692 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You can't afford to take the risk to even listen? Well, hate to point it out, but Shepard listened. That's a side point though, unimportant.

The Catalyst was created to find a solution to the synthetic vs. organics "problem." As such, his very programming is flawed. The entirety of his existence is because of a falsely imagined problem. It's impossible for him to accept that. That means he's automatically wrong (on that point only, and only if we consider that gauranteed SxO is untrue--which I do). But the fact that he's trying to find a solution tells me he isn't lying. There's no reason to lie when he could have let Shepard die without using the light-beam elevator. That doesn't make sense.

And Shepard having to enact such horrible "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist to begin with is the heart of why so many people find the endings terrible.  Shepard, and therefore the player, are literally trapped and forced under duress to do something horrible to both the galaxy and to Shepard him.herself.

Catalyst=Jigsaw

[DoomsdayDevice]

EntropicAngel wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

You think I haven't considered that? Of course I have. I simply don't trust him. He could even be telling a mix of lies and truth, maybe even 90% truth, but it doesn't even matter because I cannot afford to take the risk to listen to his suggestions, even if they didn't sound completely fishy to begin with. I came there to complete the most important mission of all time.

Everyone who ever wanted to control the Reapers or thought he could do so, turned out to be indoctrinated. Hell, it's the reason the Protheans didn't complete the Crucible. But Shepard can because she's special? Because she 'changed the variables'? Cool story Reaper bro. Can't take that gamble. Don't even get me started on synthesis.

Of course I pick destroy.

You can't afford to take the risk to even listen? Well, hate to point it out, but Shepard listened. That's a side point though, unimportant.

The Catalyst was created to find a solution to the synthetic vs. organics "problem." As such, his very programming is flawed. The entirety of his existence is because of a falsely imagined problem. It's impossible for him to accept that. That means he's automatically wrong (on that point only, and only if we consider that gauranteed SxO is untrue--which I do). But the fact that he's trying to find a solution tells me he isn't lying. There's no reason to lie when he could have let Shepard die without using the light-beam elevator. That doesn't make sense.

Not literally listening but 'going along with' his suggestions.

See, you believe that the catalyst was created to solve a problem. I don't believe that. I believe it's making up that problem so the Reapers suddenly appear as a solution instead of a problem. Clever psychological manipulation.

There's no reason to lie if he could have let Shepard die? Are you kidding me?

From the codex entry for indoctrination:

"Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations."

The Reapers have special plans for Shepard, always had.

"Struggle if you wish... your mind will be mine." - Harbinger, Arrival

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:31 .

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You can't afford to take the risk to even listen? Well, hate to point it out, but Shepard listened. That's a side point though, unimportant.

The Catalyst was created to find a solution to the synthetic vs. organics "problem." As such, his very programming is flawed. The entirety of his existence is because of a falsely imagined problem. It's impossible for him to accept that. That means he's automatically wrong (on that point only, and only if we consider that gauranteed SxO is untrue--which I do). But the fact that he's trying to find a solution tells me he isn't lying. There's no reason to lie when he could have let Shepard die without using the light-beam elevator. That doesn't make sense.

And Shepard having to enact such horrible "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist to begin with is the heart of why so many people find the endings terrible.  Shepard, and therefore the player, are literally trapped and forced under duress to do something horrible to both the galaxy and to Shepard him.herself.

Catalyst=Jigsaw

and how is it different from Arrival? Or other points in the series where Shepard has to make decisions that alter the fates of others to defeat the Reapers.

The ending is nothing new.

[DoomsdayDevice]

EntropicAngel wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Not literally listening but 'going along with' his suggestions.

See, you believe that the catalyst was created to solve a problem. I don't believe that. I believe it's making up that problem so the Reapers suddenly appear as a solution instead of a problem. Clever psychological manipulation.

There's no reason to lie if he could have let Shepard die? Are you kidding me?

From the codex entry for indoctrination:

"Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations."

The Reapers have special plans for Shepard, always had.

"Struggle if you wish... your mind will be mine." - Harbinger, Arrival

We disagree on the premise then. I didn't know you were arguing IT.

It's okay to disagree. I can totally see why it's annoying to be told by IT-ers that you're wrong or that you don't get it, and that's what I try to avoid. I didn't actually even mean to argue IT, it's just inevitable when discussing interpretations I guess.

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

and how is it different from Arrival? Or other points in the series where Shepard has to make decisions that alter the fates of others to defeat the Reapers.

The ending is nothing new.

You have perhaps missed all the complaints about how Arrival turned out?  

What makes ME3's ending worse is that we're not just talking about the live of one soldier, or one ship, or even a colony of hundreds of thousands.  The Catalyst's "solution" touches all life, everywhere, and for all time.   Even on worlds Shepard has never heard of.  In parts of the galaxy thus far unexplored.  

This is why I have to laugh at any attempt to compare Virmire to RGB.

It's funny how they said they were going to try to "humanize" Shepard when they ended up forcing Shepard to play God with the entire galaxy.

And we get trolled if we choose "I fight for freedom.  Mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate."

Is it any wonder people are suspicious of what's too come next?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

And we get trolled if we choose "I fight for freedom.  Mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate."

Is it any wonder people are suspicious of what's too come next?

While I think you might have a valid point with everything else, this is last bit is your own fault. Anyone who actually thought refuse would lead to anything other than what ME3's plot indicates is insane.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:43 .

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

How are they horrible solutions? I'm genuinely curious.

1) Synthetic holocaust
2) Reaper police state
3) Forced eugenics.

Not to mention forcing Shepard to essentially commit suicide to bring any of these about.

I find all these options gut-churningly horrible.  It turns everyhting my Shepard fought for a lie.  I can say without exageration that if I knew back in 2007 what the Crucible would bring about I never would have bought that first game.

The only "good" outcome to me is if you don't think synthetics are truly alive and have enough headcanon power to imagine Shepard's eventual rescue in Destroy+.  Sorry, that's not me.

Modifié par iakus, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:43 .

[Iakus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

iakus wrote...

And we get trolled if we choose "I fight for freedom.  Mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate."

Is it any wonder people are suspicious of what's too come next?

While I think you might have a valid point with everything else, this is last bit is your own fault. Anyone who actually thought refuse would lead to anything other than what ME3's plot indicates is insane.

It's not Refuse as such.  It's the sentiment.  If Shepard is fighting for the freedom of the galaxy, then Shep's just waasting time.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

And we get trolled if we choose "I fight for freedom.  Mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate."

You only got "trolled" if you were playing on mute and with no subtitles for the last 100 hours and somehow missed that conventional victory was never an option.

And even then, I personally (IRL) know people that actually liked what they did with Refuse.

I think I might have liked Refuse a bit better if there was a simple fade to black after Shepard's speech. No Liara scene + stargazer.

Edit: Brainfart. I typed "looked" instead of "liked".

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:48 .

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

And even then, I personally (IRL) know people that actually liked what they did with Refuse.

Then I guess it's completely valid for everyone, right?  I've heard that before:

 To be fair, I get people, especially at the Cons, who will say, “I loved it. It was heart-wrenching, but I felt it was right for my Shepard.” And to me, that’s why it was the right path. 

Mac Walters

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

And even then, I personally (IRL) know people that actually liked what they did with Refuse.

Then I guess it's completely valid for everyone, right?  I've heard that before:

 To be fair, I get people, especially at the Cons, who will say, “I loved it. It was heart-wrenching, but I felt it was right for my Shepard.” And to me, that’s why it was the right path. 

Mac Walters

Yes, it is.

why should people care about your opinion of the ending anyway, or anyones for that matter? 

I kind of had an epipany a few days back. Who gives a damn what you (and by you, I mean we all) think personally, if it's good, bad, or mediocre? It's subjective in the end and open for interpretation. Like any work that is part of a media it allows for people to discuss its merits and issues. 

It doesn't make you right, me right, Mac Walters right, or Entropic right. It just makes it open for everyone to find their own meaning to it. In that way, it is completely valid, because we can interpret things as see fit.

ETA: The flipside of this is the constant harranging from every cynic and sycophant who blindly touts the party line, so to speak. It is like saying Citizen Kane is universally the best movie ever made. Time may judge something as good or great, or even bad, but what we take from it is open for discussion. Shutting down all opinions but your own, and presuming they are the only opinion that is valid, is just ignorance in the end. 

As for the thread itself, there is no such thing as an objective interpretation of the endings, because they are designed to not be that way at all. We can objectively say the endings were different from each other, but thats about it. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 janvier 2014 - 12:01 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

How are they horrible solutions? I'm genuinely curious.

1) Synthetic holocaust
2) Reaper police state
3) Forced eugenics.

Not to mention forcing Shepard to essentially commit suicide to bring any of these about.

I find all these options gut-churningly horrible.  It turns everyhting my Shepard fought for a lie.  I can say without exageration that if I knew back in 2007 what the Crucible would bring about I never would have bought that first game.

The only "good" outcome to me is if you don't think synthetics are truly alive and have enough headcanon power to imagine Shepard's eventual rescue in Destroy+.  Sorry, that's not me.

Ah, yes! This one again. What fun. *rubs hands together*

1. I think you mean "Reapers destroyed."

Because you're talking about side effects of the solution, not the solution.

I don't "choose" to get fat from eating McDonalds hamburgers. No one chooses that. I choose to eat hamburgers, and the side effect is that I get fat (for the record, I don't even really eat hamburgers).

I'm not sure this is a good counter-argument. His point is that it is a horrible solution, due to the side effects.

2. I think you mean, "Shepard controlling Reapers." Because that's what actually happened. Whether it's a police state or not is completely debatable.

Agreed. I think this is a bit of an exaggeration on Iakus' part.

3. I don't think "eugenics" is the right word, as eugenics refers to a breeding process aiming for a single, sole result. Aryans, for example--blond hair, blue eyes. Syntheisis is not that. Synthesis turns everything into an organic/synthetic hybrid, but it doesn't not change hair color. Eye color. Species type. There is still diversity. There's LESS diversity, but there is STILL diversity, and eugenics precludes diversity.

However, I won't pretend to like Synthesis.

Still, I think this is a bit of wordplay at work. The key sentiment here is that you're forcing a transformation onto every being in the galaxy that my not even want that. I think that might meet the definition of a horrible solution.

[daaaav]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

How are they horrible solutions? I'm genuinely curious.

1) Synthetic holocaust
2) Reaper police state
3) Forced eugenics.

Not to mention forcing Shepard to essentially commit suicide to bring any of these about.

I find all these options gut-churningly horrible.  It turns everyhting my Shepard fought for a lie.  I can say without exageration that if I knew back in 2007 what the Crucible would bring about I never would have bought that first game.

The only "good" outcome to me is if you don't think synthetics are truly alive and have enough headcanon power to imagine Shepard's eventual rescue in Destroy+.  Sorry, that's not me.

Ah, yes! This one again. What fun. *rubs hands together*

1. I think you mean "Reapers destroyed."

Because you're talking about side effects of the solution, not the solution.

I don't "choose" to get fat from eating McDonalds hamburgers. No one chooses that. I choose to eat hamburgers, and the side effect is that I get fat (for the record, I don't even really eat hamburgers).

2. I think you mean, "Shepard controlling Reapers." Because that's what actually happened. Whether it's a police state or not is completely debatable.

3. I don't think "eugenics" is the right word, as eugenics refers to a breeding process aiming for a single, sole result. Aryans, for example--blond hair, blue eyes. Syntheisis is not that. Synthesis turns everything into an organic/synthetic hybrid, but it doesn't not change hair color. Eye color. Species type. There is still diversity. There's LESS diversity, but there is STILL diversity, and eugenics precludes diversity.

However, I won't pretend to like Synthesis.

Haha. No, this is intellectual gymnastics.

These decisions are not devoid of context and their effects are IMPLICIT in the narrative.

- Shepard knows that destroying the Reapers will likely wipout the Geth. 

- Shepards monologues (both renegade and paragon) certainly foreshadow the possibility of a police state

- Synthesis changes something. It is certainly debatable what that something is, but the effect is to by all appearances eliminate sources of conflict between previously free peoples. Mal Reynolds put why this is a horrible idea best (I'm sure you know which quote I'm referring too).

Why do you think that you can divorce the solutions from their side effects?

Modifié par daaaav, 12 janvier 2014 - 12:02 .

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

and how is it different from Arrival? Or other points in the series where Shepard has to make decisions that alter the fates of others to defeat the Reapers.

The ending is nothing new.

You have perhaps missed all the complaints about how Arrival turned out?  

What makes ME3's ending worse is that we're not just talking about the live of one soldier, or one ship, or even a colony of hundreds of thousands.  The Catalyst's "solution" touches all life, everywhere, and for all time.   Even on worlds Shepard has never heard of.  In parts of the galaxy thus far unexplored.  

This is why I have to laugh at any attempt to compare Virmire to RGB.

It's funny how they said they were going to try to "humanize" Shepard when they ended up forcing Shepard to play God with the entire galaxy.

And we get trolled if we choose "I fight for freedom.  Mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate."

Is it any wonder people are suspicious of what's too come next?

Just because Arrival had complaints doesn't make it less of a valid comparison.

And really, the only difference between Virmire and the end of ME3 is the scope...that's it. Otherwise its thematically the same.

Nevermind that the only difference between the Signal Tracking AI and the Catalyst is once again, scope. They are thematically similar otherwise.

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Ah, yes! This one again. What fun. *rubs hands together*

You did ask...

1. I think you mean "Reapers destroyed."

Because you're talking about side effects of the solution, not the solution.

I don't "choose" to get fat from eating McDonalds hamburgers. No one chooses that. I choose to eat hamburgers, and the side effect is that I get fat (for the record, I don't even really eat hamburgers).

Yeah, funny thing is, you can get many different things at McDonalds, even salads.  And even if you get a hamburger, one won't kill you (unless you have some powerful allergic reaction, I guess)

The Crucible gives you no choice but the order the double quarter pounder with cheese, supersized.  It's the only thing on the menu.  you can't say "I'd like some fried Reaper, hold the geth."

2. I think you mean, "Shepard controlling Reapers." Because that's what actually happened. Whether it's a police state or not is completely debatable.

You mean aside from the ending where teh Shepalyst talks about how it will lead (or"guide" in paragon-talk) the galaxy?  I mean, how else is this a solution for the Catlayst?  The Reapers guide the development of the galaxy according to their desires. It's what they do 

3. I don't think "eugenics" is the right word, as eugenics refers to a breeding process aiming for a single, sole result. Aryans, for example--blond hair, blue eyes. Syntheisis is not that. Synthesis turns everything into an organic/synthetic hybrid, but it doesn't not change hair color. Eye color. Species type. There is still diversity. There's LESS diversity, but there is STILL diversity, and eugenics precludes diversity.

eu·gen·ics [yoo-jen-iks] noun ( used with a singular verb ) the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics)  or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

reproduction, or selective breeding, I guess, does seem to be the major theme.  But the purpose is to "improve" humanity through it.  I believe forced gene therapy still falls under that term, as you are altering humanity and their genetic code "for their own good"

However, I won't pretend to like Synthesis.


Regardless, you're portraying them all wrong. In addition to injecting supposition (like big brother), or straight-up emotion-laced buzzwords like "holocaust" or "eugenics." That's automatically a red flag.

Big brother is entirely reasonable extropolation.  That is not Shepard controlling the Reapers.  It's a Reaper with Shepard's memories.  And all the tools of the Reapers within tentacle's reach.

Eugenics fits, as I just demonstrated.  Holocaust does too (I can post the definition if you like)  These are accurate terms, not buzzwords.  II even chose the term after hair-splitters kept getting upset over my calling it "genocide"  

You think it's somehow wrong to use these terms because they are emotion-laced?  Yeah, well,  these are ugly words for ugly actions.  Bioware wanted controversy?  They got it!

[LinksOcarina]

Let me help you out entropic.

Eugenics is a social philosophy (i.e, bull**** science) that was used to promote human improvement via genetics. The basis is simple; we want desirable traits, vs undesirable ones.  

It is basically masked racism that was used to both enforce and promote laws and ideals that would argue what is and isen't "desirable". In the context of this entire discussion, it is being misused through context. Copying and pasting from wikipedia to interpret meaning from how eugenics was used and founded, is frankly a sophmore mistake. To say synthesis is eugenics is like saying chemistry is magic, it simply doesn't work because they are contextually different, let alone incompatible based on their philosophy. 

A more appropriate term would be technological determinism, since it is using technology to drive the development and culture of the world, although it is problematic as a definition as well, but is worth discussing. Eugenics, however, is not. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 janvier 2014 - 12:23 .

[Iakus]

txgoldrush wrote...

Just because Arrival had complaints doesn't make it less of a valid comparison.

And really, the only difference between Virmire and the end of ME3 is the scope...that's it. Otherwise its thematically the same.

Nevermind that the only difference between the Signal Tracking AI and the Catalyst is once again, scope. They are thematically similar otherwise.

Arrival "only" affected a few hundred thousand people.  And some people were already unhappy with it.

The point you seem to be missing is scope is a factor.  Not everyone subscibes to "one death is a tragedy, a milion is a statistic"  Death is death.  And more death is more death.  At some point, it simply becomes too much.   As Mordin says "Hard to see big picture behind pile of corpses"