62 réponses à ce sujet

[Rasofe]

First a short contextualisation. Yesterday I beat the Leviathan DLC for the first time, and at the time I was playing my Male Anthropocentric Shepard so I mostly walked away from it pissed at the fact that I wasn't allowed to simply kill the Leviathans. However, today I beat the DLC a second time with Paragon Impulsive Femshep with a more sober mindset (and a little less genocidal).

So I started thinking that there may be a key here to finally connect the ME3 endings with the theme of the rest of the trilogy. And that is to consider the Cycles of Extinction as the coils of a spiral with an unintended side-effect - the determination of whether Dominance or Cooperation is the correct organic social model.

Consider that the central theme of (most of) the trilogy is how we as people should react to expanding horizons, manifested through the motif of either dominating the new world or living cooperatively with it. It's also present in the destroy-control issue albeit implemented much weaker. If that IS the central theme and motif, then the whole stuff with Synthetics versus Organics can be reduced to a submotif or global conflict, which I'm sure you'll agree would improve the story conclusion considerably.

So here's what I thought:

The original Leviathans were quite possibly the most dominative race in the whole timespan of MEU. Forget the imperialistic Protheans or even humanity - we're talking a race that considers itself deities, "the apex race", and perhaps at some point rightfully so. But those same qualities eventually made them easy prey to the Reaper extinctions. The Leviathans weren't even aware that the Catalyst was about to eradicate them, and their mercilessness clearley transferred into the Catalysts own methodology. The Protheans eventually uniformed to exactly the same social and military structure, and they too stood no chance, but clearly the Protheans were not nearly as dominational or ruthless as the Leviathans... and possibly no other cycle between them. And they had almost solved the problem posed by synthetics by uniting all organic life in the Metacon War.

If it's true that we can expect the cycles to have led to a steady evolution from dominative to cooperative society, we can instead consider them the coils of a spiral towards a resolution. The Catalyst considers Synthesis to be the best option to resolve the situation, but this seems a logical error (one that can be expected given its flawed intelligence), The fact is that the Present Cycle (or Coil if I'm correct) is the most polarised between the two, and the dichotomy is essentially Shepard's core character development engine. While the Protheans had almost managed to end this "Synthetic Organic Conflict" by unifying their empire through force, with the Catalyst it is possible to ensure the lasting peace through taking over the Reapers and guarding the galaxy, or to destroy them and expect the cooperation and unity of the galaxy to bring peace and prosperity for all. Perhaps synthesis is about jumping out of this spiral altogether, but it's still an alien transcendance and I'm not backing it: without limitation, there's no evolution, and without evolution there is only stagnation.

So that has to assume a few things, that we typically assume anyway. 1. The catalyst is wrong about the peace not lasting, 2. The Crucible's inability to keep itself from destroying the Geth and EDI is a mistake. 3. The catalyst is wrong about Synthesis being the best option. 4. Between the Leviathans and the Protheans there should be an oscillation or some trend between Cooperative and Dominative social models with varying success.

If these four assumptions are validated it is actually possible to make the ME3 ending legitimately good with a bit of soldering here and there. Because then it would still be THEMATICALLY consistent with the rest of the trilogy, even if the motif is a little weaker. It would still be space magic and starchild, but at least its heart would be in the right place.

Modifié par Rasofe, 22 novembre 2013 - 02:09 .

[SwobyJ]

I can't help but think that regardless of our final choice of ME3 and how it's shown, if we get a sequel-ish deal, Bioware would find a way to minimize the choice into a manageable format (my personal hypothesis is that indoc was involved and we actually just chose the new direction of a super-Reaper and the world within it).

We made a moral choice. I don't actually think shooting a tube kills all Reapahs, grasping a shock panel controls them, or jumping all Messiah-like into a big beam merges us two sapient types (though that'd make me wonder about Crucible origins..). Or that somehow the only thing keeping us from activating these things are large pathways that we walk on.

But instead, it asks us basically what your post is about - what path do we want to take, now that the Cycles have coiled to a state where all 'apex' factions (Reaper, Leviathan, United New Galaxy) may have a level of indecisiveness about which direction to fully go.

Control (of the Reapers) choice keeps the value of this galaxy's state intact, but loses the personal integrity that it took to get to this point (you know, a war *against* the Reapers?). It does carry more hope that a solution can be found without sacrificing more than is outright required. It is survival, of the many.

Destroy keeps the value of this galaxy's state intact if fully explored (DLC emphasizes it, convos with EDI, etc), but it does leave a tinge of the 'we can only kill things that threaten us' feeling, which may not bode as well for the hypothetical future/sequel games in my head (but it works VERY well in the Reaper War). It is survival, of the fewer and the self.

Synthesis loses the value of this galaxy's state and has you aspiring for more, and also loses the personal integrity (sorry guys, but your headcanon that Shepard always wanted to work for the Reapers if only they talked to him is the biggest reach of headcanon I've heard) it took to get here. At the same time, if the Reaper motivation = Leviathan motivation = largely 'benevolent' (at least they think so of themselves), then you're still serving a higher purpose, your 'destiny', in trying to get everyone to get along through whatever means you have.
This is survival of as many as possible. It's the closest a canon can get to metagaming, and it carries the same 'virtual-ish' vibe throughout. Like Bioware is telling us "This is what you get when you try to save as many as conceptually possible in this universe."


IMO all endings combined, with the extended cut, contain the pieces of what you're looking for OP.
-We're a new, united galaxy (the more relevant topic to this thread), which is possibly a more novel occurance over the eons
-A Reaper is made that we're installed into, to carry the will of our choice
-Our experience was virtual to at least some extent (and fully in the EC slides), in an experiment for a solution to conflict

All endings canon but with different flavor as we move on past Shepard. Boom. Just like ME2x100 in scale.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2013 - 03:00 .

[SwobyJ]

Uniting by force alone is shown (whether we want to believe it or not though) to be flawed in Mass Effect. It gets you to your direct goal, sure, but it misses that point of there always being something bigger and stronger than yourself that you won't be able to just punch through without a ton more power behind you, that in most cases (aka if you're not Shepard), you just won't have.

That was really the Prothian and Leviathan problem really. They couldn't consider that for as long as they fight synthetics, there's something that would kick their butts regardless. Leviathans had their own creation turn on them in seeming hubris, and Prothians lived in ignorance that they were fighting gnats compared to the larger enemies just waiting to harvest them all.

There, I guess, seemed to have to be a point where organics and synthetics just DEAL WITH IT and work with each other. It seems to be this Cycle, but that's optional. You can also just keep Destroying and punching through with enough power to come out the other side alive. They leave that in our hands.

I just wouldn't be surprised to see the organics vs. synthetic deal taken to a whole new level in the next game, and having a Destroy mentality being harder to maintain over time as context grows (even as I chose Destroy and prefer it, especially when dealing with the Reapers-as-they-are).
Eventually, all sides will just have to DEAL, and work together. That's how 'Synthesis is inevitable'. But we don't have to choose it now, that's for sure. Not the way they sell it to us.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2013 - 03:09 .

[Rasofe]

Yes, you're correct in your assesment, but the endings themselves weren't really enough to tie in that same final decision with the overarching theme of the rest of the trilogy. It's certainly a moral choice, but it's a moral choice that's disjoint from the nature of Shepard's other choices.

When integrating the coil theory, it's plausible to account that the eventual effects of the Crucible that you described do factor in this enormous theme, and that from the very start of the MEU this was a significant issue. It makes the Reapers a thematic force rather than a massive antagonist that we have to deal with. And it resolves the problem of the Catalysts' options being false choices - solutions to a problem Shepard has had only tangential experience with. Instead, it becomes much more meaningful since it is then the pinnacle of the moral reference that was applied to all the other choices in the game such as the genophage, Rannoch, Rachni or the Council. It's all thematically tied to the motif of cooperation versus domination, and as the Reapers harvested and the catalyst sought a solution they ended up unintentionally directing the evolution of the galaxy to discover which is the correct option.

After all, the central theme of Mass Effect - the decisions made when presented with expanding horizons -being its entire cardiac system, you'd think that they would be at the core of the climax. Instead, it's just another moral choice with little relevance to said theme. I believe that's what's been holding it back for so long.

In the end though, selecting destroy may sacrifice the geth, but with a united galaxy it is inferred that whatever AI they create will either not rebel (accepted as equals) or be put down without mercy (prothean style). Similarly, control may not mean the Geth will survive if Shepard decides to destroy the geth anyway (or if they already annihilated them), or it may just be a way to gurantee peace. The dichotomy still resides on Shepard's actions of shaping the future before the ending, the ending itself is really just the final switch in which way the world will be maintained. Either way, it will prove that the spiral is at its end.
Synthesis feels like by far the most forced solution. It's what the Catalyst WANTS to achieve, but anyone who has studied evolutionary paradigms knows that what a designer wants doesn't always end up the best choice.

Modifié par Rasofe, 22 novembre 2013 - 03:25 .

[SwobyJ]

Moral choice, when completely boiled down, comes to:
-Support the Reapers in any way
-Reject the Reapers in any way

Something that is automatically chosen for you in ME1-2 is asked of you in ME3.

We can kill Rachni or spare+save them.
We can treat the Krogan as tools to die off, or save them.
We can exterminate the Geth, or save them.

All the most dangerous entities known in the galaxy except for the Reapers and Leviathans. And then we make a choice regarding the Reapers.

I think your last post is correct or correct enough for the purposes of this theme.

We'd have to see if the final choice is addressed at all or not in the next game. Only that would provide a greater reference for most gamers.

[SwobyJ]

In the end though, selecting destroy may sacrifice the geth, but with a
united galaxy it is inferred that whatever AI they create will either
not rebel (accepted as equals) or be put down without mercy (prothean
style). Similarly, control may not mean the Geth will survive if Shepard
decides to destroy the geth anyway (or if they already annihilated
them), or it may just be a way to gurantee peace. The dichotomy still
resides on Shepard's actions of shaping the future before the ending,
the ending itself is really just the final switch in which way the world
will be maintained. Either way, it will prove that the spiral is at its
end.
Synthesis feels like by far the most forced solution. It's what
the Catalyst WANTS to achieve, but anyone who has studied evolutionary
paradigms knows that what a designer wants doesn't always end up the
best choice.

Well yes. I'd say that if it wasn't for the EC Synthesis bit, I'd forgo most alternative theories and just accept "Ok fine, the war is over and this is how it ends (Control/Destroy). Weird, but okay.."

Synthesis is far too virtual to be legit imo. It's a speculative choice, but also a far too speculative result. It honestly is as though we're witnessing the inside of a Reaper mind/'consensus'.

The result is that I can easily merge the spoken lines and ideas of each EC ending into a larger message about the ending.

Wake up. An end, once and for all. A future many will never see. I will watch over those who live on. I am alive and I am not alone. We fought as a united galaxy. Resolution.

That's the track list for the EC soundtrack. However, reversed...

Resolution. We fought as a united galaxy, I am alive and I am not alone, I will watch over those who live on, a future many will never see; an end, once and for all. Wake up.

Synthesis is an ideal that we can simply choose to have.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 22 novembre 2013 - 03:36 .

[Rasofe]

Well, the only choice that directly supports the Reapers is Synthesis. And the only choice that directly rejects them is Rejection.

Rejection means not accepting the Problem or the Solution.
Synthesis means accepting both.

Control or Destroy means accepting the Problem but not the Solution to varying degree. Either you destroy the shackles of the Reapers on evolution - allowing it to go its own course, but at the expense of the Geth - and hope that the problem will resolve itself. Alternatively you seize control of the Reapers and dictate either an equality between synthetics and organics or a complete annihilation of one side. These two endings both acknowledge that the cyclical (spiraling) nature of the galaxy is at an end because this "cycle" is ready to either finally cooperate or rule with an iron fist.

I understand that you're more inclined toward cooperation, and it is the sensible choice, but I think the trilogy is stronger if there's no exact answer to which is better. It's a good question to leave up in the air. The important thing is that the question is the most important factor of the endings, and not whether or not synthetics and organics can coexist. It's pretty obvious in MEU they can - the question is how, or whether they want to?

Regardless, Synthesis is really... really speculative. Here's a spiral of evolution that has worked toward either coexistance or subjugation to ensure global stability. So we'll just use a superweapon to forego all that evolution and just GIVE them a solution that sidelines either option by effectively negating diversity or distinction. That strikes just about every warning signal I can imagine of being a bad decision. Among other things, all the species of the galaxy have adapted for an environment of diversity, coexistance but also competition. How will they really fare when such a cataclysmic change occurs? For all we know, some species somewhere in the galaxy - maybe something like the rachni, but bigger - will get such a headstart from this they'll quickly whipe out all the current races. It's like Dinosaurs ASKING for the meteorite to strike in hopes that it will turn them into mamals.

Modifié par Rasofe, 22 novembre 2013 - 03:49 .

[SwobyJ]

I have a feeling that while Shepard's perspective is more Destroy oriented for most of the journey (but slowly broadens in ways over time), the future of Mass Effect will bring a spectrum of moral choices that don't necessarily need to fit a human-male-soldier frame.

[Rasofe]

Well, the Mass Effect trilogy is more of a primary concern for me than possible or impossible sequels. It's really a shame that Shepard chosing Control in the end feels somewhat inconsistent (but hey, at least it's better than not being able to kill the Leviathans or act like they're a potential Reaper ally), that's really a result of the writers treating Shepard like THEIR character instead of ours in ME3.

I mean, say what you will about Cerberus, if I had a choice about it I would stick with them. Rule number one to fighting darkness: don't take out the candles out of an already poorly lit room. When Shepard, Miranda and Jacob left Cerberus there was really no one around to resist the Illusive Man's machinations; Cerberus was an independently organised group of groups in ME2, but the Illusive Man turned it into a private army complete with brainwashing and a war machine by ME3.

Modifié par Rasofe, 22 novembre 2013 - 03:57 .

[Obadiah]

Here's one way the cycles may be progressing to more cooperation.

The advancement of each race does not start at the beginning of each Reaper cycle, it starts on the evolution of the planet that the race is born of, millions and billions of years in the past. If planets with more aggressive species within their biosphere produce sentients that become advanced and dominant faster in the galaxy, they will be wiped out by the Reaper cycles first, leaving the less aggressive, more cooperative species to rise over time.

It's like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs on Earth, leaving a land where primates could rise.

Which would lead to the current MEU cycle where the most "advanced" species, the Asari, is the one that "dominates" through cooperation. And the Synthetics they create would perhaps be more prone to cooperation.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Obadiah wrote...

Here's one way the cycles may be progressing to more cooperation.

The advancement of each race does not start at the beginning of each Reaper cycle, it starts on the evolution of the planet that the race is born of, millions and billions of years in the past. If planets with more aggressive species within their biosphere produce sentients that become advanced and dominant faster in the galaxy, they will be wiped out by the Reaper cycles first, leaving the less aggressive, more cooperative species to rise over time.

It's like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs on Earth, leaving a land where primates could rise.

Which would lead to the current MEU cycle where the most "advanced" species, the Asari, is the one that "dominates" through cooperation. And the Synthetics they create would perhaps be more prone to cooperation.

Except that the cycle right before ours was dominated by a single race (the protheans). Not sure how much we know about the one before theirs, but I remember that one of the planets in ME2 was described as having been the site of a war between the inusannon (whom Javik mentions as coming from a cycle before the protheans) and another alien race. So the inusannon may not have had the same pervasive control over the galaxy that the protheans had -- remember that the protheans' hegemony was so extensive that other species started calling themselves 'prothean' and this cycle's historians were none the wiser.

As for the coils, I think it's an interesting idea, but I'm still not sure it answers the question of "why would this cycle be special" given that there have been thousands in the past. Seems like we're still talking about this cycle just happening to hit exactly the right balance for some reason, in which case we might as well just rely on the in-game explanation that nobody got far enough with designing, modifying, and building the Crucible until now.

[Rasofe]

@Obediah
It's possible the mechanic behind this is in fact that previous cycles had races whose dominance was unquestioned. Without even matches, one race could take over the other with little difficulty.
There's less development of superior strength or cooperative diplomacy when the challenges are much weaker.
Eventually, especially in the current cycles, the species have finally become so even that they can challenge each other to the point that peace is preferrable to war. They are both more dominant and more cooperative than the Protheans or any other species before them, even the god-like Leviathan's who's only power was over slaves. Modern races have power over equals, which is much greater.
The fulcrum still lies on humanity. What kind of species they are is the question the game asks by handing you control of Shepard's decisions.
But it all comes down to the theme, and its motif. One of the two is superior - cooperation or domination. Which do you believe is better, and why? The answer should be in the form of your favourite Shepard.

@Squirrel
That's a valid point, but it can be explained. The pattern could be oscillatory. More cooperative or more dominant in different stages. Still, the Protheans form of "serfdom" is more cooperative than the Leviathans... and the Inusannon we don't know much about.

Like I said, it's necessary to make some assumptions, the one concerned here is the fourth one: that the bits between Protheans and Leviathans contains a pattern. It helps the ending a lot when there's a pattern at least similar to something relevant to Shepard. The in-game explanation doesn't involve Shepard thematically.

Modifié par Rasofe, 27 novembre 2013 - 08:24 .

[Wayning_Star]

IF, the reapers had anything to do with the extinction, then those that 'went the way' via reaperships, then they're not extinct. Even if the history books looks at it another way, the writers of that history don't know the whole story.

(like now, here on old earth, only ... different

[Rasofe]

Wayning_Star wrote...

IF, the reapers had anything to do with the extinction, then those that 'went the way' via reaperships, then they're not extinct. Even if the history books looks at it another way, the writers of that history don't know the whole story.

(like now, here on old earth, only ... different

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

[Wayning_Star]

Rasofe wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

IF, the reapers had anything to do with the extinction, then those that 'went the way' via reaperships, then they're not extinct. Even if the history books looks at it another way, the writers of that history don't know the whole story.

(like now, here on old earth, only ... different

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

About history being some times misrepresented in print and lore. The story codex leaves much to be desired, but then, that's probably by design. One of those is extinctions of races over the many years. Apparently they weren't completely eradicated. They were harvested, so their original forms were technically gone, but even the story relates to some form of reinvention/restoration. So the term extinction probably doesn't apply, does it? The machine people were 'gone' as their original race goes, but they remain and not extinct, once folks realized they still existed.

jus say'n , any theory regarding such extinctions is rendered moot.

[Rasofe]

You're saying the Protheans can't be considered extinct because the Collectors still existed?
Or that Reapers turning all species into paste to turn into Reapers doesn't constitute civilisation eradication?
What benefit would it do for Bioware to declare the in-game statements about extinctions completely non-canon... and I don't mean "here's a live prothean!" but "here's a live Innusanon colony, guess the Reapers missed it"? It doesn't add anything thematically to the current trilogy.

Modifié par Rasofe, 27 novembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[Obadiah]

Rasofe wrote...

@Obediah
It's possible the mechanic behind this is in fact that previous cycles had races whose dominance was unquestioned. Without even matches, one race could take over the other with little difficulty.
...

Ok, so how about this for "competition"? 

The races prone to develop faster (irrespective of aggression) rose to power in the earlier cycles and were wiped out. This left the mix of races in the galaxy developing at a more equal pace. Over time, as the faster developing races (and therefore more prone to dominate their cycle) were wiped out at the end of the Reaper cycles, the mix of races left were developing at a more and more equal rate, until our cycle, where several races rose to power at the same time. Dominance by one race was not achieved, and the competition between the races made each race, along with the entire cycle more powerful.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rasofe wrote...

The original Leviathans were quite possibly the most dominative race in the whole timespan of MEU. Forget the imperialistic Protheans or even humanity - we're talking a race that considers itself deities, "the apex race", and perhaps at some point rightfully so. But those same qualities eventually made them easy prey to the Reaper extinctions. The Leviathans weren't even aware that the Catalyst was about to eradicate them, and their mercilessness clearley transferred into the Catalysts own methodology. The Protheans eventually uniformed to exactly the same social and military structure, and they too stood no chance, but clearly the Protheans were not nearly as dominational or ruthless as the Leviathans... and possibly no other cycle between them.

I'm struggling with the bolded part. Protheans didn't have the ability to enthrall other species like Leviathan did, which makes them less dominant only by default. I wouldn't chalk this up to the cycles (coils, whatever you want to call them). If the Protheans had such an abiltiy, who is to say they wouldn't utilize it and be "as bad" as the Leviathan(s) were?

And they had almost solved the problem posed by synthetics by uniting all organic life in the Metacon War.

The problem of synthetics that the Catalyst is concerned with is not "solved" by destroying them -- that is merely kicking the can down the road. What the Catalyst needs is an "equilibrium" state whereby synthetics cannot surpass organics.

If it's true that we can expect the cycles to have led to a steady evolution from dominative to cooperative society, we can instead consider them the coils of a spiral towards a resolution.

Again, there's simply not enough data to back this claim.

1.) Leviathan's cycle -- dominant.
2 --> x.) ???
x+1.) Protheans, ~ not as bad as Leviathan, and maybe(?) not as bad as the previous ones.
x+2.) Current cycle, cooperative. Woohoo, we made it!

I would dispute the idea that the cycles have anything to do with our current society's cooperative structure. It was the genophage that allowed this. Without it, the krogan would have been this cycle's Protheans. Their society promotes the very same values that Javik indicates the Protheans did -- namely, the belief that the strong "deserve" to dominate.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 28 novembre 2013 - 04:58 .

[Rasofe]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

The original Leviathans were quite possibly the most dominative race in the whole timespan of MEU. Forget the imperialistic Protheans or even humanity - we're talking a race that considers itself deities, "the apex race", and perhaps at some point rightfully so. But those same qualities eventually made them easy prey to the Reaper extinctions. The Leviathans weren't even aware that the Catalyst was about to eradicate them, and their mercilessness clearley transferred into the Catalysts own methodology. The Protheans eventually uniformed to exactly the same social and military structure, and they too stood no chance, but clearly the Protheans were not nearly as dominational or ruthless as the Leviathans... and possibly no other cycle between them.

I'm struggling with the bolded part. Protheans didn't have the ability to enthrall other species like Leviathan did, which makes them less dominant only by default. I wouldn't chalk this up to the cycles (coils, whatever you want to call them). If the Protheans had such an abiltiy, who is to say they wouldn't utilize it and be "as bad" as the Leviathan(s) were?

And they had almost solved the problem posed by synthetics by uniting all organic life in the Metacon War.

The problem of synthetics that the Catalyst is concerned with is not "solved" by destroying them -- that is merely kicking the can down the road. What the Catalyst needs is an "equilibrium" state whereby synthetics cannot surpass organics.

If it's true that we can expect the cycles to have led to a steady evolution from dominative to cooperative society, we can instead consider them the coils of a spiral towards a resolution.

Again, there's simply not enough data to back this claim.

1.) Leviathan's cycle -- dominant.
2 --> x.) ???
x+1.) Protheans, ~ not as bad as Leviathan, and maybe(?) not as bad as the previous ones.
x+2.) Current cycle, cooperative. Woohoo, we made it!

I would dispute the idea that the cycles have anything to do with our current society's cooperative structure. It was the genophage that allowed this. Without it, the krogan would have been this cycle's Protheans. Their society promotes the very same values that Javik indicates the Protheans did -- namely, the belief that the strong "deserve" to dominate.

Well, first of all a lot of societal models have a very fundamental basis in their species biological ability. The Leviathans were able to enthrall species, and IF the Protheans were able to do so they would possibly be indestinguishable from Leviathans. So what we really should be looking at is how evolution has unintentionally created less and less lopsidedness in the galaxy, both between organics and other organics as well as organics and synthetics.
Because or additionally to) the organics have become more equal to each other, they have become strong enough to match their synthetics. And synthetics created now aren't like the Catalyst - insane and ruthless - but rather tortured entities who seem at odds with their purpose in existance.

If organics are able to destroy synthetics, then the "inevitable" machines will always destroy organics predicament the Leviathans had tasked the Catalyst to solve becomes solved. Not the way the Catalyst would want, but still.

Things like the genophage, the rachni, and the Asari's uplift are all contributing factors that have been unintentional side-effects of the Reapers' harvesting every cycle. They're all part of the big picture and why in the modern coil, societies have learned that using brute-force domination results in pain for everyone and cooperational peace is preferrable - still the cycle is poised to an equilibrium with a formidable power for all parties, and with humanity deciding whether total domination or total cooperation is what will defeat the Reapers.

My point is, that if Bioware adds supplemental data to make the interpolation more valid, the ME3 endings become thematically significant and connect with the main protagonist. Indoctrination Theory had less evidence than this, and it wasn't even thematically beneficial.

Obadiah wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

@Obediah
It's possible the mechanic behind this is in fact that previous cycles had races whose dominance was unquestioned. Without even matches, one race could take over the other with little difficulty.
...

Ok, so how about this for "competition"? 

The races prone to develop faster (irrespective of aggression) rose to power in the earlier cycles and were wiped out. This left the mix of races in the galaxy developing at a more equal pace. Over time, as the faster developing races (and therefore more prone to dominate their cycle) were wiped out at the end of the Reaper cycles, the mix of races left were developing at a more and more equal rate, until our cycle, where several races rose to power at the same time. Dominance by one race was not achieved, and the competition between the races made each race, along with the entire cycle more powerful.

That seems a reasonable mechanic. I'm not an expert on evolutionary morphology though. I'm a physicist.

Modifié par Rasofe, 28 novembre 2013 - 02:01 .

[Rasofe]

I'm still a little curious whether you guys - the players - preferred domination or cooperation to your approach with your favourite Shepard, how and for what reasons? It's a nice thematic discussion on character development.

Modifié par Rasofe, 28 novembre 2013 - 02:04 .

[SwobyJ]

Rasofe wrote...

I'm still a little curious whether you guys - the players - preferred domination or cooperation to your approach with your favourite Shepard, how and for what reasons? It's a nice thematic discussion on character development.

I was a Paragade mix on my MainShep, like I guess so many other players, but oh well

-Largely cooperation with allies of all sorts, unless they REALLY crossed the line
-Usually tried to first figure out a deal with enemies, to minimize fighting (I'd be really glad to NOT play a 'soldier' in the next Mass Effect...sigh)
-If that didn't work though, I'd normally not bother trying to urge their minds/systems to follow me or at least stand down; That's a big part of me picking Destroy over Control

I'm not big on Domination for my MainShep, but he does use the actual ability (ha) as his bonus power . I have no issue with using forms of mind control in combat, but when it settles down, I despise the idea of mind control during breaks in fighting/peacetime.

[hot_heart]

Rasofe wrote...

I'm still a little curious whether you guys - the players - preferred domination or cooperation to your approach with your favourite Shepard, how and for what reasons? It's a nice thematic discussion on character development.

My Shepard was Dale Carnegie of the Future.

[Rasofe]

SwobyJ wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

I'm still a little curious whether you guys - the players - preferred domination or cooperation to your approach with your favourite Shepard, how and for what reasons? It's a nice thematic discussion on character development.

I was a Paragade mix on my MainShep, like I guess so many other players, but oh well

-Largely cooperation with allies of all sorts, unless they REALLY crossed the line
-Usually tried to first figure out a deal with enemies, to minimize fighting (I'd be really glad to NOT play a 'soldier' in the next Mass Effect...sigh)
-If that didn't work though, I'd normally not bother trying to urge their minds/systems to follow me or at least stand down; That's a big part of me picking Destroy over Control

I'm not big on Domination for my MainShep, but he does use the actual ability (ha) as his bonus power . I have no issue with using forms of mind control in combat, but when it settles down, I despise the idea of mind control during breaks in fighting/peacetime.

Which kind of species were most commonly allies? Turians and Krogan in my case.
Yours sounds more like Paragon or maybe Renegon. I consider my guy Paragade because his long term intentions were the supremacy of mankind but he doesn't shirk away from helping allies just because they might be competition (Genophage, Quarian - Geth alliance (even though temporary since I pick destroy), much respect for the Turians). He left the Council to because he was tired of what they were doing to him and blamed them for the entire mess, he eliminated the Rachni because of how alien they were and saved everyone on Feros because of his compassion for colonists.
In the end it's about cooperating with some, dominating the rest for him. Destroy works for him in the end because he's also uncompromising and never makes sacrifices, which includes his own life.
Basically, the means justify the ends.

@hotheart
Who is that?

Modifié par Rasofe, 28 novembre 2013 - 08:55 .

[hot_heart]

You have the internet, come on!

In short, he's the author of How To Win Friends And Influence People.

[Rasofe]

Damn, I've got to read that, sounds like a groundbreaker.
You're saying your Shepard adapted to the MEU so that it would adapt back to him?