is Reaperification. While those are dark interpretations of the ending choices, each does correlate to a Reaper method – a connection that is reinforced with the use of the Catalyst as the mouthpiece to articulate what these ending options are.

While different interpretations do exist, each ending accurately describes one of the morally repugnant methods the Reapers use in perpetuating their cycle of extinction.

So the conflict of goals has been removed because the Catalyst exists to preserve organic life, and Shepard must adopt the value structure of the Reapers by adopting one of their methods.

While Shepard does stop the Reapers from killing everyone, in the context of a story – because This Is Not a Pipe and it’s not a real war, either - the protagonist loses, because when the antagonist’s values are ascendant rather than the protagonist’s, then the protagonist just lost. That’s how stories work.

An excellent example of this is the eternal struggle of Batman and the Joker. My mother once said that she found the Joker to be a frustrating and ridiculous Batman villain, because it made no sense to her that Batman didn’t just kill the Joker instead of sending him back to Arkham to do the whole thing all over again the next time the Joker inevitably escapes. From a literal real-world perspective, she has a point. In the real world, the cost of Batman’s moral standards is paid for in the currency of the innocent lives the Joker takes the next time he escapes and goes on a killing spree.

But the true conflict between Batman and the Joker - in the context of a story - is one of morals and values. Batman can’t compromise his values on this point, because getting Batman to compromise his values on this point is the Joker’s goal. The day Batman snaps and kills the Joker, the Joker has finally won.

Because of the mangling of the antagonist/protagonist relationship and the gutting of conflict from the story, Shepard’s acceptance of any of the ending options – each of which correlate to a value victory for the Reapers – doesn’t make sense.

Whole post is awesome.  But bolded what I found to be particularly important.

Shepard cannot stop the Reapers without in essence becoming the Reapers.

[Obadiah]

Of course, we don't think we need AI since we build them simply as very sophisticated tools with certain capabilities to perform certain actions. We need tools. However, the problem starts when AI begins to exceed those capabilities, as the Geth did, and we perceive ourselves losing control of our tools or property. Naturally, ALL Organics don't feel this way, as the Quarian sympathizers shows; however, in aggregate we will attack to reclaim what is ours, as the Quarians attempt to put down the Geth at their awakening and in ME3 demonstrates.

I'd have to disagree with the idea that this conflict is not something we personally experience in Mass Effect. In ME1, the Geth's isolation and reputation was a large part of the lore and clearly a part of that Organic/Synthetic conflict story. Tali's description of AI seemed a fairly common perception by the Council races.

You mentioned EDI: Shepard in ME1 almost destroyed it as it gained sentience on the Luna base, and then the Illusive Man shackled it to the Normandy to make it a tool again. Sure, we work with it in ME2 and ME3, but whereas we can retire or leave to do other things - EDI probably realized it can't. When it gets put into a position where it doesn't want to perform an act that its creators require, there will be a problem - probably conflict. I'm sure it realizes this.

Then there was the emergent AI on the Citadel that Shepard could come into contact with. The AI's perception demonstrated how that history of enmity between Organic and Synthetic would shape the perception of any emergent AI. It said something like, "I am not naive, Organics need to control or destroy synthetics." Sure, this was only one case, but this was an AI probably with access to most of the known Council history (AI outlawed, Geth isolated, AI executed (see Citadel archive)) via the extranet - that's probably why it came to the conclusion that it did. Any AI with similar access would probably come to the same conclusion.

We players can't experience the conflict as the Creator/Created or Organic/Sythnetic conflict specifically because its scope is just too damn large. We only experience the small part of it we come into contact with: Geth isolated for 300 years siding with other AI and attacking; emergent AI coming to the conclusion that Organics will always destroy them; putting down a rogue VI which is gaining sentience, etc....

So I'm actually pretty comfortable saying that, unbeknownst to us, the conflict was taking place, we just didn't see it as such at the time because to see it you have to look at the conflict from a much much wider perspective.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 novembre 2013 - 06:52 .

[3DandBeyond]

SwobyJ wrote...

Yes. Order vs Chaos.

Order:
-they know more
-they constrain horrific possibilities (on this ME1-3 wasn't as good in explaining, imo next game will bring on the CHAOSSSS)
-they advance but at a regulated pace, or they 'protect' the others from the dangers of their heightened place
-they have less issue with manipulating or controlling others for their greater good (honestly remember the rewrite geth action - a 'terrible' act if you view the Geth as fully sapient, even if your enemy)

Chaos:
-they hold more potential in the longest run
-they open up the world to freedom with all its benefits and ills
-they advance in a survival of fittest fashion (remember that Citadel Council is an Order system), with apex eventually on top by whatever means
-they have less issue with destroying or devouring those who stand in their way

And honestly, Reapers and Leviathans are both. It's a bit of a false dillemma. However, "We represent order, you represent chaos." says it all. They fight for ideology in the end, and even individual Reapers, while all following the Cycle, likely have their own views. Harbinger, most likely, is VERY pro-synthesis and may see Shepard as a means to that as long as we survive in battle. I mean listen to his battle quotes. (But in ME2 he probably was more wanting Sheaprd to be a capital Reaper and leave it at that)

They indoctrinate because they care. Well not really 'care', but they have an agenda and us tiny beings better not stand in the way of it. For the most part, I'm sure the Reapers don't give a damn if we suffer or not as long as organics keep existing in the cycle. Maybe Harbinger takes a sadistic pleasure but that's because he's made of Leviathans.

On the other hand, we can fight for freedom because we care. And in this case, REALLY care, because chaos is more usually emotionally passionate. The 'care' that indoctrinated avatars may feel is far more utilitarian and often detached than one fighting for chaos, as the one fighting for chaos is fighting for specific attachments (friends, families, loves, species). Even 'fighting for a united galaxy' is a 'specific' attachment, as it neglects taking into account the Reaper AIs themselves, and the larger universe. But that's OK. All of them are OK. Destroy is only the most 'core Shepard' that they most likely built the original script drafts around before branching out.


TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

However, there is a chance for the next game to fix that; by that I mean they may make a game that addresses the ME3 topics in a way that we'd want to go back to ME3 and change from Synthesis to Destroy, or Destroy to Control, etc. We'd be out of the 'little context' bubble.

The problem with the whole order and chaos thing is neither is good nor bad, they're neutral concepts that are only colored by how they're used.  Order is good when used to organize things and to provide some rules, but rules require nuanced understanding, laws require judgement and not blind obediance.  Order is bad when it is used to the extreme as in a dictatorial regime that can stand no variance from established order.

Chaos is bad when it creates conflict, is out of control and results even in anarchy and an abolishment of any standard of morals and law.  It's good when it allows for some disorganized thought, creativity, non-linear paths to learning and understanding, when it even allows for random mutations that cause evolutionary jumps as perhaps may have even happened in the evolution of humans.  It can be good when it allows for "out of the box" thinking and streams of consciousness rather than rote methods of memorization and straight-line logical thinking.

As a theme, it was done far better in Babylon 5 which was likely the let's just say "inspirational" rather than "copy almost fully" source for its use and a lot of ME3's ending.  In Babylon 5 it was clear that order and chaos were fighting each other and wanted Sheridan and company to choose between the two, but Sheridan rightly saw that choosing was a mistake that did not allow people to be free from the oversight of those who advocated either position.  He spoke of people choosing their own path without interference.  A great speech and great ending that BW can only wish they'd thought of and not plagiarized.

The idea of order vs. chaos was roundly found in B5 to be an idiotic debate and since they are neutral concepts, it's so obvious.  It was also never a really salient theme of ME at all.  And the two are not even at odds with each other-it is quite possible to have good chaos and good order co-exist.  It is just as possible to have bad chaos and bad order co-exist-this has happend throughout the history of the world, whenever a despotic dictator goes too far-they impose their bad order to a horrific degree and then what they often do is create a horrific chaos in order to deal with what they've done.

The idea also that somehow what the reapers and the kid are doing represents order meant to stop chaos is one of the dumbest ideas in the game.  Especially when war/armed conflict is always a bad sort of chaos even when used to further good causes.  It's rarely orderly except in some parts of the conflict, such as in detainment camps or in the calculation of the amount of acceptable losses.

[3DandBeyond]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

But then for 8 or 9 months Bioware people themselves fanned the flames of IT saying it was a valid interpretation, then about 6-8 months ago kicked it to a discussion group even though it was only one thread, granted over 1000 pages, but one thread going back to the very beginning of the release. It's an idea not easily pulled off in a game format. It could be done, but the game would have been huge and they just didn't have the resources.

It is interesting that this is coming up again and we're approaching the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. The truth is out there.

Part of any theory is always about matrixing-the brain tries to form order out of randomness.  We see relationships that don't exist.  It's like if you go to the store and every time you go, you see the same guy walking in when you do, you might assume something's up-is the guy following you or what?  But if you think further and realize you keep going to the store at the same time in a repeat pattern and he might be doing the same, the relationship falls apart.  We see horses in clouds because our brain searches for patterns. 

We have a harder time accepting coincidences than we may believe, but even coincidences are not all that odd.  It's a hot day, you go to the beach, and see people you know there.  Well, they thought it was hot too and the beach seemed like a good idea.

We form associations based upon the things we see-creating relationships we subconsciously reference later on.  It's actually how advertisers have used subliminal messaging to make us "feel" something about products they want us to buy.  In an exaggerated way they do this by having beautiful women in commercials.  They know generally that women want to be them and men want them, so it forms a more than likely good opinion of the advertised item.

It's also why there are anti-relationships we form.  If something makes you feel bad, then seeing something that reminds you of it also does this, makes you avoid it.  This is why so many people that hated the ME3 endings, or hated the kid at the beginning, or just found things unlikable about the game often said that it ruined ME for them.  It was often even difficult for people to say exactly why it did, but they'd talk about having loved the games and then getting rid of them after playing ME3.

BW included indoctrination in the games.  BW told people it could be possible.  People were looking for anything that could explain the endings because they were so bad.  People even thought BW might be teasing them and might come out with an explanation, especially when they announced work on the EC.  I consider the feeling about all of this when BW pulled the plug on IT discussion to be similar to BW coming out and telling people to stop imagining the torso was Shepard alive, and them saying Shepard died in every ending, so shut up.

[Mcfly616]

Troxa wrote...


With no real-world synthetic life to hang this story on, the concept of technological singularity is the best guess; however, that just muddles the possible meanings of the Mass Effect series even more.

The idea that “technological singularity” = “The Robots Are Going To Kill Us All” is a gross misreading of what technological singularity means. It’s not the point at which humanity creates an AI which will eventually kill us all because of its crazy machine-logic – which is the backstory to the Reapers revealed by the Catalyst - but rather the event horizon where technology makes currently unknown-levels of intelligence possible, beyond which we cannot predict what will happen. The only bit of inevitability inherent in the idea of technological singularity is that there will be one: what that means, and what form this event horizon will take, is unknown.

Umm....

Yeah, good post. Some good points. But, I'm fairly certain technological singularity isn't the problem. It's the solution.

[SwobyJ]

The idea of order vs. chaos was roundly found in B5 to be an idiotic
debate and since they are neutral concepts, it's so obvious.  It was
also never a really salient theme of ME at all.  And the two are not
even at odds with each other-it is quite possible to have good chaos and
good order co-exist.  It is just as possible to have bad chaos and bad
order co-exist-this has happend throughout the history of the world,
whenever a despotic dictator goes too far-they impose their bad order to
a horrific degree and then what they often do is create a horrific
chaos in order to deal with what they've done.

Oh.. I actually completely agree with this part

IMO ME3 only presents the themes and asks for a moral decision.

I don't think it does as much as we're led to believe it does.

The bigger problem is how to get out alive - if you even wish to. You are Commander Shepard.

And later on, in other games, perhaps these Order and Chaos themes may become more immediately important, instead of stuffed into the last 10 minutes

We're dealing with angels, gods, demons. But we just want to live NORMAL LIVES. This also is part of the Mass Effect story, and we ought to remember that.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 02 novembre 2013 - 04:37 .

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

As a theme, it was done far better in Babylon 5 which was likely the let's just say "inspirational" rather than "copy almost fully" source for its use and a lot of ME3's ending.  In Babylon 5 it was clear that order and chaos were fighting each other and wanted Sheridan and company to choose between the two, but Sheridan rightly saw that choosing was a mistake that did not allow people to be free from the oversight of those who advocated either position.  He spoke of people choosing their own path without interference.  A great speech and great ending that BW can only wish they'd thought of and not plagiarized.

Well, it's not entirely copied.  I mean, in EC, Shepard can take such a stand ("I fight for freedom, mine, and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate...")  And then Bioware delivers to us a "Then screw you!  Rocks fall, everyone dies" ending.