191 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

dreamgazer wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Control is interesting. Shepard can do anything he wants with the Reapers, but the epilogue has a strong Big Brother vibe. I think the EC should have allowed for a less "parental" Shepard.

Yep. No matter the Shepard who serves as the basis for ReaperShep, they all allow the Reapers to tower above cities and "watch". Not what your Shepard would have done? Tough. It's what the new ControlShep does, regardless.

Yes, but any other scenario would basically make Control be "Destroy-lite".

[David7204]

It's a very unjustly and pointlessly cynical term. You are aware of that, right?

It's processed in the mind as 'Power fantasy' = 'unrealistic' = 'immature' = 'real stories have protagonist get his head cut off or whatever.'

Which is of course absurd nonsense.

[N7Gold]

rapscallioness wrote...

Instead, we had to start from scratch every time. Never having the chance to learn from our collective mistakes, and thereby repeating the same mistakes over and over. By not letting us learn from our mistakes, and have the collective knowledge, the Reapers and Catalyst actually contributed to the replaying of the very problem they said they were trying to solve.

No, we didn't need Synth or Reapers to attain this knowledge. What we needed is for the Reapers to stop destroying us every 50,000 years so we could grow.

The Reapers don't want organics to learn from their mistakes, and they weren't attacking organic life for no reason. Humans, asari, turians, salarians quarians, drell, elcor, and the races that existed before them are all lab rats in the Catalyst's experiment. Chances are the Catalyst and Reapers designed the Crucible and intentionally started attacking organic life so that they would be encouraged to fight back for their survival, to the point where they would discover the blueprints of the Crucible, and use it in hopes of destroying the Reapers. But through indoctrination, the Reapers create a splinter group (like Cerberus) who will argue to the non-indoctrinated that controlling them is the best way of stopping them since they actually intend on controlling them. The truth is, the Catalyst and Reapers have no intention of snuffing out the existence of organic life (evidenced by them not harming the younger races), and they have no need for enslaving races for slaves or resorces, but the Leviathans, the race who created the Catalyst are the ones who likely need slaves and resources, because eons ago, they had all of that in spades. They expect the organics and synthetic they attack to fight for their survival until they discover the Crucible, but they want to make it known that there are more ways to end the conflict between them rather than destroying them, which should hint which choice is the right one.

Modifié par N7Gold, 07 janvier 2014 - 06:26 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

It's a very unjustly and pointlessly cynical term. You are aware of that, right?

It's processed in the mind as 'Power fantasy' = 'unrealistic' = 'immature' = 'real stories have protagonist get his head cut off or whatever.'

Which is of course absurd nonsense.

Put it in your dedicated thread, professor.

[CosmicGnosis]

You know, I don't like to headcanon things that directly contradict what is presented in a story, but I might make an exception for Mass Effect's ending. It's just too frustrating to work with it; I pull one string and everything unravels.

[dreamgazer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

You know, I don't like to headcanon things that directly contradict what is presented in a story, but I might make an exception for Mass Effect's ending.

Yeah? What'll your headcanon nix?

[CosmicGnosis]

dreamgazer wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

You know, I don't like to headcanon things that directly contradict what is presented in a story, but I might make an exception for Mass Effect's ending.

Yeah? What'll your headcanon nix?

I have three choices:

1. Synthesis is optional, but most people choose it.
2. Control-Shepard goes away after rebuilding the relays.
3. Synthetics don't die if you choose Destroy.

Leaning more towards 1 or 2.

[ImaginaryMatter]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I have three choices:

1. Synthesis is optional, but most people choose it.
2. Control-Shepard goes away after rebuilding the relays.
3. Synthetics don't die if you choose Destroy.

Leaning more towards 1 or 2.

You can uninstall the Extended Cut and suddenly all those are valid.

[dreamgazer]

1's probably the easiest to handwave, if you think those are your only options.

[CosmicGnosis]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I have three choices:

1. Synthesis is optional, but most people choose it.
2. Control-Shepard goes away after rebuilding the relays.
3. Synthetics don't die if you choose Destroy.

Leaning more towards 1 or 2.

You can uninstall the Extended Cut and suddenly all those are valid.

Hah! I have argued before that the greatest strength of the original ending was the ambiguity. You made your choices, and there were no moral judgments. Will Wrex change the krogan? Will the krogan grow tired of Wreav? Will the "peace" on Rannoch truly last? And the Crucible choices themselves could go anywhere.

The EC made certain things concrete, which I suppose is both good and bad.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 07 janvier 2014 - 07:08 .

[SwobyJ]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Knowledge liberates us; it doesn't destroy us.

It depends on what you do with that knowledge. No?

Yes, and the Synthesis epilogue outright states that it is used "to recover the greatness that was lost... and surpass it."

EDIT: But you know what? There are moments when I consider the possibility that Destroy is intended to be the ideal ending. BioWare "rewards" you with a living Shepard, right? And in those moments, I am disappointed that "unlimited access to knowledge" dies with the Reapers. I worry that BioWare deliberately sabotaged Synthesis just so that it would be ridiculed, leading people to reject its entire philosophy. The magic, the implied racism, the green circuitry, all of that might have been used to discredit Synthesis.

I don't know. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was actually supposed to be the best ending, so whatever. 

I think you've already read my other posts where I suggested that this is only the start of a true synthesis option to be seen in other games, yes? And that the Shepard trilogy, while having him 'more' of a 'Destroyer' than anything else, is an introduction of other forms of paths and what potential they might offer in a different world?

[SwobyJ]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Destroy comes at the cost of synthetics, which really bothers me. I know that it bothers some people less, and some aren't bothered by it at all, but it frustrates me. It contradicts the theme that so many claim is represented by Destroy: freedom. Yes, there is finally freedom... but not for synthetics. Organic freedom at the cost of synthetic life. 

Control is interesting. Shepard can do anything he wants with the Reapers, but the epilogue has a strong Big Brother vibe. I think the EC should have allowed for a less "parental" Shepard.

I think depending on the player, all of the endings are supposed to bother us. Just in the structure of the story, Destroy bothers the least.

You just need to fully listen to EDI and the Geth. EDI will outright declare herself as ready to 'die' for the cause. The Geth will propose their standing of no more compromise (FRELLING FINALLY) and fully join the offensive.

That doesn't make it the *entirely* correct choice though. All the story does is give you enough to know, or at least be assured enough, that their loss of function is something they have already put on the table. It then just comes down to you, personally, thinking that's enough, or instead wanting to more securely save as many as possible (at the clearer cost of Shepard's life, and the existence of the Reapers continuing), or attaining what appears to be true peace (at the clearer cost of Shepard's life, and the existence of the Reapers continuing, and no one really having a say in themselves being changed from the core).

There's still enough 'story ammo' to go for Control or Synthesis though. It's not clean cut, overall.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 07 janvier 2014 - 08:06 .

[SwobyJ]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

One of the things that always worried me (in game) about the Control option, is that wouldn't Shepard lose his Organic connection when becoming MechaShepard? Since, to me, it seems like the Catalyst thinks self-determination is bound to DNA or circuitry. So, wouldn't Control then make Shepard fully Synthetic and thus lead to the inevitable extinction of all Organic life?

Inevitable? I dunno.

But we never had a Reaper Controlling Intelligence have an organic perspective at all, other than at far-view observation.

I think we can assume it'll be more accurate than the Shepard VI.

But how accurate? We can only hope. That's the risk with Control as the ultimate Blue to match the ultimate Red (destruction of *all* Reapers and seemingly synthetics, or at least a great many of those), as it is presented in this scenario.

He won't identify as Shepard or as organic, for sure.
It's more about whether he'll fully maintain the identity of an AI associated strongly with Shepard and his experience. If he does, he'll just be a peaceful watcher to whatever fair extent. If he doesn't... well, just think happy thoughts about it, ok?

[von uber]

Always amazes me how eager people are to turn the entire galaxy into reaper husks just to save a sexbot.

[SwobyJ]

von uber wrote...

Always amazes me how eager people are to turn the entire galaxy into reaper husks just to save a sexbot.

Bioware knows their audience.


However, I first chose Synthesis for TRICIA HELFER , not EDI herself. ...

[Daemul]

StreetMagic wrote...

Do they really know their audience? Seems like Synthesis isn't that popular (can't say for sure though).

Depends where on the internet you go, in places like Giantbomb people seemed really happy with Synthesis after the EC was released. I remember a few posters being shocked at the large number of people being in favour of it, though those posters were also BSNers, which may explain their shock. I haven't been back on Giantbomb in over a year though so things might have changed. 

StreetMagic wrote...

In any case, I'm just one of their audience that wanted to be a soldier and space cop. Not sci-fi Jesus. I think they made way too big of a deal out of their own games if they think that's cool. Too close to assess anything right now. Like Shepard is so iconic at this point that he has to be a god or savior. I hate when franchises start taking themselves too seriously.

I completely agree, I just wanted to be a badass soldier, not the fricken messiah. Most games are power fantasies, but Mass Effect took it to the extreme, supposedly no other organic in all of history could do the things that Shepard did, what complete and utter BS. I felt myself constantly cringing anything an NPC would spew the usual "We couldn't have done this without Shepard" line, it seemed so obnoxious.

With most other games, the power fantasy normally extends to the PC being a badass, Garrus/Wrex level, but no further then that, Bioware took it way further with Shepard though.

Modifié par Daemul, 07 janvier 2014 - 01:01 .

[Ieldra]

A protagonist who can convince beings who far surpass him in cognitive ability to help? With three sentences which contain no real argument except "I can do it"? No, i do not "lap it up", I hate it. The same with the nonsensical defiance in Arrival. What does defiance mean if you don't have anything real to back it up? To say nothing of the incredible speciesist arrogance in the line "That's what humans do".

No, Shepard is not the kind of protagonist I would wish for if I had the choice. The power fantasies I prefer make more sense.

As for the Lovecraftian aspect of ME: The linked article is 100% correct. The concept of an all-powerful protagonist who can successfully "bargain with God" clashes fundamentally with the presentation of the Reapers as beings beyond our understanding and power. You can read the trilogy as a subversion of Lovecraftian Cosmicism, as the OP says, and I prefer it that way, but the weight of the presentation is clearly on the Lovecraftian side, with the result that Shepard's confidence and defiance makes no sense and the solution comes across as contrived.   

There are basically two ways this would've worked: Either write things as a subversion from the start, with both the abomination aesthetic and Reapers' inscrutability lessening as closer as we get to them. Give Shepard some real arguments in the conversations with Harbinger, the Leviathan and the Catalyst and then keep the existing choices, which would've worked better. Or reinforce the Lovecraftian aspect and make a real downer ending - like IT, only with no way out. 

The way it's written, the story says "Yes we are stupid and like to keep it that way, but we are too badass to die". IMO the civilization who says that does not deserve to survive. That's the main reason why I want to transform it by using the Synthesis. A world like the ME galaxy, where everyone in power is either a villain, an assh*le, an idiot or hopelessly naive, and where military leaders are sometimes competent but political leaders are always idiots, such a world is not for me. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 janvier 2014 - 02:20 .

[Obadiah]

I like the article, but isn't the story in Mass Effect more that these powerful beings, though they cloak themselves in a veneer of mystery and god-hood, are not quite as powerful as they present themselves?

Also, I always agreed that Mass Effect was a bit of a power fantasy, but most Bioware stories are like that.

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Yeah, it sucks that Synthesis is tainted with magic and a forced transformation. I can't defend it. It is a tragedy.

I consider it an offer they can't refuse.

Modifié par Obadiah, 07 janvier 2014 - 02:31 .

[MattFini]

^ Well said. Totally anti-synthesis here, but I'll never not find your posts interesting, Ieldra.

[ruggly]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Ruggly, what is that avatar?

it's my Imperial Agent from SWTOR dancing in rainy Dromund Kaas streets.

[ruggly]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

You know, I don't like to headcanon things that directly contradict what is presented in a story, but I might make an exception for Mass Effect's ending. It's just too frustrating to work with it; I pull one string and everything unravels.

Honestly, I think your best bet at this point is when you get to the ending or after the catalyst tells you to make your choice, just turn it off and imagine Shepard choosing synthesis but have it play out in a different way.  Maybe take out the magical portion of it so Shepard survives, but leaving it so it forces it on everyone anyways, leaving Shepard to have to deal with the consequences or something.  That's what I would have like to seen anyways.

I think it will make you a lot happier.

[von uber]

Really? What would be the time elapsed between shepard arriving back on the Normandy and javik shooting him for being a bloody idiot who just re-wrote the entire galaxies dna to huskify them as the reapers were trying to do?