172 réponses à ce sujet

[Yggdrasil]

You know, my personal take on the whole situation was that even after millions of years of studying organic life, the Catalyst still didn't understand it.  The purpose of life isn't to move into some static endstate.  The purpose of life is to live in the present, this moment right now, while pursuing the meaning you value in your life.  To use a cliché, life is a journey, not a destination.

The Catalyst emphasizes that sapient life becomes preserved through the Reapers, but to what end?  It is the nature of existence that things are created, exist for their allotted time and then pass away.  What is the purpose of preserving genetic data as a living machine like an insect in amber?

I've given a lot of thoughts to the three options, and I see how they all have merits.  However, I feel strongly about the choice I finally made.  The Synthesis choice forces all sentient life to fundamentally change and forcibly imposes an outside will on organic and synthetic life.  The Control option simply creates a nanny-state galaxy where Sheperd is allowed to dictate what everyone does in a "might makes right" hegemony.  I chose Destroy because the Catalyst and the Reapers had no right to impose the cycle on the galaxy, and it was the only way to free the galaxy from that tyranny.  Now free, the galaxy can evolve in its own chaotic fashion without interference.  The Reapers had no more right to force their idea of meaning on others than anyone or thing else does, and they accomplished their goals through shear brute force and conquest.

Javik gave my Sheperd the best advice in any of the games when he said there is only room for either the chaos of organic life or the imposed order of synthetics, not both.

[SwobyJ]

I think there's room for both. Just not with the Reapers we're dealing with in ME3.

Erm, this here now looks more like a bump to the thread, but really, nice post Michael. And really, pretty much everyone here. Thank you

Modifié par SwobyJ, 08 janvier 2014 - 02:51 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

The Control option simply creates a nanny-state galaxy where Sheperd is allowed to dictate what everyone does in a "might makes right" hegemony.

Samara: "You have not really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods."

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

I've given a lot of thoughts to the three options, and I see how they all have merits.  However, I feel strongly about the choice I finally made.  The Synthesis choice forces all sentient life to fundamentally change and forcibly imposes an outside will on organic and synthetic life.

Shepard: "Is it how we survive? Adapting?"  
Tali: "To cold, or inter-species contact, yes. To the Reapers, no."

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

I chose Destroy because the Catalyst and the Reapers had no right to impose the cycle on the galaxy, and it was the only way to free the galaxy from that tyranny.  Now free, the galaxy can evolve in its own chaotic fashion without interference.  The Reapers had no more right to force their idea of meaning on others than anyone or thing else does, and they accomplished their goals through shear brute force and conquest.

Anderson: "Mostly you were hired to kill Reapers. I hope you haven't been sidetracked by all the politics."

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 08 janvier 2014 - 05:34 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Oh look, HYR 2.0 failing to understand the meaning of the word interpretation again, and no-one anywhere was surprised.

Especially considering you apparently also fail to understand the process of writing a work of fiction;  just because something wasn't decided for certain in ME1 doesn't mean it that material from ME1 cannot possibly relate to it at a later date.  Hindsight and retrospect are wonderful things.

Even if we ignore the obvious (and accurate) words "analogy", "metaphor" and "foreshadowing" and throw them right out the window, Javik straight out tells us that the Prothean Beacon visions were intended as a warning.

No, I just think people can interpret the story wrongly.

In this case, people see synthesis in the Prothean beacon's message because "that orangey stuff looks like meat/goo, and it looks like it's fusing with tech, therefore it's synthesis." I call that "looks like"-nonsense. See also: "sounds like"-nonsense ("Ashley talks about God. She sounds like a bible-thumper. Clearly, this has to mean she is a Christian fundamentalist).

And there's a word for taking established parts of the story and retroactively providing details on them: "retcon."

Oh,and while we're at it, I also find it amusing that you know with 100% certainity exactly what the developers decided, and when.  Toodles!

I know because Chris L'Etoile said it: they hadn't decided what, exactly, a Reaper was 'til the writing of ME2.

ElSuperGecko wrote...
"We have tried a.... similar... solution before."  No kidding.  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

Speaking of not knowing what certain words means, how about: "solution."

The Catalyst's has long since settled on the harvest as the solution to "the problem." Collectors and husks are created for the sole purpose of helping carry out the harvest. They are not some new or different solution by the Catalyst.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 08 janvier 2014 - 04:19 .

[ElSuperGecko]

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...
You know, my personal take on the whole situation was that even after millions of years of studying organic life, the Catalyst still didn't understand it...

I like this human!  He understands!

Obadiah wrote...
Its just stupid to assume that every fusion of organic and tech will result in something horrible just because those are the Reaper forces we encounter.

I'm not.  I'm just assuming that every fusion of organic tech that involve or are suggested by the Reaper forces will result in something horrible.  That's pragmatism, a pragmatism born of experience and a knowledge of how the Reapers operate.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 08 janvier 2014 - 01:14 .

[Obadiah]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
Its just stupid to assume that every fusion of organic and tech will result in something horrible just because those are the Reaper forces we encounter.

I'm not.  I'm just assuming that every fusion of organic tech that involve or are suggested by the Reaper forces will result in something horrible.  That's pragmatism, a pragmatism born of experience and a knowledge of how the Reapers operate.

It's not pragmatism, its just an assumption based on a fairly limited perspective of an enemy.

[pebiowarenis]

StreetMagic wrote...

In this setting, fusion is crap.

It's not Deus Ex or cyberpunk. Even if it tried to be at the last second. I'm all for something like that in another game, but it's so out of place and traitrorous with all the precedents the reaper story has set.

It is traitorous in a sense. I think the main problem with it is that they didn't introduce the Leviathan DLC until after the game was released, and it takes place near the end of Shepard's story. It should have been towards the end of ME2; the Vigil encounter that was missing from the game. If there had been, Shepard would have had more time for the cyclical dilemma to sink in. 

I'm not sure any of the endings are trying to be Deus Ex or cyberpunk. The endings all make sense contextually, depending on the player's path: synthesis for paragons, control for renegades, and destroy to appease the majority of players who want Will Smith and Bruce Willis to land the chopper on the citadel, plant the charges, save America, and return safely right before the credits begin. If you have a problem with synthesis, then your problem is with the paragon ideallogy itself presented throughout the story; it is fairly consistent.

Modifié par pebiowarenis, 08 janvier 2014 - 02:45 .

[Farangbaa]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...
You know, my personal take on the whole situation was that even after millions of years of studying organic life, the Catalyst still didn't understand it...

I like this human!  He understands!

I would like to hear exactly what it doesn't understand.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Obadiah wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
Its just stupid to assume that every fusion of organic and tech will result in something horrible just because those are the Reaper forces we encounter.

I'm not.  I'm just assuming that every fusion of organic tech that involve or are suggested by the Reaper forces will result in something horrible.  That's pragmatism, a pragmatism born of experience and a knowledge of how the Reapers operate.

It's not pragmatism, its just an assumption based on a fairly limited perspective of an enemy.

Vigil: "Your survival depends on destroying them, not in understanding them."

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 08 janvier 2014 - 03:44 .

[Yggdrasil]

Psychevore wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...
You know, my personal take on the whole situation was that even after millions of years of studying organic life, the Catalyst still didn't understand it...

I like this human!  He understands!

I would like to hear exactly what it doesn't understand.

I don't believe that the function and purpose of all life is the furtherance of some singular goal.  The Catalyst presumes that everyone deemed worthy by the harvesting process would want to "ascend" and be preserved as a Reaper, so it forces that will on all organic life.  I personally have no desire to live forever.  I believe we create our own meaning within the context of our finite existences.  Achieving complete stasis where everyone is the same so that there is no growth and no change may appeal to the reasoning of a constructed intelligence, but I don't believe organics would see the imposition of an outside, orderly will as a viable means to achieve peace.

These our the subtleties about organic life I feel the Catalyst doesn't understand.

[von uber]

pebiowarenis wrote...



I'm not sure any of the endings are trying to be Deus Ex or cyberpunk. The endings all make sense contextually, depending on the player's path: synthesis for paragons, control for renegades, and destroy to appease the majority of players who want Will Smith and Bruce Willis to land the chopper on the citadel, plant the charges, save America, and return safely right before the credits begin. If you have a problem with synthesis, then your problem is with the paragon ideallogy itself presented throughout the story; it is fairly consistent.

How is it a paragon decision to forcibly fuse every living thing with reaper tech willing or no. And I would say your description of destroy is a bit bizarre; ending the reaper threat once and for all you a putting down as the implied stupid non-thinking Hollywood choice? For what it's worth,  being a brit you couldn't be more wrong. My motivation was to end the reaper threat. The other choices don't. 


 Of course the other benefit of being British is that they don't sensor proper English swearwords like bloody bollocks arse.

[OriginalTibs]

My take is the given endings were originally a logic puzzle on the way to an ending that we didn't get.

However, it was a paragon ending to fuse synthetics with biologics to resolve the conflict of the story, which from Geth to Reaper revolved around the thesis/antithesis of artificial life separate from biological life. It was a dialectical achievement.

Resolution of the conflict is resolution of the story: it is only the pacing that suggests to me that the story was resolved prematurely for some reason.

Modifié par OriginalTibs, 08 janvier 2014 - 05:13 .

[Obadiah]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
Its just stupid to assume that every fusion of organic and tech will result in something horrible just because those are the Reaper forces we encounter.

I'm not.  I'm just assuming that every fusion of organic tech that involve or are suggested by the Reaper forces will result in something horrible.  That's pragmatism, a pragmatism born of experience and a knowledge of how the Reapers operate.

It's not pragmatism, its just an assumption based on a fairly limited perspective of an enemy.

Vigil: "Your survival depends on destroying them, not in understanding them."

Turns out it doesn't.

Also, the Vigil quote is, "Your survival depends on stopping them, not understanding them.

Modifié par Obadiah, 08 janvier 2014 - 05:26 .

[Invisible Man]

I guess what I found hardest to take in regards to me3's ending was that... the destroy and synthesis endings seemed to counter everything that mass effect as a series stood for, leaving the only ending that didn't go quite that far, control. as for control, it seemed to be the most questionable ending open to us, that is until rejection (if it wasn't a screw you response from bw it might have been ok-ish, imho). I've explained why control isn't a viable option (to me) in other threads, and it's a bit of a lengthy post too. so i'll leave that out, for the time being.

[AlanC9]

Obadiah wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Vigil: "Your survival depends on destroying them, not in understanding them."

Turns out it doesn't.

Vigil's actually quite correct. It's just that "your" in the quote refers only to Shepard. 

[Iakus]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
Its just stupid to assume that every fusion of organic and tech will result in something horrible just because those are the Reaper forces we encounter.

I'm not.  I'm just assuming that every fusion of organic tech that involve or are suggested by the Reaper forces will result in something horrible.  That's pragmatism, a pragmatism born of experience and a knowledge of how the Reapers operate.

It's not pragmatism, its just an assumption based on a fairly limited perspective of an enemy.

Vigil: "Your survival depends on destroying them, not in understanding them."

I'm all for destroying them and all, but to be accurate, the phrase is, "your survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them"

Although in Shepard's case, his survival depends on how much the writers think of a choice-based video game 
compares to a tv series. 

[Obadiah]

AlanC9 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Vigil: "Your survival depends on destroying them, not in understanding them."

Turns out it doesn't.

Vigil's actually quite correct. It's just that "your" in the quote refers only to Shepard. 

Vigil says "stopping" not "destroying". The quote is a mis-quote.

[AlanC9]

pebiowarenis wrote...

It is traitorous in a sense. I think the main problem with it is that they didn't introduce the Leviathan DLC until after the game was released, and it takes place near the end of Shepard's story. It should have been towards the end of ME2; the Vigil encounter that was missing from the game. If there had been, Shepard would have had more time for the cyclical dilemma to sink in. 

I'm a firm believer in introducing DLCs as soon as possible, but (until we have reliable time travel) releasing DLCs before they're written isn't an option.

@ Obadiah: Guess he's just wrong then. Pity. But there's no reason Vigil should be right about everything.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 janvier 2014 - 05:31 .

[Obadiah]

Its true. If only Vigil knew how accommodating the Reapers would be when you attach a giant bomb to their home base, he might have given us some better advice like, "Your survival depends on BUILDING A GIANT BOMB AND ATTACHING IT TO THEIR HOME BASE...!!!"

[pebiowarenis]

von uber wrote...

pebiowarenis wrote...



I'm not sure any of the endings are trying to be Deus Ex or cyberpunk. The endings all make sense contextually, depending on the player's path: synthesis for paragons, control for renegades, and destroy to appease the majority of players who want Will Smith and Bruce Willis to land the chopper on the citadel, plant the charges, save America, and return safely right before the credits begin. If you have a problem with synthesis, then your problem is with the paragon ideallogy itself presented throughout the story; it is fairly consistent.

How is it a paragon decision to forcibly fuse every living thing with reaper tech willing or no. And I would say your description of destroy is a bit bizarre; ending the reaper threat once and for all you a putting down as the implied stupid non-thinking Hollywood choice? For what it's worth,  being a brit you couldn't be more wrong. My motivation was to end the reaper threat. The other choices don't. 


 Of course the other benefit of being British is that they don't sensor proper English swearwords like bloody bollocks arse.

Destroy is not consistent with the paragon ideology reflected throughout the trilogy. Destroy requires you to kill off EDI, the Geth, and the reapers (sapient life). Additionally, it's strongly implied (but not definitely, granted) that the cycle will repeat itself. Destroy certainly is the hollywood ending, although, perhaps it is unfair to reduce it to simply that. It is jingoistic and self-serving, though. If you feel strongly regarding the forcible change aspect, then I assume you let the Geth die, as that is directly analogous.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the other choices don't end the reaper 'threat'. Only one tangibly destroys the reapers, but all of them factually stop the reaper invasion; this is simply indisputable, unless you're talking about IT. If you feel strongly that destroy was the 'correct' choice, then it was what you felt was right and reflected your choices, but it does not transmogrify other endings.

[von uber]

pebiowarenis wrote...

Destroy is not consistent with the paragon ideology reflected throughout the trilogy. Destroy requires you to kill off EDI, the Geth, and the reapers (sapient life). Additionally, it's strongly implied (but not definitely, granted) that the cycle will repeat itself. Destroy certainly is the hollywood ending, although, perhaps it is unfair to reduce it to simply that. It is jingoistic and self-serving, though. If you feel strongly regarding the forcible change aspect, then I assume you let the Geth die, as that is directly analogous.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the other choices don't end the reaper 'threat'. Only one tangibly destroys the reapers, but all of them factually stop the reaper invasion; this is simply indisputable, unless you're talking about IT. If you feel strongly that destroy was the 'correct' choice, then it was what you felt was right and reflected your choices, but it does not transmogrify other endings.

I'll give you EDI, but not the Geth. It is not clear whether thye are affected or not. The Geth also choose to be changed, which is different from being forced as you are in Synthesis. They reach a consensus to be individuals (and thus lose everything interesting about them, hey ho) and I always broker peace to let the Quarians and Geth work it out between themselves and BOTH aid the war effort.  They choose what to do, no forcible change.

Synthesis ends the invasion but no the Reaper threat, neither does Control. There is nothing to suggest that the cycles will not continue. Destroy removes the reapers entirely out of the equation; the future is now detemeined by each race rather than the Reapers. I would say ME1 was a hollywood ending; not ME3.

But you are correct, each believes the choice they made was the best Maybe Bioware didn't do such a bad job afterall.

[pebiowarenis]

AlanC9 wrote...

pebiowarenis wrote...

It is traitorous in a sense. I think the main problem with it is that they didn't introduce the Leviathan DLC until after the game was released, and it takes place near the end of Shepard's story. It should have been towards the end of ME2; the Vigil encounter that was missing from the game. If there had been, Shepard would have had more time for the cyclical dilemma to sink in. 

I'm a firm believer in introducing DLCs as soon as possible, but (until we have reliable time travel) releasing DLCs before they're written isn't an option.

@ Obadiah: Guess he's just wrong then. Pity. But there's no reason Vigil should be right about everything.

Also, it would be difficult to release a Mass Effect 3 DLC for Mass Effect 2. That would be minor issues there. What I was suggesting, though, was the narrative from Leviathan not actually being a DLC from the game, but content perhaps near the end of ME2. 

Modifié par pebiowarenis, 08 janvier 2014 - 07:52 .

[Invisible Man]

von uber wrote...

But you are correct, each believes the choice they made was the best Maybe Bioware didn't do such a bad job afterall.

take it back. lol, only sort of kidding

I think it's more like we chose the lest offensive ending we could bear. I'd still need a few bottles of vodka to accept any of those stock endings, even with the ec. 

[ElSuperGecko]

Psychevore wrote...
I would like to hear exactly what it doesn't understand.

Maybe you should re-watch the Catalyst conversation then, and pay attention this time?

Obadiah wrote...
It's not pragmatism, its just an assumption based on a fairly limited perspective of an enemy.

No, it's pragmatism, pragmatism based on everything thing we've learned about the Reapers over the course of the series.  Their methods, their actions and their goals.  Pragmatism based on the ONLY first-hand knowledge we have of them.

But of course, if you prefer to make decisions on what you don't know, that's entirely up to you.  There's a word for that kind of behaviour too, and it's certainly not pragmatism.