876 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

This is good, but I think the EC didn't leave a lot of room for headcanon in the Paragon Control ending. It implies that Reaper-Shepard will be meddling in galactic affairs. I agree with the critics who argue that the galaxy will not appreciate seeing the Reapers lord over them, even benevolent ones.

[txgoldrush]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

This is good, but I think the EC didn't leave a lot of room for headcanon in the Paragon Control ending. It implies that Reaper-Shepard will be meddling in galactic affairs. I agree with the critics who argue that the galaxy will not appreciate seeing the Reapers lord over them, even benevolent ones.

He won't meddle if the genophage is not cured, it depends on your alignment and the result of Tuchanka what Shepard does as the Catalyst.

I do think the order in which the Control ending was shown that the Reapers would gain the trust of the galaxy by repairing the relays first, and then their planets. The galaxy would know that something happened when the big blue burst hit and the Reapers fled.

[Iakus]

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...


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.
[/quote]

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"

[/quote]

Then there's:

I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate.

Though apparantly, Bioware decided that freedom is overrrated 

[eyezonlyii]

Something just hit me regarding the whole organic/synthetic thing. As has been stated before, the Catalyst switches his definition of synthetic during the conversation between synthetic=AI and synthetic=not natural. in the case of the second one, he has even more proof of his assertion: Shepard. Shepard was unnaturally created after his/her death and spends all of ME3 fighting Cerberus

Mind=blown.

And for the shiggles let's through in Miranda as well.

[Iakus]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Something just hit me regarding the whole organic/synthetic thing. As has been stated before, the Catalyst switches his definition of synthetic during the conversation between synthetic=AI and synthetic=not natural. in the case of the second one, he has even more proof of his assertion: Shepard. Shepard was unnaturally created after his/her death and spends all of ME3 fighting Cerberus

Mind=blown.

And for the shiggles let's through in Miranda as well.

Kaidan, Jack, Wrex and most other biotics have cybernetic implants in their nervous systems.  How natural is that?

Ashley Williams received in utero gene therapy for minor genetic defects like myopia.  Is that natural?

How about the salarian (and Prothean) tendancy to uplift other organic species?

Where is the line drawn?

[eyezonlyii]

iakus wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

Something just hit me regarding the whole organic/synthetic thing. As has been stated before, the Catalyst switches his definition of synthetic during the conversation between synthetic=AI and synthetic=not natural. in the case of the second one, he has even more proof of his assertion: Shepard. Shepard was unnaturally created after his/her death and spends all of ME3 fighting Cerberus

Mind=blown.

And for the shiggles let's through in Miranda as well.

Kaidan, Jack, Wrex and most other biotics have cybernetic implants in their nervous systems.  How natural is that?

Ashley Williams received in utero gene therapy for minor genetic defects like myopia.  Is that natural?

How about the salarian (and Prothean) tendancy to uplift other organic species?

Where is the line drawn?

I don't know, but. WE. WILL. HOLD. IT.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

eyezonlyii wrote...

Something just hit me regarding the whole organic/synthetic thing. As has been stated before, the Catalyst switches his definition of synthetic during the conversation between synthetic=AI and synthetic=not natural. in the case of the second one, he has even more proof of his assertion: Shepard. Shepard was unnaturally created after his/her death and spends all of ME3 fighting Cerberus

Mind=blown.

And for the shiggles let's through in Miranda as well.

Kaidan, Jack, Wrex and most other biotics have cybernetic implants in their nervous systems.  How natural is that?

Ashley Williams received in utero gene therapy for minor genetic defects like myopia.  Is that natural?

How about the salarian (and Prothean) tendancy to uplift other organic species?

Where is the line drawn?

Well, that depends on where you draw it really.

An implant or gene therapy, kind of unnatural in some respects. Extensive rehabilition through cybernetics and nano machines, highly unnatural in a way.

This turns into a slippery slope because we have degrees of rehabilition or augmentation going on that can be unnatural to some, but normal for others. I think the game even mentions in the codex, a wounded solider with a syntheticb leg is not technically part synthetic, but the extensive rebuilding of Shepard by Cerberus can be seen as an example of willing synthesis. 

It's complex enough to warrant a discussion, since it fits in line with the ending in understanding it. 

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

The fact that Shepard lives shows that he was full of crap. It's an empty warning. Or at the very least, high EMS has configured the Crucible in a way where it targets synthetics (AI) more precisely. It doesn't care about what isn't "natural".

I don't think that's a useful argument when talking to iakus.

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

None of that means anything in relation to AI though. It's weird that it's even brought up.

Not even a mech or VI is relevant to the "Synthetic/Organic" issue, let alone someone with biotic implants or artificial muscles like Shepard. AI is specifically Quantum/Bluebox based technology in the ME universe.

Except this shows that even in the organic/synthetic debate, synthetics can still be organic.

The Citadel even has proscriptions against certain gene therapies.  In essesnce, you can't give a species something it doesn't get naturally.  Thus you could correct a human's eyesight, but not let them see into the infrared spectrum like a drell.

Just shows how the Catalyst is spouting complete nonsense.

Edit:  For example, is CloneShep synthetic?

Modifié par iakus, 16 décembre 2013 - 05:15 .

[Deathsaurer]

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.

That's true. You can see it in the Council trying to control humanity to which you can either prove their fears wrong to earn their respect or rebel and destroy them, the Salarians trying to control the Krogan and trying to destroy them when they rebelled. We can probably throw the Yahg in here for the Salarians. Cerberus and just about everything they do.

[dreamgazer]

Irrelevant post removed.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 16 décembre 2013 - 07:57 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

The fact that Shepard lives shows that he was full of crap. It's an empty warning. Or at the very least, high EMS has configured the Crucible in a way where it targets synthetics (AI) more precisely. It doesn't care about what isn't "natural".

I don't think that's a useful argument when talking to iakus.

Well, given I think the Catalyst is full of it whether Shepard lives or dies, I'd say the argument is more moot than useless

but I am trying to point out there's far more to the concept of "synthetic life" than AIs

[Sion1138]

Deathsaurer wrote...

...the Salarians trying to control the Krogan and trying to destroy them when they rebelled.

They never tried to destroy them. The genophage was a control measure.

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

3. Bad writing. Arguably when a character doesn't act logically in a story it's not because he/she is using the context of one metaphysical conflict to symbolically represent another one (especially in a story that other wise lacks subtlety). It could just be that for the ending sequence to work Shepard has to be forced to accept the Catalyst's premise.

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.

Speaking of bad writing is the notion that the Organic Levithans created a Synthetic to solve the problem of Organics creating Synthetics; especially when the story says they were all powerful or without creating any sort of block. I guess you can handwave that the Levithans were too arrogant or whatever, but that's got to be one of the worst handwaves ever devised.

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.

TIM ended up being ultimately correct about the Crucible's abilities to control the Reapers (so I guess he knew enough about the Reapers) and the 'understanding' that he shows is no different that unfettered, Renegade Shepards (I'm not saying unfettered, Renegade Shepard's are evil or wrong, just that there isn't any difference between the two on the 'understanding' front).

[Deathsaurer]

Sion1138 wrote...

They never tried to destroy them. The genophage was a control measure.

Yes when they realized destroying them in open warfare was impractical.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

They never tried to destroy them. The genophage was a control measure.

Yes when they realized destroying them in open warfare was impractical.

I think they tried to defeat the Krogans in open warfare, not exterminate them. If they wanted to do that they could have easily created the genophage to do just that instead of simply limiting the viable birthrates.

[Deathsaurer]

Everyone had to know the Krogan wouldn't surrender in open warfare. They'd fight to the last man like they did on Palaven.

[LinksOcarina]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

3. Bad writing. Arguably when a character doesn't act logically in a story it's not because he/she is using the context of one metaphysical conflict to symbolically represent another one (especially in a story that other wise lacks subtlety). It could just be that for the ending sequence to work Shepard has to be forced to accept the Catalyst's premise.

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.

Speaking of bad writing is the notion that the Organic Levithans created a Synthetic to solve the problem of Organics creating Synthetics; especially when the story says they were all powerful or without creating any sort of block. I guess you can handwave that the Levithans were too arrogant or whatever, but that's got to be one of the worst handwaves ever devised.

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.

TIM ended up being ultimately correct about the Crucible's abilities to control the Reapers (so I guess he knew enough about the Reapers) and the 'understanding' that he shows is no different that unfettered, Renegade Shepards (I'm not saying unfettered, Renegade Shepard's are evil or wrong, just that there isn't any difference between the two on the 'understanding' front).

I got to ask, but does it really constitue bad writing when characters act on hubris or emotion? 

Bad writing is usually argued as character inconsistancies, and when Shepard as a character is primarilly a hybrid ours and them sort of protagonist, that is difficult to write for without moments of pure railroading. As for the Leviathans, they were acting in character. "Oh, these robots are messing up our perfectly laid plans, we need to stop this. I know, we can build our own robots who will do what we say to find out whats going on. We are superior, so we will succeed. "

If anything, it fits the characterization of the Leviathans correctly. Is it really handwaving when we can sit back and see why this logically makes no sense, but from a standpoint of a character with a god complex, does? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 décembre 2013 - 08:43 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I got to ask, but does it really constitue bad writing when characters act on hubris or emotion? 

Bad writing is usually argued as character inconsistancies, and when Shepard as a character is primarilly a hybrid ours and them sort of protagonist, that is difficult to write for without moments of pure railroading. As for the Leviathans, they were acting in character. "Oh, these robots are messing up our perfectly laid plans, we need to stop this. I know, we can build our own robots who will do what we say to find out whats going on. We are superior, so we will succeed. "

If anything, it fits the characterization of the Leviathans correctly. Is it really handwaving when we can sit back and see why this logically makes no sense, but from a standpoint of a character with a god complex, does? 

As I said before worst handwave ever. I realize that characters are people and they do act irrationally at times. However, there is a broad line between hubris and just being plain stupid. If the Levithan's had a god-complex you would think the last thing they would want to do as admit they have a problem that is beyond their scope and power to solve. However, given that the Levithans have almost god-like powers like super advance technology and mind-control you would think they could perfectly stamp out the problem themselves. Yet, they rely on the very problem they are trying to solve. Apparently this was a very big problem, you would think they would do more than just phone it in.

What would the Catalyst be able to solve that the Leviathan's couldn't? If they wanted the Catalyst to come up with a solution that they couldn't think of why give it access to armies and advance tech? Why just not trap it inside a box and have it spit out solutions that the Levithans then go out and solve; were they just really lazy? Why not install something like the 3 Laws of Robotics? Why not create some sort of oversight for the Catalyst? Limits anyone? I mean TIM was a pretty arogant guy himself but even he limited EDI's abilities.

These are the very same species who managed to hold together a galactic wide empire for eons, you would think they might display at least some common sense when dealing with the problem. Instead they when resorted to making a robot, giving it a bunch of power, and then just turning it loose and hoping for the best. This is just so illogical that I think of this scene: . Only one's a comedy and the other is supposed to be taken seriously.

[JamesFaith]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

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.

Speaking of bad writing is the notion that the Organic Levithans created a Synthetic to solve the problem of Organics creating Synthetics; especially when the story says they were all powerful or without creating any sort of block. I guess you can handwave that the Levithans were too arrogant or whatever, but that's got to be one of the worst handwaves ever devised.

Why is this so unbeliavable, when similar things happenned more then once in human history?

Roman trained barbarian generals who later turned against them (f.e. Arminius who defeated Romans in Teuteburg Forest)
During insurections in India British empire fought with native troops who were part of their army once.
And quite many mujahideens in Afghanistan got military training from US soldiers in time, when radical muslims was considered less evil then Soviets.

Empires have tendency to believe they canť make such mistake, nothing new under sun.

Modifié par JamesFaith, 16 décembre 2013 - 10:51 .

[txgoldrush]

JamesFaith wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

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.

Speaking of bad writing is the notion that the Organic Levithans created a Synthetic to solve the problem of Organics creating Synthetics; especially when the story says they were all powerful or without creating any sort of block. I guess you can handwave that the Levithans were too arrogant or whatever, but that's got to be one of the worst handwaves ever devised.

Why is this so unbeliavable, when similar things happenned more then once in human history?

Roman trained barbarian generals who later turned against them (f.e. Arminius who defeated Romans in Teuteburg Forest)
During insurections in India British empire fought with native troops who were part of their army once.
And quite many mujahideens in Afghanistan got military training from US soldiers in time, when radical muslims was considered less evil then Soviets.

Empires have tendency to believe they canť make such mistake, nothing new under sun.

And Obama now seems to want to supply Islamic rebels in Syria......nothing is learned.

http://thecable.fore...h.shTPsnKi.dpbs


Yeah.....

Modifié par txgoldrush, 17 décembre 2013 - 08:27 .

[txgoldrush]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

3. Bad writing. Arguably when a character doesn't act logically in a story it's not because he/she is using the context of one metaphysical conflict to symbolically represent another one (especially in a story that other wise lacks subtlety). It could just be that for the ending sequence to work Shepard has to be forced to accept the Catalyst's premise.

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.

Speaking of bad writing is the notion that the Organic Levithans created a Synthetic to solve the problem of Organics creating Synthetics; especially when the story says they were all powerful or without creating any sort of block. I guess you can handwave that the Levithans were too arrogant or whatever, but that's got to be one of the worst handwaves ever devised.

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.

TIM ended up being ultimately correct about the Crucible's abilities to control the Reapers (so I guess he knew enough about the Reapers) and the 'understanding' that he shows is no different that unfettered, Renegade Shepards (I'm not saying unfettered, Renegade Shepard's are evil or wrong, just that there isn't any difference between the two on the 'understanding' front).

I got to ask, but does it really constitue bad writing when characters act on hubris or emotion? 

Bad writing is usually argued as character inconsistancies, and when Shepard as a character is primarilly a hybrid ours and them sort of protagonist, that is difficult to write for without moments of pure railroading. As for the Leviathans, they were acting in character. "Oh, these robots are messing up our perfectly laid plans, we need to stop this. I know, we can build our own robots who will do what we say to find out whats going on. We are superior, so we will succeed. "

If anything, it fits the characterization of the Leviathans correctly. Is it really handwaving when we can sit back and see why this logically makes no sense, but from a standpoint of a character with a god complex, does? 

I love how the Catalyst points out that through their flaws in their organic reasoning the Leviathan lacked the foresight to see that their destruction (and harvest) was part of the very solution they required.

[txgoldrush]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...


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.
[/quote]

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"

[/quote]

Then there's:

I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate.

Though apparantly, Bioware decided that freedom is overrrated 

[/quote]

No, you didn't get it.

Time and time again, the narrative says you can't win without the Crucible, that victory isn't without sacrifice.

So by NOT choosing to impact destinies of others through firing the Crucible, you still impact the destinies of others, sacrificing the entire cycle for your ideals.

That's the nature of the universe, no one is truly free, people will always impact the destinies of others.