24 réponses à ce sujet

[Teddie Sage]

www.gamefront.com/even-with-all-its-content-mass-effect-is-an-incomplete-work/

Just sharing this article here. There are spoilers in the article, but none on this post.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 25 janvier 2014 - 01:03 .

[wolfsite]

Who is Phil Hornshaw?

[Dominus]

Who is Phil Hornshaw?

Deputy Editor at Gamefront.

As far as the article, I can't say it mentioned much I hadn't already heard from the droves of fans back in 2012 during its launch. One part in particular sums it up for me.

The one thing that’s clear from spending the time with Owen to work through his analysis of Mass Effect’s textual evidence, and his interpretation of authorial intent in the Catalyst, was just how much there was to draw on — and how little it amounted to. BioWare skirts dealing with the ultimate conclusion of its series even as it “expands” on it.

[Grizzly46]

He's kind of late to the party, isn't he?

[Teddie Sage]

Nah. It's never too late to have an opinion on anything.

[dreamgazer]

Grizzly46 wrote...

He's kind of late to the party, isn't he?

Late to the party? Nah.

GameFront's just peddling the same rusty negative wares they've been posting for two years, though, now designed to draw attention to a three-part analysis (!) of the Catalyst as a way of trying to be the final word on the subject. 

[TuringPoint]

Ok, so the title I could agree with. Evidently the actual research supports what I've been saying, to some degree, when I didn't have to do research, and many didn't.  So the editor uses that to reiterate that the consumer has a right to not think, but have every nuance forced on them. That's an incredibly weak argument that the ending could have been better, or that Bioware screwed up their game to spite their customers.

Thanks.  You're an inspiration, game informer, you really are.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 25 janvier 2014 - 08:42 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

In other old news Gurren Lagann is still amazing.

[Nitrocuban]

It's everything said about Mass Effect 3, just not by everyone.

[Mr.House]

Nitrocuban wrote...

It's everything said about Mass Effect 3, just not by everyone.

It's not just about ME3.

[SwobyJ]

I'm sick of calling the intelligence the Catalyst.

That's silly.

I'll just call it Sovereign from now on.

Or what about Nazara?

Anyway, still reading.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:02 .

[Mr.House]

Also lol at some fool in that comment section saying the change between lead writer from ME2 to ME3 was the issue, even though Mac was the lead writer for both games, with Drew being co and he was no better then Mac.

[Br3admax]

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm sick of calling the intelligence the Catalyst.

That's silly.

I'll just call it Sovereign from now on.

Or what about Nazara?

Anyway, still reading.

Wat? 

[dreamgazer]

Nitrocuban wrote...

It's everything said about Mass Effect 3, just not by everyone.

It's everything that can be said about every game in the series.  That's what's baffling.

Especially about agency. When it comes to big decisions, the options and input have always been very, very rigid. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Seems like gamefront is trying to challenge kotaku for dominance of the slowpokes.

[SwobyJ]

I'm not even going to try to take the comments on these articles seriously Mr. House

Points as I read through the full thing:

1)The Catalyst could still be honest that it thought the plans were destroyed. I don't see the evidence disagreeing with it. It could have destroyed all copies of the plan, but the Prothians (perhaps influenced by Leviathan, perhaps not) left one around, and then when we meet the Catalyst, it sarcastically goes "CLEARLYYY organics are more resourceful than we realized."
Again, maybe because it was really the Leviathans pushing the idea along.
And earlier, when we (optionally) meet Leviathan, it does its stupid eye-shifty look when talking about the Crucible.
Organics and unshackled AI can lie. Shackled AI tend to tell its version of the truth. Leviathan is organic.
Methinks the Reapers let the Crucible stuff go on, but eventually gave up on it bearing any sort of fruit. The Leviathans however put their efforts towards any means to control the Reapers, because that's what they bloody want. If anything, Cerberus are tools of both cosmic sides (Indoctrinated by Reaper tech, but manipulated by Leviathan).
Theory end.


2)I really do think Sovereign is the intelligence. Really really. It may not have been intended by the devs during ME1-time, but by now, they've made it so. Sure, they hide it, and make it not matter except to those who paid attention throughout the trilogy, but imo the suggestions are there.
Sovereign using Saren to help it do its solution-process, but here comes Shepard! Time to direct control of Saren while uploading into the Citadel, its new 'home'
Of course... Harbinger with his experiments helps the process along... indoctrinating Shepard (alright alright I'm done!).


3)Meh, "You can destroy us" literally shows a tube that we destroy. I take it as symbolic and in an enthralled mindspace, but its still pretty clear anyway that the Catalyst is just saying "Well, you can send the destroy signal (whatever it is) and I'll not stand in your way (this time)."
That's it. And it's fine imo. Chaos vs Order vs Peace. Destroy is Chaos, at least potentially. And contrasting to the Reapers, that's A-OK. If you want to go Order or Peace, that has its own costs, but I consider them valid enough in the larger narrative.


4)"So under this interpretation of Mass Effect, the Reapers’ ultimate plan was to push the development of life toward ultimately using the Crucible to reach the next phase of its experimental solution: a situation in which civilization could continue outside of the Reaper cycle without destroying itself."
Ok, this page is more interesting, and I mostly agree with it. However, what if the civilization isn't continuing 'outside' a Reaper cycle, but 'inside' a Reaper itself?
I don't think that green squiggly lines for everyone actually makes sense, and there may be a reason for that...


5)Yeah the last section is where it all falls apart for me personally. Because yeah, I do see the ending as virtual. And yeah, I do hypothesize that the ending slides themselves are really just the last visions of the inside of a new Neo Reaper (aww a good one though!) as it pursues its decision as Shepard lies dying and being the new home for 'Catalyst'/dying and coming back in a totally new form/waking up and being a changed 'Shepard' (possibly even new name).
Crazy? That's alright. We got time for me to be totally disproven or proven.


6)However, there's some good... at least symbolism and messages in the last section. I do think similar *sorts* of things will happen. Like...
-"The Leviathans notice the change, but do not trust it. They are stubborn and stuck with the biases of their ancestors, and they still believe they are infinitely superior to these other organics. So for the first time since they ruled the galaxy they take an active role in galactic affairs, as they seek to once again exert control over the Milky Way. First they act subtly, without revealing themselves, and then more and more openly and directly act out over time."
-"This Catalyst Shepard is not the Shepard you once knew and controlled. It has now left behind the immediate and mortal concerns it had as a human, with input from all the Reaper intelligences informing its policy. In the Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut, Catalyst Shepard promises to safeguard the surviving civilization, but we cannot predict how its position will change over a thousand years. Shepard has, in a very real sense, become something of a god."
-I consider the Synthesis section to be largely BS.


Good article though! More enjoyable than most Mass Effect 3 ones

Modifié par SwobyJ, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:46 .

[SwobyJ]

Br3ad wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm sick of calling the intelligence the Catalyst.

That's silly.

I'll just call it Sovereign from now on.

Or what about Nazara?

Anyway, still reading.

Wat? 

Don't worry. Later this year or next year, if I'm right, I'll stick it to all y'all. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

I consider the 'Catalyst' to be the eventual form of what was Nazara, the intelligence built by the Leviathans. It monitors the laboratory-galaxy of the Milky Way via a fully synthetic Reaper.

Tis' mah headcanon and I'll do what I want with it!

[StarcloudSWG]

There's nothing in the article which is really new. Many of the themes, including the fact that this was all an 'experiment' and the fact that the Crucible itself was an 'intelligence/cultural' test, are things I've thought before.

The real inconsistency is in the Brat's insistence on killing all synthetics even though it should have been targeted solely to the Reapers. If this was really a 'cultural test' to see if galactic civilization had finally 'matured' to the point they wouldn't be wiped out by synthetics, then forcing the destruction of synthetics that aren't Reapers is counter-productive.

Frankly, I think a lot of these interpretations are accidental. Mac Walters clearly designed the game around the idea that casualties *had* to be forced as a result of player decisions; that the player would have to choose between having Shepard suicide or commit genocide. And that the idea of the Crucible being a 'cultural test' for galactic society was an accident, and not an intended interpretation.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 26 janvier 2014 - 01:39 .

[SwobyJ]

I thought about that too StarcloudSWG, until Citadel DLC. Bits from that really sold the idea that even if Mac didn't consider this stuff before, by the time they wrote for that DLC, they really wanted to enforce the 'cultural test' idea, if even through more vague side NPC dialogue.

[StarcloudSWG]

I just remember the way they originally scripted the ending: "Lots of speculation from everyone!" Literally. That was Mac Walter's idea.

That makes me think the 'cultural test' interpretation was a 'happy accident' that arose by chance, and not a deliberate choice.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 26 janvier 2014 - 08:07 .

[eshrafel]

It's a decent read. Perhaps most of it is not particularly new, but science is always arguing about subjects penned hundreds of years ago. Eventually writing and rewriting causes enough debate that it reaches some manner of conclusion... the difference being that you can usually come up with some sort of proof there

I hate going too meta with these things, but my brain just shouts out that while its fine for a story to not be completely explained or obvious to the player, it seems phenomenally daft to have gone with an idea that only makes sense by NOT explaining it to the main character/player.

I suppose it's not just the fact that the foundations are so shaky that they are practically nonexistent, but that whatever theory/idea anyone comes up with, there *always* seems to be some manner of in-game/lore contradiction, no matter what. If the whole thing seems inconsistent from any angle then of course it's going to be somewhat unsatisfying.

[SilJeff]

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm sick of calling the intelligence the Catalyst.

That's silly.

I'll just call it Sovereign from now on.

Or what about Nazara?

Anyway, still reading.

Both are a million times better than the childish "starbrat" nonsense

[SwobyJ]

SilJeff wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm sick of calling the intelligence the Catalyst.

That's silly.

I'll just call it Sovereign from now on.

Or what about Nazara?

Anyway, still reading.

Both are a million times better than the childish "starbrat" nonsense

Well he is pretty bratty.

You can even easily visualize him rolling his eyes at "CLEARRRLYYYY organics are more resourceful than we realized" and "You have choice, more than you DESERVE" (if low EMS).

[shodiswe]

Call the Catalyst Bob instead, Belzebob. Fire death and destruction and yet its not at war or in conflict, it's just doing what it's designed to do.