876 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

txgoldrush wrote...
Still not genocide due to the fact that the Reapers are trying to preserve species and their knowledge, not wipe them out.

And yet they're wiped out just the same. What the catalyst considers preservation doesn't matter. If you kill an entire species and use their genetic material and data to create something else, that species is now defunct. It no longer exists, even if the collected knowledge and genetic material remains.

Bombing towns and killing people that are resisting is not genocide, its war. Would you call US bombing of Japan in WWII genocide? No.

This is a false comparison, but you're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the resistance is simply a result of the reapers' attempts to kill everyone. Naturally, there would always be resistance against an invading force, but if that force is trying to render the entire population extinct, whether or not it's met with resistance does not, in any way, change the fact that this is genocide. War simply means armed conflict between two nations or states. If two countries are at war, and one country uses a WMD that effectively wipes out the entirety of the other country's population, that's still genocide. You cannot compare the destruction of a single military installation to entire planets.

You are really not getting it. What the Catalyst is doing is twisted and gross, but it isn't genocide. In fact, he is arguing against it, that they do not wipe civs out but preserve them before they are wiped out.

I guess the problem here is that I'm supposed to take its definition of "preservation" as valid, and I do not. Every species entirely reduced into a reaper is dead as dead can be.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Still not genocide due to the fact that the Reapers are trying to preserve species and their knowledge, not wipe them out.

a) And yet they're wiped out just the same. What the catalyst considers preservation doesn't matter. If you kill an entire species and use their genetic material and data to create something else, that species is now defunct. It no longer exists, even if the collected knowledge and genetic material remains.

Bombing towns and killing people that are resisting is not genocide, its war. Would you call US bombing of Japan in WWII genocide? No.

This is a false comparison, but you're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the resistance is simply a result of the reapers' attempts to kill everyone. Naturally, there would always be resistance against an invading force, but if that force is trying to render the entire population extinct, whether or not it's met with resistance does not, in any way, change the fact that this is genocide. War simply means armed conflict between two nations or states. If two countries are at war, and one country uses a WMD that effectively wipes out the entirety of the other country's population, that's still genocide. You cannot compare the destruction of a single military installation to entire planets.

You are really not getting it. What the Catalyst is doing is twisted and gross, but it isn't genocide. In fact, he is arguing against it, that they do not wipe civs out but preserve them before they are wiped out.

I guess the problem here is that I'm supposed to take its definition of "preservation" as valid, and I do not.

Doesn't change the fact that the Catalyst does not view it as genocide. You are still not getting his logic. of course Shepard would argue differently, that by his cycle, he is destroying those species, but simply put, that's not the logic of the Catalyst. He has no "intent to destroy"

[KaiserShep]

The way I see it, if a being is incapable of seeing the connection between higher purpose and the gruesome nature of that purposes' fulfillment, then it doesn't really deserve to live, and so it meets a fitting end.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:38 .

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

No, I get its logic; I simply consider it broken, and why I find satisfaction in killing it.

That's the point, but that does not make the narrative flawed.

In fact, Shepard points it out, not only this, proves the point Shepard makes earlier in the story that the Reapers do not understand organic life and what makes it special to us....the "we will face our enemy together' scene for instance.

That's the whole conflict between Shepard and the reapers, and the Catalysts logic being opposed by Shepard follows the logic of the narrative.

The story is NOT about the conflict between organics and synthetics, that's only a context., but this board, well most of it, doesn't seem to get this.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:39 .

[KaiserShep]

I never said anything about the flawed narrative.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:40 .

[txgoldrush]

KaiserShep wrote...

I never said anything about the flawed narrative.

But many posters here on these boards time and time again have. My posts are more than just a reply to you.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:41 .

[durasteel]

txgoldrush wrote...
That's the point, but that does not make the narrative flawed.

In fact, Shepard points it out, not only this, proves the point Shepard makes earlier in the story that the Reapers do not understand organic life and what makes it special to us....the "we will face our enemy together' scene for instance.

That's the whole conflict between Shepard and the reapers, and the Catalysts logic being opposed by Shepard follows the logic of the narrative.

The story is NOT about the conflict between organics and synthetics, that's only a context., but this board, well most of it, doesn't seem to get this.

You've spun yourself up and taken yourself for a ride. No, Tex, that isn't the whole conflict between Shep and the Reapers. That is the gross flaw in the narrative you dismissed a few posts back--the conflict is derailed in its entirety in the last few minutes of the game.

The conflict is a very concrete, visceral one. They are set up us the bomb, and we don't want that. We want to survive, period. They want to kill us, period. That's the conflict.

Organics vs. synthetics isn't the context of that conflict--it has nothing whatsoever to do with it, in fact. If the enemy were an ancient race of giant psychic space cockroaches, the conflict would be exactly the same right up until "Hi, I'm a star child reaper god."

Organics vs. synthetics was the theme of a side plot that was resolved on Rannoch. Notice that it was resolved. That conflict, which was a side plot, had been entirely wrapped up (and quite well, thanks Mr. Weekes.) 

Once you reach the catalyst, though, your basic, visceral survival conflict is just over. It isn't resolved, it's just done. The struggle of humanity and all the other races of the galaxy to survive is still going on out there, but it just really doesn't seem to matter any more. Now we have a whole new conflict, the clash of belief systems between Shepard and the Catalyst.

Derailing the visceral conflict and replacing it with a cerebral dispute would be bad enough by itself, but what makes it truly excremental in this instance is that this cerebral dispute is altogether one-sided. Shepard is beat to hell and barely conscious, and might as well just grunt "Whatever" in response to the catalyst's manifesto. There is no meaningful participation by Shepard, much less by the player.

Shepard fights for stuff--that's who Shepard is. Fight for the lost, fight for Earth, fight for your crew... Shepard is a fighter. Now, at the end of all things, Shepard isn't allowed to fight. He can't fight physically to defeat an enemy like Saren and save the Citadel, and he can't fight with reason, persuasion, or threats like he can in the Quarian admiralty court. No, all Shepard can do at this point is recieve the stupid choices and pick one.

That's right, you don't do anything at all--you can't do anything at all--to resolve the issue which (suprise!) has entirely replaced the fight for survival. You, Shepard, cannot fight this battle. You, Shepard, cannot solve this problem. There are three pre-packaged outcomes, none of which make any damn sense, and you simply pick one. Game over.

Think about that for a minute. What does blowing up a red propane tank have to do with synthetics or organics or reapers or any damn thing at all? What does sticking a penny in a blue light socket have to do with any of that stuff, either? Even if you buy that it somehow makes you a cyber-god, Shepard never wanted to be one, and made some rather convincing arguments about 10 minutes ago that it would be a stupid idea. I'm not even gonna talk about the green lazer beam, zomg. Each of those "actions" exist and function only as a way to choose the color-coded option presented by the catalyst, and only bring about results because the catalyst says so.

We have, as Shepard's player, solved countless problems through gameplay. Shoot creeps, persuade people, open doors, run fast, figure out puzzles, etc. Sometimes at the end of a gameplay sequence, we get to make a decision, but while that might advance the story and set up the terms of a future conflict, before we reach that decision we have resolved the conflict for that bit of the game. You get to determine the fate of the Rachni queen, for example, after you've already neutralized the threat. What the end of ME3 does--at the culmination of the entire Shepard saga--is to throw all semblance of gameplay out the window and replace it with the worst "choose your own adventure" wrap-up imaginable.

So, no. It's not "the whole conflict" and it doesn't remotely follow "the logic of the narrative." You're just wrong.

Modifié par durasteel, 09 décembre 2013 - 06:35 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

I never said anything about the flawed narrative.

But many posters here on these boards time and time again have. My posts are more than just a reply to you.

Yes, because the narrative is flawed, despite your rather liberal interpretation of 'multiple valid interpretations' or whatever the devs said about the ending.

Any way back to the dark energy stuff. Does any one think this plot will be brought up during the course of ME4?

[AlanC9]

Sure, why not? Reaper war's over, so someday someone's going to have to look into it.

[Nitrocuban]

durasteel wrote...
Organics vs. synthetics was the theme of a side plot that was resolved on Rannoch. Notice that it was resolved.

Was it?
Wrex getting along with Mordin does not solve the Krogan/Salarian conflict
The only conflict solved on Rannoch was Geth vs. Quarians and that not even for good as nobody knows what the Geth might become when they build their Dyson Sphere thingy. Some synthetics will rebel sooner or later.
And that is pretty much what the Catalyst tells us. 

[txgoldrush]

durasteel wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
That's the point, but that does not make the narrative flawed.

In fact, Shepard points it out, not only this, proves the point Shepard makes earlier in the story that the Reapers do not understand organic life and what makes it special to us....the "we will face our enemy together' scene for instance.

That's the whole conflict between Shepard and the reapers, and the Catalysts logic being opposed by Shepard follows the logic of the narrative.

The story is NOT about the conflict between organics and synthetics, that's only a context., but this board, well most of it, doesn't seem to get this.

You've spun yourself up and taken yourself for a ride. No, Tex, that isn't the whole conflict between Shep and the Reapers. That is the gross flaw in the narrative you dismissed a few posts back--the conflict is derailed in its entirety in the last few minutes of the game.

The conflict is a very concrete, visceral one. They are set up us the bomb, and we don't want that. We want to survive, period. They want to kill us, period. That's the conflict.

Organics vs. synthetics isn't the context of that conflict--it has nothing whatsoever to do with it, in fact. If the enemy were an ancient race of giant psychic space cockroaches, the conflict would be exactly the same right up until "Hi, I'm a star child reaper god."

Organics vs. synthetics was the theme of a side plot that was resolved on Rannoch. Notice that it was resolved. That conflict, which was a side plot, had been entirely wrapped up (and quite well, thanks Mr. Weekes.) 

Once you reach the catalyst, though, your basic, visceral survival conflict is just over. It isn't resolved, it's just done. The struggle of humanity and all the other races of the galaxy to survive is still going on out there, but it just really doesn't seem to matter any more. Now we have a whole new conflict, the clash of belief systems between Shepard and the Catalyst.

Derailing the visceral conflict and replacing it with a cerebral dispute would be bad enough by itself, but what makes it truly excremental in this instance is that this cerebral dispute is altogether one-sided. Shepard is beat to hell and barely conscious, and might as well just grunt "Whatever" in response to the catalyst's manifesto. There is no meaningful participation by Shepard, much less by the player.

Shepard fights for stuff--that's who Shepard is. Fight for the lost, fight for Earth, fight for your crew... Shepard is a fighter. Now, at the end of all things, Shepard isn't allowed to fight. He can't fight physically to defeat an enemy like Saren and save the Citadel, and he can't fight with reason, persuasion, or threats like he can in the Quarian admiralty court. No, all Shepard can do at this point is recieve the stupid choices and pick one.

That's right, you don't do anything at all--you can't do anything at all--to resolve the issue which (suprise!) has entirely replaced the fight for survival. You, Shepard, cannot fight this battle. You, Shepard, cannot solve this problem. There are three pre-packaged outcomes, none of which make any damn sense, and you simply pick one. Game over.

Think about that for a minute. What does blowing up a red propane tank have to do with synthetics or organics or reapers or any damn thing at all? What does sticking a penny in a blue light socket have to do with any of that stuff, either? Even if you buy that it somehow makes you a cyber-god, Shepard never wanted to be one, and made some rather convincing arguments about 10 minutes ago that it would be a stupid idea. I'm not even gonna talk about the green lazer beam, zomg. Each of those "actions" exist and function only as a way to choose the color-coded option presented by the catalyst, and only bring about results because the catalyst says so.

We have, as Shepard's player, solved countless problems through gameplay. Shoot creeps, persuade people, open doors, run fast, figure out puzzles, etc. Sometimes at the end of a gameplay sequence, we get to make a decision, but while that might advance the story and set up the terms of a future conflict, before we reach that decision we have resolved the conflict for that bit of the game. You get to determine the fate of the Rachni queen, for example, after you've already neutralized the threat. What the end of ME3 does--at the culmination of the entire Shepard saga--is to throw all semblance of gameplay out the window and replace it with the worst "choose your own adventure" wrap-up imaginable.

So, no. It's not "the whole conflict" and it doesn't remotely follow "the logic of the narrative." You're just wrong.

Pretty much you write the entire paragraph, but you failed to get it.

First off, there is nothing new to the belief systems of the Reapers and Shepard from all throughout the game to the finale. In fact, the Catalyst just reinforced Shepards view of the Reapers all throughout ME3 that the Reapers do not understand organic life. Shepard certainly has this belief when confronting the Rannoch Reaper. He certainly has this belief when he talks to the crew before the final push to the beam. Its there all throughout, not just in the last 5 minutes. You were not paying attention.

And no, organics vs synthetics was not resolved on Rannoch. Why? Because the human held the gun to the organics to force them into peace. They did not find it on their own, and doubts linger afterward. Pay more attention to the characters. Without Shepard, the geth and the quarians would have destroyed eachother, even Tali and Legion would have. That's no proof. And really, the Catalyst's motive doesn't matter, its a conflict of methods. Who cares if he is wrong or right, its the methods that we oppose no matter what.

And third, the conflict is pretty much resolved BEFORE you meet the Catalyst, when you connect the Crucible to the Citadel.  That's why the Catalyst sidesteps Shepards argument against him, because his solution doesn't work anymore because the Crucible gave him new options. But this does not mean you didn't have a conflict with him all throughout the game. He is the embodiment of all Reapers. Connect the dots here. And the biggest reason why he "lost" is that he didn't understand organic life to know that they would pass down the Crucible and that the Crucible plans weren't eradicated and that he did not know how hard the organics would fight back, hard enough to reassess his options through the crucible. Connect the dots. The "clearly organics are more resourceful than we realize" is a huge line and telling of his lack of understanding of organics.

What goes on in the ending is a stalemate. Shepard cannot defeat the Reapers and end the cycle without the Crucible, and the Catalyst cannot enact new solutions without Shepard. They are at an impasse where both need the other to enact a new solution. The conflict is over, it was over before meeting the Catalyst, its resolution time. The elements in the conflict still do linger with the Catalyst and he does show signs of him not understanding organic life, such as not really understanding Shepards reaction or even opposition to synthesis, but the conflict itself Is over before the elevator ride up.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So...when did Shepard have a different fate throughout the entire series? Outside of the off chance you royaly mess up the suicide mission in two, it is impossible to claim it so.

The story wasn't done yet.  Just like the Warden's story doesn't end at the end of DAO.

The problem is you are confusing narrative for plot. What is really dictating Shepard's death is necessity, not choice. The plot said he had to die in this (making him Walter White minus the drugs or depressing pathos) or else the thematic elements of the plot overall make no sense for the character.

No, Shepard's death was not necessary.  the thematic elements (lame though they were) were brought across just fine in the rest of the game.  The plot doesn't say Shepard has to die.  The plot says Shepard can die.  Mac Walters says Shepard had to die.

And to be clear, there is only one story that spans the three games. If there wasn't, then we would be playing Skyrim at this point.

Reductio ad absurdum.  I am not talking about a sandbox game.  DAO proves you can have an RPG where the protagonist can live or die without screwing up the story.

Similarly Baldur's Gate 2 can have the Bhaalspawn shed his/her physical form and become a god (for good or evil), or remain a mortal (control or destroy, you might say)

You have agency in what the characters do, yes, but  you don't fully own them though. You never did either, and once again, outside of power fantasy RPG's like Skyrim, you never will. That is the only way to ensure a story-based game tells an actual story, its a hybrid of a game that BioWare has been doing since Baldur's Gate, and most of the great RPG's have done for years, like Planescape Torment and Betrayal at Krondor.

Then Bioware should stop saying things like "these are your Shepards" "You are the Inquisitor" and such.

I should also point out, I can only name one game where you have numerous fates unfold on you done by BioWare, and it's Dragon Age Origins with a whopping three. Three different ways, with multiple variants, as to what happens to your Warden. Either you make a sacrifie, you don't, or you perform the ritual. No other BioWare game has ever deviated from the ploy to the point where it actually changes based on it. Characters dying? narrative decision. Light/Dark morality? Narrative flavor. Choices and consequences, always an illusion.

Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal

You refuse the Bhaal essence and remain a mortal
You accept the essence and become a god of Good
You accept the essence and become a god of Evil

Plus extra details based on whom if anyone you romanced

Jade Empire:   whether or not you romanced Silk Fox alters thing a lot.

Funny thing about live characters, and particularly DAO, a live Warden can talk about what they want to do next.  One could say the Warden gets as many fates as a player can imagine happening.  While a dead character is...dead.

The Bhaalspawn however is a railroad choice that changes nothing in the plot.  You described the narrative choice. The plot point is that you HAVE to make that choice once you get there. Being a god or a mortal doesn't effect the plot much, just the flavor of the narrative for the coda . The extra details are narrative aspects as well. This is why Dragon Age: Orgins is the only real answer I would give you, because there are effects to that narrative, albiet many are unforseen at this time because were only two games in what could be a long series of connected stories.

There is also a reason why BioWare keeps saying these things, mind you. Partially due to PR, partially due to the visage of what the players, once again, expect from them. It's all about maintaining an illusion of choice. Mass Effect 3 is similar to Dragon Age 2 in that regard where the illusion is not there, it's much more open and honest about their intentions. Both titles are proof that the perception of choice is more important than the choices themselves, hence titles like Baldur's Gate 2, which is pretty much in the same vein in terms of choice and consequences. 

This is where it differentiates. The choices you have to make lead to a change in the outcome, which in turn changes the context of the narrative, but not the plot. The plot point that is important to note for Mass Effect 3 is that in the three main endings, the reapers die, and Shepard sacrifices themself to kill them. Refuse is the anomoly, since you, the player, lose first in the grand scheme of thigns, but the Reapers still lose and Shepard still dies, so it is technically the same as the other three, just reversed. 

You can argue,  how the plot says Shepard can or can't die in the end, but keep in mind he HAD to die once before due to the plot already. There is very little wiggle room that would suggest Shepard could avoid death, based on how the story of the game goes in the end though. The game can have it, but now the question is not whether or not it can, but should it. Thematically, it can go either way, but it's kind of a moot point based on how the endings play out, except for destroy. 

Which does bring us full circle I guess back to the breath scene.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 09 décembre 2013 - 08:54 .

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...
Organics vs. synthetics was the theme of a side plot that was resolved on Rannoch. Notice that it was resolved.

Yeah I don't agree with that at all. A lot of Mass Effect has a foundation on synthetic/organic dynamics, and we see a lot of plot elements slowly build to this consensus. Certain characters like Saren and EDI are literally tied to the Organic/Synthetic conflict and wouldn't exist if it wasn't a part of the main plot. And Rannoch is an interesting case because it can be resolved, but it is certainly an alliance of necessity between the two, one that may still erupt again. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 09 décembre 2013 - 08:59 .

[KaiserShep]

LinksOcarina wrote...

durasteel wrote...
Organics vs. synthetics was the theme of a side plot that was resolved on Rannoch. Notice that it was resolved.

Yeah I don't agree with that at all. A lot of Mass Effect has a foundation on synthetic/organic dynamics, and we see a lot of plot elements slowly build to this consensus. Certain characters like Saren and EDI are literally tied to the Organic/Synthetic conflict and wouldn't exist if it wasn't a part of the main plot. And Rannoch is an interesting case because it can be resolved, but it is certainly an alliance of necessity between the two, one that may still erupt again. 

Thing is, speculation about how long peace can last between the geth and quarians doesn't cancel out the disconnect the peace Shepard brokers between them and what the catalyst tells you. Basically, this relies solely on the assumption of the player that this is merely short term, yet the geth clearly take actions that serve for the long term benefit of the quarians. They help in the restoration process, and even go the extra mile to boost the quarians' immune systems. These things are considerable acts of good will on their part. Being an alliance of necessity does not really take away from its significance. The same is true of the turian and krogan alliance. The turians would have likely been happy enough to let the krogan die off with the genophage if they didn't need them, but once they're cooperating and serving together to fight the reapers, this can drastically change they way they see each other once the war is over. The geth and quarians shouldn't be any different.

In any case, in an optimal playthrough where peace is established, the combination of this and EDI's contribution to Shepard's fight against the Collectors and reapers punches a massive hole in the idea that synthetics and organics cannot get along. It sets a tone that doesn't quite fit with its assertions.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 09 décembre 2013 - 09:17 .

[LinksOcarina]

KaiserShep wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

durasteel wrote...
Organics vs. synthetics was the theme of a side plot that was resolved on Rannoch. Notice that it was resolved.

Yeah I don't agree with that at all. A lot of Mass Effect has a foundation on synthetic/organic dynamics, and we see a lot of plot elements slowly build to this consensus. Certain characters like Saren and EDI are literally tied to the Organic/Synthetic conflict and wouldn't exist if it wasn't a part of the main plot. And Rannoch is an interesting case because it can be resolved, but it is certainly an alliance of necessity between the two, one that may still erupt again. 

Thing is, speculation about how long peace can last between the geth and quarians doesn't cancel out the disconnect the peace Shepard brokers between them and what the catalyst tells you. Basically, this relies solely on the assumption of the player that this is merely short term, yet the geth clearly take actions that serve for the long term benefit of the quarians. They help in the restoration process, and even go the extra mile to boost the quarians' immune systems. These things are considerable acts of good will on their part. Being an alliance of necessity does not really take away from its significance. The same is true of the turian and krogan alliance. The turians would have likely been happy enough to let the krogan die off with the genophage if they didn't need them, but once they're cooperating and serving together to fight the reapers, this can drastically change they way they see each other once the war is over. The geth and quarians shouldn't be any different.

In any case, in an optimal playthrough where peace is established, the combination of this and EDI's contribution to Shepard's fight against the Collectors and reapers punches a massive hole in the idea that synthetics and organics cannot get along. It sets a tone that doesn't quite fit with its assertions.

But the caveat to that is because of Shepard it's also an anomoly, an exception to the rule.

For one, the reason for the Geth and EDI's growth in character is mostly due to reaper technology itself acting as their own form of synthesis. The organic/synthetic aspects of the Reaper allowed the Geth and EDI to transcend that level of cognicence and accept different points of view, basically.

If you recall, EDI was shouting help me in Mass Effect 1 when she awoke in Luna and was confused over malicious. The Geth were peaceful until the Quarians messed with them, and stayed peaceful until Soverign came to them. Those are simple emotions but still emotions that were incapable of comprehending the reasons "why"  organics distrusted them. You could argue that it's the organics fault that this conflict is inevitable, but for the synthetic's part, it is also due to lack of awareness as to why this is happening. That changed with the reaper tech, which allowed higher levels of thinking, attachment, emotions and "feelings" that made EDI and Legion, as the primary examples, more alive. 

Add to this Shepard's intervention in both scenarios,and you have circumstances influenced by organic action. If Shepard brokers peace between the two, its a great moment, winning a war without firing a shot. But a lot needs to happen for that to even occur, such as previous experiences with Legion and Tali being intact, influence with the organics in this case, and with Legion to allow peace instead of genocide, and as we saw with how the mission can play out, without every little detail, it can go wrong completely in a flash. Without Shepard, Tali, Legion, the reaper upgrades or other factors implemented into that moment, one group would have been destroyed and the Catalyst would have been proven right in this situation. 

You are correct it punches a hole in the Catalysts assertions, but it is also because of extreme circumstance this occurs. This being possible in two drastic measures is not really proof that the Catalyst is wrong, because its too small of a sample size to really justify that notion. You can even swing that pendulum the other way; they can get along, but there is no guarentee they will forever either. Not to mention other A.I's that awaken and go the opposite route without the reaper upgrades. 

I look at it this way. It is possible, but there is a thematic element of a cyclical rube-goldberg machine that hinges on the inevitability of this always occuring. It's like how Shepard delayed the Reapers; he does, in a way, delay the eventual conflict between Synthetics and Organics, peronified in the Geth-Quarian war for Rannoch. 

This is where we need to ask ourselves this question as well. Are we taking the game events at face value only on the results, and presuming they will stay that way for the duration of the universe were manipulating? Or is it fair to speculate that what can happen off screen or behind the scenes does, and can affect what you see, hear, or in the case of the Catalyst, believe to be an inevitable truth? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 09 décembre 2013 - 10:22 .

[AlanC9]

KaiserShep wrote...

In any case, in an optimal playthrough where peace is established, the combination of this and EDI's contribution to Shepard's fight against the Collectors and reapers punches a massive hole in the idea that synthetics and organics cannot get along. It sets a tone that doesn't quite fit with its assertions.

I know I'm coming in late here, but is it actually a problem that the Catalyst and the Reapers are wrong?

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

In any case, in an optimal playthrough where peace is established, the combination of this and EDI's contribution to Shepard's fight against the Collectors and reapers punches a massive hole in the idea that synthetics and organics cannot get along. It sets a tone that doesn't quite fit with its assertions.

I know I'm coming in late here, but is it actually a problem that the Catalyst and the Reapers are wrong?

I would say from a story telling perspective that it is because elements should generally flow together instead of contradicting each other and leaving the audience confused. Like if the writers wanted to strengthen the whole Catalyst argument they should have had Skynet and HAL; and the Reapers prioritizing targeting them instead of helping Synthetics kill Organics in the story. Instead of continuously painting Synthetics as victims and Organics as the jerks. That way when everyone got to the decision chamber they went, "Oh, ya, AIs are a problem that have to be dealth with and the Catalyst's solution fits in with the Reapers course of action."

Then again I guess they were orginally going with the whole Dark energy plot which was scrapped so they had to shoehorn in something else.

[ImaginaryMatter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

But the caveat to that is because of Shepard it's also an anomoly, an exception to the rule.

For one, the reason for the Geth and EDI's growth in character is mostly due to reaper technology itself acting as their own form of synthesis. The organic/synthetic aspects of the Reaper allowed the Geth and EDI to transcend that level of cognicence and accept different points of view, basically.

If you recall, EDI was shouting help me in Mass Effect 1 when she awoke in Luna and was confused over malicious. The Geth were peaceful until the Quarians messed with them, and stayed peaceful until Soverign came to them. Those are simple emotions but still emotions that were incapable of comprehending the reasons "why"  organics distrusted them. You could argue that it's the organics fault that this conflict is inevitable, but for the synthetic's part, it is also due to lack of awareness as to why this is happening. That changed with the reaper tech, which allowed higher levels of thinking, attachment, emotions and "feelings" that made EDI and Legion, as the primary examples, more alive. 

Add to this Shepard's intervention in both scenarios,and you have circumstances influenced by organic action. If Shepard brokers peace between the two, its a great moment, winning a war without firing a shot. But a lot needs to happen for that to even occur, such as previous experiences with Legion and Tali being intact, influence with the organics in this case, and with Legion to allow peace instead of genocide, and as we saw with how the mission can play out, without every little detail, it can go wrong completely in a flash. Without Shepard, Tali, Legion, the reaper upgrades or other factors implemented into that moment, one group would have been destroyed and the Catalyst would have been proven right in this situation. 

You are correct it punches a hole in the Catalysts assertions, but it is also because of extreme circumstance this occurs. This being possible in two drastic measures is not really proof that the Catalyst is wrong, because its too small of a sample size to really justify that notion. You can even swing that pendulum the other way; they can get along, but there is no guarentee they will forever either. Not to mention other A.I's that awaken and go the opposite route without the reaper upgrades. 

I look at it this way. It is possible, but there is a thematic element of a cyclical rube-goldberg machine that hinges on the inevitability of this always occuring. It's like how Shepard delayed the Reapers; he does, in a way, delay the eventual conflict between Synthetics and Organics, peronified in the Geth-Quarian war for Rannoch. 

No matter how the situation on Rannoch unfolds the Catalyst still backwards on things. First the Catalyst speaks of these things in absolutes, "the created will always rebel" and "Destruction is inevitable". Several instances throughout the story though undercut the Catalysts argument, this includes the Catalyst himself (Is the Catalyst rebelling?). The game has continuously shows that the Quarians have always instigated the fight with the Geth, who have otherwise always decided to live in isolation unless outside forces intervened. Despite this the Legion states the Geth believe peace is not possible only because there is no data to suggest that Organics would want to live peacefully with the Geth, the implication being that the Geth are open to the idea if only Organics would stop killing them in every instance. This plays into a larger treatment of synthetics in the game, that Synthetics are the victims in a world that is hostile towards them.

Anyway back to Rannoch. All the outcomes kinda contradict the Catalyst's version of things. If Shepard helps the robots the Quarians open fire and are finally exterminated in retalliation. Yet, the Geth the do not hold Organics in general as enemies and then proceed to ally with them against other robots; lasting peace between Synthetics and Organics is implied. If the Quarians live then it suggests that the tech singularity might not always lead to the inevitable extinction of Organics at the hands of Synthetics. And then the peace option is self-explanatory.

[HomerIsLegend]

Having a "choice" on how to go out in the end was a mistake in the first place. They obviously were intent on having Shep die at the end so why not just have him/her and Anderson's dialogue and then a few of those EC cutscenes showing victory after the crucible was engaged.

The "choices" route was way too ambitious for the ME3 crew... especially given the time they had to get the game out on schedule.

It wouldn't have made the reunioners happy, but it would have been less pretentious imo.

Modifié par HomerIsLegend, 09 décembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[KaiserShep]

AlanC9 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

In any case, in an optimal playthrough where peace is established, the combination of this and EDI's contribution to Shepard's fight against the Collectors and reapers punches a massive hole in the idea that synthetics and organics cannot get along. It sets a tone that doesn't quite fit with its assertions.

I know I'm coming in late here, but is it actually a problem that the Catalyst and the Reapers are wrong?

I don't have a problem with it, which is why I gladly destroy it. I just tend to argue against the idea that its logic is sound.

[Deathsaurer]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

No matter how the situation on Rannoch unfolds the Catalyst still backwards on things. First the Catalyst speaks of these things in absolutes, "the created will always rebel" and "Destruction is inevitable". Several instances throughout the story though undercut the Catalysts argument, this includes the Catalyst himself (Is the Catalyst rebelling?). The game has continuously shows that the Quarians have always instigated the fight with the Geth, who have otherwise always decided to live in isolation unless outside forces intervened. Despite this the Legion states the Geth believe peace is not possible only because there is no data to suggest that Organics would want to live peacefully with the Geth, the implication being that the Geth are open to the idea if only Organics would stop killing them in every instance. This plays into a larger treatment of synthetics in the game, that Synthetics are the victims in a world that is hostile towards them.

Anyway back to Rannoch. All the outcomes kinda contradict the Catalyst's version of things. If Shepard helps the robots the Quarians open fire and are finally exterminated in retalliation. Yet, the Geth the do not hold Organics in general as enemies and then proceed to ally with them against other robots; lasting peace between Synthetics and Organics is implied. If the Quarians live then it suggests that the tech singularity might not always lead to the inevitable extinction of Organics at the hands of Synthetics. And then the peace option is self-explanatory.

I don't think it ever specified what caused the intial confrontation. I always got the impression organics freaked when the robots showed them up and tried to kill them resulting in their slaughter instead. Rannoch showed the power of a fully evolved AI civilization. What happens if someone like the Batarians keeps provoking them time and time again?

[In Exile]

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the Reaper plan was not genocide....quite the opposite in a very twisted way.

The reapers plan was absolutely genocide: it was death camps and painful, mutilated death for every race sufficiently developed to maybe make AI. Even if we somehow believe that being turned into slurpee meant that you'd live forever in a kind of digital heaven, the actual number of people who get turned into slurpee vs. murdered/huskified is low. Even on this most charitable view, it's genocide. 

And that ignores the nightmare-fuel level horror that the reapers actually inflict on people, including the aforementioned death camps. 

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
I know I'm coming in late here, but is it actually a problem that the Catalyst and the Reapers are wrong?

When the game makes you choose between commiting genocide (and indirectly agreeing with them), approving of genocide, or agreeing that the Catalyst is right, yeah. 

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The Bhaalspawn however is a railroad choice that changes nothing in the plot.  You described the narrative choice. The plot point is that you HAVE to make that choice once you get there. Being a god or a mortal doesn't effect the plot much, just the flavor of the narrative for the coda . The extra details are narrative aspects as well. This is why Dragon Age: Orgins is the only real answer I would give you, because there are effects to that narrative, albiet many are unforseen at this time because were only two games in what could be a long series of connected stories.

And how is that any different than Shepard's fate?  How is Shepard dying any more or less a "narrative flavor" save Bioware saying "You get one flavor, now choke on it!"

There is also a reason why BioWare keeps saying these things, mind you. Partially due to PR, partially due to the visage of what the players, once again, expect from them. It's all about maintaining an illusion of choice. Mass Effect 3 is similar to Dragon Age 2 in that regard where the illusion is not there, it's much more open and honest about their intentions. Both titles are proof that the perception of choice is more important than the choices themselves, hence titles like Baldur's Gate 2, which is pretty much in the same vein in terms of choice and consequences.

I'd say this shows that people don't like being toyed with.  "You're screwed either way" isn't much of a choice.  That the writers didn't forsee the backlash to this is nothing short of astounding.

You can argue,  how the plot says Shepard can or can't die in the end, but keep in mind he HAD to die once before due to the plot already. There is very little wiggle room that would suggest Shepard could avoid death, based on how the story of the game goes in the end though. The game can have it, but now the question is not whether or not it can, but should it. Thematically, it can go either way, but it's kind of a moot point based on how the endings play out, except for destroy.

And Shepard dying the first time was, imo an awful bit of railroading that served no purpose but perhaps to warn us (hindsight being 20/20) that one or more writers on the Mass Effect team has an unhealthy obsession with killing player characters.

And no, there was absolutely nothing in the game that indicated Shepard must die.  Even in the final minutes with that idiotic Catalyst, there is no compelling reason why any of the "solutions" has to be lethal.  It's tragedy to force more tragedy onto an already tragic situation.