876 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

durasteel wrote...

Let me be clear: if you find the "logic" of the Catalyst scene to be consistent both internally and in the broader context of the game and trilogy, then I do, in point of fact, call your judgment into question.

Two questions: what logic in particular is suspect (not that there isn't any, but let's get to specifics) and why does the Catalyst's logic need to be consistent in a post-Leviathan/EC universe where he's no longer portrayed as the voice of God?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Redbelle wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

quick question for this thread: Is the harvest actually genocide? What does it mean for the harvested within their reaper ship prisons?

Ask yourself this..... In ME2, if you don't get through the Omega relay soon enough and Kelly get's gooed...... does she die?

Because Kelly looks like she was melted. And then her raw material slush-e-rised into other likewise gooed people.

How is that alive enough to be made part of a concious collective?

or likely that over time the gooed genetic material is allowed to rebuild itself, but not as peole but as neurological tissue in a networked hub that has core commands acting to shackle what emerge's from the Goo.

Seriously..... Those that are turned into the soft gooey centre of the Reapers are dead. What their raw material is molded into is far removed from what a human is.

Pretty much, the Reapers are basically giant refrigerators that store the material for all time. The personality of the Reaper might be flavored a bit based on the collective DNA of those stored, but any kind of individual though was destroyed when the brain was basically broken down to base components.

[durasteel]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Of the Reapers we've met one has displayed outright genocidal hostility towards organics, and both regard Reapers as the perfection of organics. Isn't it possible more Reapers feel this way than not? We simply don't know.  If so, it's gonna be a real problem using diplomacy on them.

True, but one was the original reaper made from the Leviathans (who were megalomaniacal tyrants to begin with) and the other one was the one who was responsible for monitoring the galaxy and triggering the Citadel relay when the time was right for the harvest (which is stupid and contradictory if the Catalyst AI is already on the Citadel, by the way.) Among the hundreds of other reapers, there might have been one pressed from the juice of unicorns, that shed golden honey tears every time the Catalyst made it kill someone.

Probably not, but... lots of speculation from everyone!

[durasteel]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Two questions: what logic in particular is suspect (not that there isn't any, but let's get to specifics) and why does the Catalyst's logic need to be consistent in a post-Leviathan/EC universe where he's no longer portrayed as the voice of God?

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

My problem is with the logic of the Catalyst scene, the last encounter of the game and the trilogy. The logic of blue electrodes, red pipes full of boom, and green frickin' lazer beams. The logic of star kid reaper AI things. The logic of space magic. The logic of Shepard listening to nonsensical exposition then staggering off to accept his fate.

[ImaginaryMatter]

durasteel wrote...

True, but one was the original reaper made from the Leviathans (who were megalomaniacal tyrants to begin with) and the other one was the one who was responsible for monitoring the galaxy and triggering the Citadel relay when the time was right for the harvest (which is stupid and contradictory if the Catalyst AI is already on the Citadel, by the way.) Among the hundreds of other reapers, there might have been one pressed from the juice of unicorns, that shed golden honey tears every time the Catalyst made it kill someone.

Probably not, but... lots of speculation from everyone!

Shh... don't question the Catalyst. The Reaper's thoughts are not a thing we can understand.

[dreamgazer]

durasteel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Two questions: what logic in particular is suspect (not that there isn't any, but let's get to specifics) and why does the Catalyst's logic need to be consistent in a post-Leviathan/EC universe where he's no longer portrayed as the voice of God?

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

My problem is with the logic of the Catalyst scene, the last encounter of the game and the trilogy. The logic of blue electrodes, red pipes full of boom, and green frickin' lazer beams. The logic of star kid reaper AI things. The logic of space magic. The logic of Shepard listening to nonsensical exposition then staggering off to accept his fate.

Eh, it's not as if the series has somehow been void of space magic, nonsensical last-minute exposition, and Shepard trusting freshly-met AIs.

[durasteel]

dreamgazer wrote...
Eh, it's not as if the series has somehow been void of space magic, nonsensical last-minute exposition, and Shepard trusting freshly-met AIs.

You're totally right about that, but I don't think it is a great idea to cobble together the end to the trilogy entirely out of its worst elements.

The health department establishes an acceptably safe amount of rat droppings, but that doesn't mean "rat dropping casserole" should be the blue-plate special.

Modifié par durasteel, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:13 .

[OdanUrr]

durasteel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
Two questions: what logic in particular is suspect (not that there isn't any, but let's get to specifics) and why does the Catalyst's logic need to be consistent in a post-Leviathan/EC universe where he's no longer portrayed as the voice of God?

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

My problem is with the logic of the Catalyst scene, the last encounter of the game and the trilogy. The logic of blue electrodes, red pipes full of boom, and green frickin' lazer beams. The logic of star kid reaper AI things. The logic of space magic. The logic of Shepard listening to nonsensical exposition then staggering off to accept his fate.

[AlanC9]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
There's no ending Bio's known to have considered that was any better if these are the aspects you're concerned with. The Dark Energy ending was substantially worse. Why do you think a "director's cut" would have improved these things?

Can't say I agree with this.

Provided Bioware were to scrap the Catalyst, all its idiot logic along with this idea of Shepard just being a passive observer, the dark energy (at least to a small extent) builds on some ideas which were laid out in Mass Effect 2. Prior to ME3, I remember people speculating at what role dark energy would play in the ending.

I think that works much better than "The Catalyst is a rogue AI unable to realize its error, but it's going to offer you three choices to stop it anyway when it could merely choose to stop the genocide".

The "aspects" I mention in the quote refers to the things durasteel specifically mentioned in his earlier post. No "fighting" and no "winning," as defined above, are quite true for the DE ending. I consider these aspects to be good, or at least neutral, so they don't bother me about the DE ending. My point there was only that durasteel is kidding himself if he thinks that these aspects weren't something that Bio really intended to include in the ending.

I suspect I would have personally liked the DE ending OK; I just think it would have gone over even worse than what we got. Though it would have been yet another Bio fake choice, since no way they'd actually have had the Reapers be right about the sacrifice. We would have ended up with the same debate the ITers try to suck us into, except that more people would have been on the side of "the Reapers are lying because they're the bad guys," and they'd almost certainly have been right.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:42 .

[AlanC9]

durasteel wrote...

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

It has to be provable?

[eyezonlyii]

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

It has to be provable?

Maybe not provable, but at least let Shepard argue his point. Clearly the Catalyst does not HAVE to continue he harvest becaue it tried sythesis before but the galaxy wasn't ready. 

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
...
To say my judgement is into question because you see the endings as sucking is just being a douche though. You don't even know my position, do you? 

Well, aren't we fiesty.

I don't know your position, which is why I daid "If you like..." and not "Since you like..." 

Let me be clear: if you find the "logic" of the Catalyst scene to be consistent both internally and in the broader context of the game and trilogy, then I do, in point of fact, call your judgment into question. I know quite well that you are perfectly intelligent, so my conclusion is that, in that circumstance, you must possess an insurmountable bias that clouds your judgment. If that makes me a douche, so be it... I've been called much worse by people who know me much better.

I, too, had a strong bias towards liking the game. I was--and largely still am--a huge fan of BioWare and Mass Effect. That bias was not, it turned out, insurmountable, because the end of Mass Effect 3 not only surmounted it, but then squatted and took a dump at the summit.

If that is your position, you have no say in this debate because it clouds your own perception on things. You cannot question the judgement of someone based on a subjective medium, much like you can't question wheather someone likes or dislikes something. What other people percieve or believe should have no bearing on your own.

Discussion and seeing different points of view is fine. Fanatically ignoring everyone else because of what you belive makes you pointless to talk to. Simple as that. 

[durasteel]

AlanC9 wrote...
The "aspects" I mention in the quote refers to the things durasteel specifically mentioned in his earlier post. No "fighting" and no "winning," as defined above, are quite true for the DE ending. I consider these aspects to be good, or at least neutral, so they don't bother me about the DE ending. My point there was only that durasteel is kidding himself if he thinks that these aspects weren't something that Bio really intended to include in the ending.

I suspect I would have personally liked the DE ending OK; I just think it would have gone over even worse than what we got. Though it would have been yet another Bio fake choice, since no way they'd actually have had the Reapers be right about the sacrifice. We would have ended up with the same debate the ITers try to suck us into, except that more people would have been on the side of "the Reapers are lying because they're the bad guys," and they'd almost certainly have been right.

It is difficult to talk about the ending we got or the possible Dark Energy ending in the context of what "BioWare really intended." The former was thrown together at the last minute, and the latter never got past the most basic of concepts. Neither can be taken as a solid representation of intent, because I suspect that BioWare originally intended to take the time to create and polish an ending that would have done justice to the game, the character, and the trilogy.

My guess would be that one of the reasons the DE concept was set aside was that it would have required a lot of work refining it into something coherent, whereas "synthetics will always rebel and try to destroy their creators" was an idea that you could just state as fact (despite any and all evidence to the contrary) and then hand-wave your way around. I guess a simple hot mess was easier to get onto the page than a complicated hot mess.

[Argentoid]

eyezonlyii wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

It has to be provable?

Maybe not provable, but at least let Shepard argue his point. Clearly the Catalyst does not HAVE to continue he harvest becaue it tried sythesis before but the galaxy wasn't ready. 

He didn't try synthesis. He tried "a different solution in the past". That solution, as far as I understood, it was in fact the Reapers.

[LinksOcarina]

durasteel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The "aspects" I mention in the quote refers to the things durasteel specifically mentioned in his earlier post. No "fighting" and no "winning," as defined above, are quite true for the DE ending. I consider these aspects to be good, or at least neutral, so they don't bother me about the DE ending. My point there was only that durasteel is kidding himself if he thinks that these aspects weren't something that Bio really intended to include in the ending.

I suspect I would have personally liked the DE ending OK; I just think it would have gone over even worse than what we got. Though it would have been yet another Bio fake choice, since no way they'd actually have had the Reapers be right about the sacrifice. We would have ended up with the same debate the ITers try to suck us into, except that more people would have been on the side of "the Reapers are lying because they're the bad guys," and they'd almost certainly have been right.

It is difficult to talk about the ending we got or the possible Dark Energy ending in the context of what "BioWare really intended." The former was thrown together at the last minute, and the latter never got past the most basic of concepts. Neither can be taken as a solid representation of intent, because I suspect that BioWare originally intended to take the time to create and polish an ending that would have done justice to the game, the character, and the trilogy.

My guess would be that one of the reasons the DE concept was set aside was that it would have required a lot of work refining it into something coherent, whereas "synthetics will always rebel and try to destroy their creators" was an idea that you could just state as fact (despite any and all evidence to the contrary) and then hand-wave your way around. I guess a simple hot mess was easier to get onto the page than a complicated hot mess.

Possible, but I do think the "synthetic/organic" theme has been involved since the beginning of the franchise to be a major element of the plot. I remember reading in the Art of Mass Effect book that the design of the Geth were originally supposed to be a bat-likr species. "But as Mass Effect's underlying theme of organic vs. machine emerged, the geth were rewritten as a synthetic lifeform."

So from game one, this is an important part of the Mass Effect plot, to the point where the designers and developers considering it an underlying theme, which in context is a fundamental theme to the story. I would presume from that, organic vs synthetic was always going to be involved in some form since the beginnng, which might be why the Dark Energy plot was scrapped. 

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...
If that is your position, you have no say in this debate because it clouds your own perception on things. You cannot question the judgement of someone based on a subjective medium, much like you can't question wheather someone likes or dislikes something. What other people percieve or believe should have no bearing on your own.

Discussion and seeing different points of view is fine. Fanatically ignoring everyone else because of what you belive makes you pointless to talk to. Simple as that. 

What subjective medium are we talking about?

If it makes sense to you that you can wipe out all artificial intelligence in the enire galaxy by shooting an exploding red pipe segment, or that you can become a godlike AI by running electricity through yourself until you are completely incinerated by it, or that you can recode all the galaxy's genetics and all the galaxy's software by disintigrating in a lazer beam and writing your DNA across the whole galaxy... ifthese things make sense to you it is because you fiercely wish to accept it. I think it is objectively factually accurate that those things can only be accepted with a relatively very high (much more than a standard deviation above base line) willingness to suspend your disbelief.

I think it is also objectively factual that in that case your judgment on the thing in question cannot possibly be described with words like "impartial," "detached," "fair," etc.

Finally, I just want to point out the topsey-turvey, counterfactual nature of accusing me--as I return to this thread every couple of hours to participate in this discussion and make every effort to respond to each post directed at me--of "fanatically ignoring everyone else."

The case has been made, ad nauseam, that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was incoherent and illogical. You have every right to dismiss all of that. It is your perogative to disregard those arguments and say of the ending, "It makes sense to me." When you simultaneously dismiss all criticism and accuse someone else of "ignoring everyone else," you make it really hard to take your position seriously.

[durasteel]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Possible, but I do think the "synthetic/organic" theme has been involved since the beginning of the franchise to be a major element of the plot. I remember reading in the Art of Mass Effect book that the design of the Geth were originally supposed to be a bat-likr species. "But as Mass Effect's underlying theme of organic vs. machine emerged, the geth were rewritten as a synthetic lifeform."

So from game one, this is an important part of the Mass Effect plot, to the point where the designers and developers considering it an underlying theme, which in context is a fundamental theme to the story. I would presume from that, organic vs synthetic was always going to be involved in some form since the beginnng, which might be why the Dark Energy plot was scrapped. 

Conflict between synthetic and organic intelligence is certainly a theme of the enire Mass Effect setting. It is a huge leap, though, from there to "artificial intelligence will always rebel against its creator and try to kill it."

We see time and again that the synthetics of this cycle are defined by an effort to reconcile their purpose with a will to survive. Conflict seems to most reliably come from organic fears based on a lack of understanding. These are recurring themes in the series, but at no point until the end are we ever presented with anything to suggest that "AI will always try to kill you, meatbag." That concept comes from out of nowhere, and is in direct conflict with the entire experience of an imported paragon Shepard.

[Sion1138]

AlanC9 wrote...
The "aspects" I mention in the quote refers to the things durasteel specifically mentioned in his earlier post. No "fighting" and no "winning," as defined above, are quite true for the DE ending. I consider these aspects to be good, or at least neutral, so they don't bother me about the DE ending. My point there was only that durasteel is kidding himself if he thinks that these aspects weren't something that Bio really intended to include in the ending.

I suspect I would have personally liked the DE ending OK; I just think it would have gone over even worse than what we got. Though it would have been yet another Bio fake choice, since no way they'd actually have had the Reapers be right about the sacrifice. We would have ended up with the same debate the ITers try to suck us into, except that more people would have been on the side of "the Reapers are lying because they're the bad guys," and they'd almost certainly have been right.

I don't see the logic. Why do you think that most people would have been convinced of the Reapers lying?

If they had gone with that plot, then the thing with Tali from Mass Effect 2 would have actually gone somewhere and may have had the player pursue the mistery of the destabilizing star, thereby giving the audience an insight into the dark energy conundrum.

[eyezonlyii]

Argentoid wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

It has to be provable?

Maybe not provable, but at least let Shepard argue his point. Clearly the Catalyst does not HAVE to continue he harvest becaue it tried sythesis before but the galaxy wasn't ready. 

He didn't try synthesis. He tried "a different solution in the past". That solution, as far as I understood, it was in fact the Reapers.

the quote I read says "similar" solution, but the organics weren't ready because synthesis cannot be forced, but this is totally contradicted if that solution was the Reapers because the harvest IS forced. either way this proves that it CAN stop the Harvest whenever it wants.

[durasteel]

AlanC9 wrote...
It has to be provable?

Put another way, if the Catalyst makes an obviously false statment, and Shepard's fate depends on the accuracy of that statement, then Shepard shouldn't have to just accept that statment as true and stagger off to die anyway.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

durasteel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The "aspects" I mention in the quote refers to the things durasteel specifically mentioned in his earlier post. No "fighting" and no "winning," as defined above, are quite true for the DE ending. I consider these aspects to be good, or at least neutral, so they don't bother me about the DE ending. My point there was only that durasteel is kidding himself if he thinks that these aspects weren't something that Bio really intended to include in the ending.

I suspect I would have personally liked the DE ending OK; I just think it would have gone over even worse than what we got. Though it would have been yet another Bio fake choice, since no way they'd actually have had the Reapers be right about the sacrifice. We would have ended up with the same debate the ITers try to suck us into, except that more people would have been on the side of "the Reapers are lying because they're the bad guys," and they'd almost certainly have been right.

It is difficult to talk about the ending we got or the possible Dark Energy ending in the context of what "BioWare really intended." The former was thrown together at the last minute, and the latter never got past the most basic of concepts. Neither can be taken as a solid representation of intent, because I suspect that BioWare originally intended to take the time to create and polish an ending that would have done justice to the game, the character, and the trilogy.

My guess would be that one of the reasons the DE concept was set aside was that it would have required a lot of work refining it into something coherent, whereas "synthetics will always rebel and try to destroy their creators" was an idea that you could just state as fact (despite any and all evidence to the contrary) and then hand-wave your way around. I guess a simple hot mess was easier to get onto the page than a complicated hot mess.

The problem with the DE ending was simply this: It required massive amounts of space magic and massive amounts of suspension of disbelief that exceeded that available in the story. That was why it was trashed. 

Example: The Reapers created the mass relays. Element zero is behind all of this. Biotics and mass relay travel, and using eezo as fuel create excess dark energy ... essentially smog... which was building up in stars like Haestrom's sun. This was going to cause a premature death to all stars in the galaxy. The reapers believed that there was something special about Humans (hence the "Humans are Special" plot) that would allow a human reaper to process all of the excess dark energy in the galaxy and allow things to proceed as normal. You were to have a choice of 1) Sacrificing humanity to create this oh so very special human reaper; or 2) destroy the reapers and hope that the galaxy's scientists could come up with a solution before all the stars burned out. BTW you die in both endings.

Now, I don't know about you, but how is one 2 km long reaper going to take care of all of the "smog" generated by everything in the galaxy? Eventually all the stars are going to burn out anyway.

And being that this would have been the final chapter of the series, I would have been so pissed I would have said f*** it, and destroyed the reapers like everyone except paragons. There would have been an equal amount of rage on the forums after this ending. It becomes one of those, why do I care? I'm dead, and you're the catalyst that's been doing this and causing misery. I hate you, so you're dead too.

However, you can rest assured that in order to sell the "harvest humanity" ending, the mass relays are destroyed along with perhaps all biotics. Goodbye Asari, Goodbye Miranda. So now that it's been tainted enough you might pick harvest.

Synthetics vs. Organics did not require as much suspension of disbelief and less space magic until they put synthesis in. Sure you could have evidence to the contrary, but then that just built case.

[Argentoid]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

durasteel wrote...

I think the logic of the Catalyst doesn't necessarily need to be consistent. Having the Catalyst be provably incorrect would be fine as long as Shepard could then prove it to be incorrect.

It has to be provable?

Maybe not provable, but at least let Shepard argue his point. Clearly the Catalyst does not HAVE to continue he harvest becaue it tried sythesis before but the galaxy wasn't ready. 

He didn't try synthesis. He tried "a different solution in the past". That solution, as far as I understood, it was in fact the Reapers.

the quote I read says "similar" solution

Yeah it's true, it said "We have tried a similar solution in the past".

but the organics weren't ready because synthesis cannot be forced, but this is totally contradicted if that solution was the Reapers because the harvest IS forced. either way this proves that it CAN stop the Harvest whenever it wants.

Actually when Shepard asks why it failed, the Catalyst points the whole Reaper thing didn't work because it can't be forced. The Reapers are not the best solution and he knows that, as you said, it was forced after all, there's no contradiction to that.

And this time, now that Synthesis is available, we have a "non-forced" option. That is contradictory due to the fact that you are willing to change the DNA of the ENTIRE galaxy.

Modifié par Argentoid, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:00 .

[durasteel]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The problem with the DE ending was simply this: It required massive amounts of space magic and massive amounts of suspension of disbelief that exceeded that available in the story. That was why it was trashed. 

Example: The Reapers created the mass relays. Element zero is behind all of this. Biotics and mass relay travel, and using eezo as fuel create excess dark energy ... essentially smog... which was building up in stars like Haestrom's sun. This was going to cause a premature death to all stars in the galaxy. The reapers believed that there was something special about Humans (hence the "Humans are Special" plot) that would allow a human reaper to process all of the excess dark energy in the galaxy and allow things to proceed as normal. You were to have a choice of 1) Sacrificing humanity to create this oh so very special human reaper; or 2) destroy the reapers and hope that the galaxy's scientists could come up with a solution before all the stars burned out. BTW you die in both endings.

Now, I don't know about you, but how is one 2 km long reaper going to take care of all of the "smog" generated by everything in the galaxy? Eventually all the stars are going to burn out anyway.
...

I can see how that could be the starting point, and a few brainstorming sessions later might have ultimately led to a workable plot that resulted in an enjoyable ending. I doubt half of it would have made it into the finished product, and there would certainly have been a lot more added to flesh it out.

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? That spitball idea of the DE ending is crap in the state at which it was left, but just about any spitball initial story concept is crap before it goes through the writing process. That's why the ending we got was crap... it never went through the process of revision and refinement that should have turned it into something good.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

....and why does the Catalyst's logic need to be consistent in a post-Leviathan/EC universe where he's no longer portrayed as the voice of God?

He was portrayed that way? Wow... my perceptions must really be out of step with the hivemind's.

[rapscallioness]

Soooo, who are the Really good writers in the vid game industry? Or, writers that have a high level of adaptability to be able to transition to the particular medium of vid game writing? Are there any looking for work?

Does ME have a lead writer yet? It sounds like they may have cobbled together some kinda team. Maybe. Hard to tell.

There's got to be ppl besides Drew and Mac.