876 réponses à ce sujet

[Sion1138]

SDW wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Is that why billions are still followers of old religions?

You're saying for something to be true, it must apply always, every time, no exceptions. That's like saying parents don't love their children because they're sometimes mad at them.

My intention was the opposite, to demonstrate that the way of questioning everything is not common to all of us.

[durasteel]

Sion1138 wrote...

I know. My point was that to question is not necessarily 'what we do' as a collective as it can be subverted in the individual.

"What we do" is a basket of often contradictory generalities. We question everything, and we blindly follow our chosen leaders. We are the smartest pack of idiots on the planet.

[SDW]

txgoldrush wrote...
the ENDING as well as the entire trilogy is about the morals of controlling the destinies of others to further your goals, NOT about organic and synthetic relationships. Not only is it the theme of the entire series, but the foundations of which the Mass Effect universe is built. 

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

If the ending is not about organic/synthetic relationships, why is Shepard forced to make a decision to solve a perceived problem in these relationships?
I'll give you that, s/he solves the problem by a decision that controls the destinies  of others by killing them, enslaving them or merging them with new "DNA" without having asked for their permission. But - really? After all those storylines where we have experienced what pain it brings when you do such things to others, Shepard her/himself has to do that, too. I don't quite understand if they were aware of the point there were making there. As a conclusion, it doesn't quite fuse the lessons we should have learned from all the conflicts Shepard has mediated, rather the opposite.

[SnapJackalPop]

Reading the quotes, it's obvious it was never anything more than a rough outline. It's interesting to speculate though, as I remember the references to dark energy that came up in ME2 and thinking that's what the next game would hinge on.

Now, after not playing ME for some time I've come to the conclusion ME3's ending may not have been so bad if it had been woven into the story earlier instead of being dropped on us like it was. No idea can really survive that kind of botched execution.

Modifié par SnapJackalPop, 15 décembre 2013 - 05:50 .

[durasteel]

txgoldrush wrote...
...
Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

The ending was actually pretty pointless. The only point that seems to have been driving it was to get it done and over with so that the game could be shipped.

When people see "the point" of the ending, I think most of the time they're making it up. There's nothing wrong with that, and it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the  context of this series of games. Certainly many of the chapters along the way were full of depth and meaning, some subtle and some blatant.

The ending, however, was written as fast as possible to make a deadline. Review, revision, and editing were kept to a bare minimum if they occured at all. When the EC was created, the point of it was to try to impose some measure of sense and context on the original ending, because to actually change any of it would be to call its "artistic integrity" into question.

You can certainly glean one or more themes from the game or trilogy and project them onto the ending, but that's more a reflection of yourself and your personal experience with the games than of any inent on the part of Casey or Mac.

Remember that "Lots of speculation from everyone!" was the actual plan for the ending (look it up if you don't believe me.)

[angol fear]

SDW wrote...

For Mass Effect, the whole structure of the trilogy is based on that theme (organics/synthetics).

If that's true, how do the Krogan and Rachni storylines fit into that? Or the stories playing on Omega. Those would be fat they need to trim then, just saying. I won't deny that this is one of the big themes in the trilogy, but why would the synthetic/organic conflict be more important than the others when it's got only about 1/3 of the whole trilogy's screentime? And the Geth in ME 1 don't count into that, because they attack organics specifically because they are working with the Reapers - we later learn that the other Geth have stayed in the Perseus Nebula.

Sure, if you want to talk about Deus Ex : Human Revolution we can do it in MP.

When I say that the whole structure is based on that, you can notice that I didn't write organics vs synthetics. It's not based on the opposition. It's based on the comparison.
The krogan and Rachni reveal how the organics are : they all want some power over other races, they want to control that's why there is the Thessia mission too in Mass Effect 3(Asari are advanced because they hide some Prothean technology). 
And the logic of the game is that 
organics want to control and this path will lead to technology , then to synthetics who will evolve faster, will see their creator more limited than them.  So the game is showing something happening (and the end of that path with the Reapers's presence) and the player has to understand the relation between them to see the global vision of this universe. 
I don't invent anything, it's the game that explained everything I say and the catalyst gives an answer that can be understood only at a higher point of view. 

When txgoldrush says that the ending is about the moral of controlling others's destinies, he's right too because from a character perspective the choices tougher and tougher, including more an more destinies. It shows the problem of having to choices.
In Mass Effect 3, Anderson said that Shepard isn't the best soldier but he is the best leader and from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 3 the loneliness of the leader is a very important aspect too. This aspect is bound to the moral and is very important for the ending.

Anyway, the ending is actually very complex, far from being the "badly written" ending most people on BSN want it to be to justify that it doesn't fit their expectations.

[ImaginaryMatter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

It doesn't help much that our sample size for A.I's is rather small to judge it too. Javik brings up the machine race of the Zha'til who "blotted out the sky" against the other races. So it again is dependent on the machines. Organics react predictably though, and fight before negotiating with them because of the complications.

The problem though is that Mass Effect is not statistics, it's a story, and in a story writers choose what to put into it. In Mass Effect's synthetics have been painted as the victims, this shows up in cracks through ME1 and becomes full-blown in ME2 and ME3. The problem with ME3's ending from a story level is some new character claiming to be Shepard's antagonist shows up and blurts out some expository dialogue about how synthetics are the bad guys in all of this through vague and imprecise vocabulary.

If BioWare wanted to go with the Catalyst premise from the beginning, the story should have been built to support it. Certain details should have been changed, for example, the Geth attack the Quarians for some 'understanding' related reason (or lack of, I guess), EDI should have betrayed the crew, and the Reaper's should have constantly been portrayed something more than just Synthetics, etc. That way the revelation isn't the jarring mess that is in ME3.

[Deathsaurer]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

The problem with ME3's ending from a story level is some new character claiming to be Shepard's antagonist shows up and blurts out some expository dialogue about how synthetics are the bad guys

Never once got this impression.  I'd love to know how anyone did. I mean in the low EMS endings it says you bring it on yourselves.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

I guess we're all too stupid to "get it"

[ImaginaryMatter]

Deathsaurer wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

The problem with ME3's ending from a story level is some new character claiming to be Shepard's antagonist shows up and blurts out some expository dialogue about how synthetics are the bad guys

Never once got this impression.  I'd love to know how anyone did. I mean in the low EMS endings it says you bring it on yourselves.

The Catalyst states that it controls the Reapers. And then, "The created will always rebel against their creators," "Synthetics will destroy all Organics," vs "Organics create Synthetics[/technology] to improve their own existence." These quotes reflect the nature of the conflict as the Catalyst explains it. The only thing Organics are apparently guilty of is trying to improve their own existence which can hardly be considered negatively; the Catalyst never says anything about Organics exploiting synthetics/technology/nature/others to do so. On the other hand Synthetics are always the ones who are destroying or rebelling. (As an aside: I'm not sure where the "bring it on yourselfs" thing is from, I thought the Catalyst conversation was the same for everyone up until the choices are presented.)

I know connotations are somewhat subjective, but in this scene they seem so one sided. The only negative thing the Catalyst has to say about Organics is describing them as 'chaos'. However, given the number of times the Catalyst says words like 'inevitable', everything from its view seems to adhere rather rigidly without deviations, which is hardly 'chaotic' behavior. I get the impression the Catalyst only says it because Soverign said it back in ME1 and the writers have to connect the two somehow.

[KaiserShep]

Shepard: "Without chaos, I'm out of a job."

Modifié par KaiserShep, 16 décembre 2013 - 05:34 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

I guess we're all too stupid to "get it"

Ya, I just ignore Tx, it's like arguing with a die hard ITer. Only at least those guys have a few people on the same page, while Tx seems to be a lone star. 75% actually seems to be a rather generous number on his/her part.

[Deathsaurer]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

The Catalyst states that it controls the Reapers. And then, "The created will always rebel against their creators," "Synthetics will destroy all Organics," vs "Organics create Synthetics[/technology] to improve their own existence." These quotes reflect the nature of the conflict as the Catalyst explains it. The only thing Organics are apparently guilty of is trying to improve their own existence which can hardly be considered negatively; the Catalyst never says anything about Organics exploiting synthetics/technology/nature/others to do so. On the other hand Synthetics are always the ones who are destroying or rebelling. (As an aside: I'm not sure where the "bring it on yourselfs" thing is from, I thought the Catalyst conversation was the same for everyone up until the choices are presented.)

I know connotations are somewhat subjective, but in this scene they seem so one sided. The only negative thing the Catalyst has to say about Organics is describing them as 'chaos'. However, given the number of times the Catalyst says words like 'inevitable', everything from its view seems to adhere rather rigidly without deviations, which is hardly 'chaotic' behavior. I get the impression the Catalyst only says it because Soverign said it back in ME1 and the writers have to connect the two somehow.

It never once says what starts the fighting. Synthetics can still very much be the victims and legitimately kill organics en mass without being evil. Someone makes synthetic race that surpasses organics. Creator(s) freak and try to kill them. They rebel and kill creator(s). Next organic race freaks because kill bots caused an extinction and try to kill them before they're next. Second organic race dies. Repeat a few times till the synthetics go you know what screw this they're clearly all insane let's just kill them all and be done with it.

Low EMS has the Catalyst pointing squarely at organics for setting this in motion. Which is the impression I always got. Dunno if that's because I played all the games so close together or what. I assume said line was removed in the higher EMS brackets for its confrontational nature.

Modifié par Deathsaurer, 16 décembre 2013 - 05:43 .

[angol fear]

Deathsaurer wrote...


It never once says what starts the fighting. Synthetics can still very much be the victims and legitimately kill organics en mass without being evil. Someone makes synthetic race that surpasses organics. Creator(s) freak and try to kill them. They rebel and kill creator(s). Next organic race freaks because kill bots caused an extinction and try to kill them before they're next. Second organic race dies. Repeat a few times till the synthetics go you know what screw this they're clearly all insane let's just kill them all and be done with it.

Low EMS has the Catalyst pointing squarely at organics for setting this in motion. Which is the impression I always got. Dunno if that's because I played all the games so close together or what. I assume said line was removed in the higher EMS brackets for its confrontational nature.

That's exactly what Mass Effect is about. The narrative shows/proves it.

[Armass81]

angol fear wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...


It never once says what starts the fighting. Synthetics can still very much be the victims and legitimately kill organics en mass without being evil. Someone makes synthetic race that surpasses organics. Creator(s) freak and try to kill them. They rebel and kill creator(s). Next organic race freaks because kill bots caused an extinction and try to kill them before they're next. Second organic race dies. Repeat a few times till the synthetics go you know what screw this they're clearly all insane let's just kill them all and be done with it.

Low EMS has the Catalyst pointing squarely at organics for setting this in motion. Which is the impression I always got. Dunno if that's because I played all the games so close together or what. I assume said line was removed in the higher EMS brackets for its confrontational nature.

That's exactly what Mass Effect is about. The narrative shows/proves it.

This is also the impression I got, everything from geth, to EDI to those synthetics shown in the Citadel Archives. "You bring it on yourselves".... indeed.

It was never about "evil synthetics", it was about the conflict itself which rises from the fear of the creators. Synthetics would not start it, but they would eventually finish it. Hence the "chaos" that catalyst is trying to prevent, tough through very effed up means, to us. To the catalyst turning a race into a reaper, its just like upgrading them, like when geth tried to build that sphere. Since its a machine it just doesnt get it that organics dont want to be made into a reaper which it considers superiour form and "tribute" to its own creators. Its just doing what its creators created it to do.

In a twisted way, the cycles do work at preserving life, sapient or otherwise, like its creators wanted so they could always have a supply of their precious slave races to do their bidding. Too bad for them the reapers dont tolerate them around in their original forms.

Modifié par Armass81, 16 décembre 2013 - 07:07 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Deathsaurer wrote...

It never once says what starts the fighting. Synthetics can still very much be the victims and legitimately kill organics en mass without being evil. Someone makes synthetic race that surpasses organics. Creator(s) freak and try to kill them. They rebel and kill creator(s). Next organic race freaks because kill bots caused an extinction and try to kill them before they're next. Second organic race dies. Repeat a few times till the synthetics go you know what screw this they're clearly all insane let's just kill them all and be done with it.

Low EMS has the Catalyst pointing squarely at organics for setting this in motion. Which is the impression I always got. Dunno if that's because I played all the games so close together or what. I assume said line was removed in the higher EMS brackets for its confrontational nature.

Huh, never knew about the low EMS version.

I know this conversation is rapidly drifting into semantics which is probably pointless given how ambiguous and contradictory the Catalyst dialogue is but I'll continue. The Catalyst does define that conflict will inevitably result from Synthetics crossing the Tech singularity. And while it is true the exact details are left out except for the inevitable demise of Organic life, the Catalyst (low EMS version too, given that the bulk of the conversation is the same) uses more positive connotations for Organics and the negative ones for Synthetics.

According to the Catalyst the Organics are at fault for creating Synthetics, the low EMS version the Catalyst seems more annoyed that he has to keep bailing Organics out from trying to advance themselves through technology given the context of the rest of the conversation. Maybe the Catalyst has different logic and values for things (which seems to be the go to hand wave) but creation hardly seems an aggressive action of any sort. On the other hand the Catalyst describes Synthetics themselves as the rebellious ones that will cause the death of Organics. The simplest conclusion from that is that Synthetics are at fault, that they start the conflict.

If the Catalyst thought both sides were at fault during the conflict, you would think he would use more neutral language. Or at the very least relate the overall Organic/Synthetic conflcit to some specific cases.

[SDW]

angol fear wrote...
Sure, if you want to talk about Deus Ex : Human Revolution we can do it in MP.

MP or PM? I couldn't find you under this name in Origin, and I'm not giving out my name there on the forum. Might be that we're on different platforms anyway. Since they don't allow us to PM anybody anymore without friending (mods, you see another complaint from me - see, I could have sent this directly to angol and not have needed to bother the whole thread with this stuff), I suggest creating a thread here instead. Will do that tonight unless you're faster - off to work for now. 

[txgoldrush]

SDW wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
the ENDING as well as the entire trilogy is about the morals of controlling the destinies of others to further your goals, NOT about organic and synthetic relationships. Not only is it the theme of the entire series, but the foundations of which the Mass Effect universe is built. 

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

If the ending is not about organic/synthetic relationships, why is Shepard forced to make a decision to solve a perceived problem in these relationships?
I'll give you that, s/he solves the problem by a decision that controls the destinies  of others by killing them, enslaving them or merging them with new "DNA" without having asked for their permission. But - really? After all those storylines where we have experienced what pain it brings when you do such things to others, Shepard her/himself has to do that, too. I don't quite understand if they were aware of the point there were making there. As a conclusion, it doesn't quite fuse the lessons we should have learned from all the conflicts Shepard has mediated, rather the opposite.

Shepard has to make decisions that determine the destinies of others all throughout the trilogy, the ending is no exception.

A theme does not mean that a character learns a lesson, it could be about the reality of the world.

"If the ending is not about organic/synthetic relationships, why is Shepard forced to make a decision to solve a perceived problem in these relationships?"

What makes you think he wants to solve the organics/synthetics issue? Really, all Shepard wants is to end the cycle, here are three ways to do it, all have repercussions and sacrifice.

[txgoldrush]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

I guess we're all too stupid to "get it"

Ya, I just ignore Tx, it's like arguing with a die hard ITer. Only at least those guys have a few people on the same page, while Tx seems to be a lone star. 75% actually seems to be a rather generous number on his/her part.

Please, I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

Tell me this, if organics vs synthetics is so important to the ending outside of just context, why does Shepard not argue that the Catalyst's motive is wrong? Why?

Two things.

1. He doesn't care...its that the methods of the Catalyst are opposed, regardless of whether the Catalyst is wrong or right in his motive.

2. That's simply not the conflict.

Lets see, Shepard says "I think we rather keep our own forms". So why would Shepard care if his motive is right or not? He wouldn't.

Dialogue options for Shepards  hope/choice arguments "You'll never understand" "We do not want to be preserved" "Your solution is flawed" "We will never give in to you" "You're missing the point" "You just don't get it" "Its not your choice to make" "We're just trying to survive"

The problem is that the Leviathan did not understand the capabilities of the creation, a tool to help client races survive to give them tribute, and it backfired. And then that creation does not understand organic life to know that its solution is repulsive, leading to conflict and its eventual "defeat". Nevermind Cerberus also attempted to control the Reapers, destroying the destinies of thousands, never understanding the full capabilities of the Reapers. There is a HUGE difference between them and Shepard. Shepard is forced to make decisions that alter the destinies of many, however, he does it with understanding and regards to others, and he does not take it lightly. The Reapers and Cerberus on the other hand, do not understand what they are doing or don't even care about those they are affecting. That is the protagonist and antagonist difference, and even Renegade Shepard will care about his actions and how they affect others, well in ME3 anyway.

[CosmicGnosis]

txgoldrush wrote...


When is it ever been a rule where the antagonist's motive ALWAYS means the theme of the entire narrative revolves around it?

Sorry, but it doesn't.

Find the conflict....is Shepard opposing the Catalyst's motive or is he opposing its methods?

the ENDING as well as the entire trilogy is about the morals of controlling the destinies of others to further your goals, NOT about organic and synthetic relationships. Not only is it the theme of the entire series, but the foundations of which the Mass Effect universe is built.

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

I agree that this is likely the most important theme. Which ending choice do you prefer? I suspect Destroy, but I'm bothered by the synthetics losing their freedom to live.

[txgoldrush]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


When is it ever been a rule where the antagonist's motive ALWAYS means the theme of the entire narrative revolves around it?

Sorry, but it doesn't.

Find the conflict....is Shepard opposing the Catalyst's motive or is he opposing its methods?

the ENDING as well as the entire trilogy is about the morals of controlling the destinies of others to further your goals, NOT about organic and synthetic relationships. Not only is it the theme of the entire series, but the foundations of which the Mass Effect universe is built.

Its like 75% of this board misses the entire point of the ending.

I agree that this is likely the most important theme. Which ending choice do you prefer? I suspect Destroy, but I'm bothered by the synthetics losing their freedom to live.

actually Paragon control......

TIM would sacrifice thousands to control the Reapers, but Shepard would give up "everything he had" to gain control of them. And he does it to save lives. It can even be implied he did it to save his synthetic allies the way the Sheplyst talks about sacrifice.

I do thin the EC did a good job in explaining how a Paragon Shepard, who would have a "conflict of motive" (Renegade would be just a conflict of method) with TIM about controlling the Reapers, would in the end take control of the Reapers.

[txgoldrush]

StreetMagic wrote...

I agree with txgoldrush actually. The concept of control and destroy go beyond organics vs synthetics. Organics vs Synthetics presents it the most often, but the underlying struggle is everywhere.

If I understand the argument correctly, that is. I'm just jumping in.

I find the STG base huge in regards to this theme and how the Salarians try to uplift species to fit their needs without regards to their capabilities.

And now they are trying to uplift yahg....those Salarians do not know what they are doing.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 16 décembre 2013 - 10:20 .