265 réponses à ce sujet

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The point is, you could criticize this game and not be "attacked", in fact you would be barely contradicted. I know you couldn't defend this game and not be attacked (or have the thread get filled up negative spam replies), because every time I posted anything positive about this game that is what happened. The equivalency in behavior that is being drawn between the two sides is not true at all. It was not a two-way street.

 

It is, and was, a two-way street because, by the very nature of having people on the opposing side throw pot-shots and personal attacks up, made it so.

 

While yes, the number of anti-enders seems to have far and away exceeded the pro-enders, don't try to turn it into a quantitative match. There were plenty of pro-enders who, instead of ignoring many of the irrational and idiotic statements by many anti-enders, chose to partake in the quarrel as well, attacking people for not liking the game and not understanding or getting true art or having a bad opinion that BW shouldn't listen to.

[Obadiah]

If it was a two way street, then it was on an incline with a few pro-enders (I would DEFINITELY not use the word "plenty") fighting up-hill against a mob of anti-enders.

[dreamgazer]

That depends on what your idea of a hand-waive is. And I never heard anything from the Catalyst about it being a fusion of man-and-machine. The only thing that came up on that topic was when the Catalyst was describing the 'importance' of synthetics in every day life (as well as the comment in Destory, but that's neither here nor there). That sounds like a hand-waive to me on your part on the bio-synthetic fusion; the Catalyst doesn't say anything about the execution of Synthesis, beyond 'add your energy to the Crucible,' and when asked to elaborate, responds with 'your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are.'

That is the essence of who and what Shepard is, who "altered the variables".
 

What laws of physiology does the Thorian break? Or Prothean physiology? Or the Cipher? Or even Lazarus? I wasn't aware that, due to the ever-changing and evolving characteristics of biology (as well as speculative xeno-biology and future technology) that there were any scientific laws concerning biology and physiology.

Hope you realize that you just justified the execution of Synthesis with the bold.

A sentient (mind-controlling) plant that absorbs knowledge by consuming other organisms? Immediately filtering the "collective unconscious" of a dead species into another consciousness (by organic touch)? Reviving a dead brain to full memory and experiential awareness? They're all breaks.
 

Scientific Law, another of those words that's thrown around casually, like Mary-Sue or Artistic Integrity. The thing about it is, there are very, very, exceedingly few actual laws in science. You'd be best to call it a theory, which you have data and information for, and a solid ability to predict, but no means to say that it would happen every single time. As I said, it's speculative xeno-biology. You can't say what or how life might exist somewhere else in the universe.

And again, you're justifying the application of Synthesis. Between gene therapy, particle physics, and nanotechnology bolstered by relay functionality, you've got a "speculative" answer with just as much (if not more) support behind it than reversing prolonged brain death and filtering the collective unconscious of an organism or species through another's mind. If you're going to directly violate known science in a substantial plot point in a piece of science-fiction, you should support its application with an answer instead of leaving it "unstated", yes?

As for the theory distinction? Eh. I think it's on the opponent to disprove the impossible, which brain-death revival and telepathic transmission of a collective unconscious are both in that category. Why, exactly, is current and observable physiology based on our advanced methods wrong?

[KaiserShep]

Man, they really should have just had Shepard be in a coma or something.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Man, they really should have just had Shepard be in a coma or something.

 

I guess they thought that a coma might be too cliched.

 

Or maybe by having TIM invest so many resourced into resurrecting Shepard it would get the point across that the guy really thought Shepard was super special.

[KaiserShep]

I mean, a coma with serious injuries, necessitating some cybernetic implants could work, but still. Cliche or not, at least comas are easy to work around, and can be just as easily dismissed once it's over. No "How did Shepard come out of it? It makes my brain itch!"

[ImaginaryMatter]

I mean, a coma with serious injuries, necessitating some cybernetic implants could work, but still. Cliche or not, at least comas are easy to work around, and can be just as easily dismissed once it's over. No "How did Shepard come out of it? It makes my brain itch!"

 

It is certainly a mind bender. When they first did it I thought the reveal would be that Shepard was a clone or something (which might have been interesting) but, no, they played it completely straight. I'm not even sure if it occurred to them how jarring that would be.

[KrrKs]

Some points from me:

The cipher, as well as the Thorian's abilities are similar enough to the prothean beacon's and Asari telepathic abilities (which are literally introduced in the first few game minutes) to not need a special explanation or introduction.

 

Project Lazarus was really an over the top stretch.

[headcanon] But it can be explained as being just a sort of huskification process --without real huskification [/headcanon]

And we know that Cerberus experimented with that sort of stuff since ME1. Huskification, the transformation of a more or less dead body into an organic(!) enemy, is also one of the very first mechanics shown in the series.

 

But stuff like synthesis and control have zero introduction and are just suddenly thrown around, together with this mystic "essence" thingy (which was already completely nonsensical in ME2).

Just throwing this out there and then (after EC, before that there was zero information) stating because 'physics' and 'nano machines' is like saying because 'green'.

-besides, how should mass accelerated nano machines (limited number!) suddenly reach every damn being in the galaxy? Just look at the volumes you have in both cases (aka, nano-machines ->less than mass of the citadel and volume to cover ->large parts of the inhabited galaxy, which is the surface of several hundreds of worlds), even those don't match up. And this is just the logistical side of the problem.

 

Add to that the nonsensical 'logic' of the catalyst;

 -turning people into DNA-mush is not what i call 'preserving'

 -AIs will always kill organics, right. Just that the only significant AI society that did that (and not even all of them), did so because the reapers told them to.

 

This is the post EC version, only considering the catalyst part. Pre EC was even more of a mess, and if you take priority earth into account there is a whole lot of stuff which was just disappointing.

Anyway, this is way I (and likely many others) don't like the ME3 ending.

 

Edit: If anyone likes ME3s ending, that's fine. Just understand that not everyone does, and that the reasons for this are valid.

[Daemul]

I guess they thought that a coma might be too cliched.

 

Or maybe by having TIM invest so many resourced into resurrecting Shepard it would get the point across that the guy really thought Shepard was super special.

 

There's a reason why coma is cliched, it's because it doesn't need mental gymnastics for it to work. Overused plot points are overused for a reason, they're simple. 

 

Bioware, for some reason, saw this as a bad thing and tried to be original. We all know that that worked out. Bioware, cliches are not bad, you just have to use them right. 

[Farangbaa]

Add to that the nonsensical 'logic' of the catalyst;
 -turning people into DNA-mush is not what i call 'preserving'

 
It is.

A machine can be built from the ground up from it's most basic components, the ground resources, if these resources are handled the right way and appropriatly placed and all that, and can be built if you have the blueprint (and proper tech). This is what DNA does in an organism. It makes sure the resources are handled the right way, appropriatly allocated within the organism and delivered at the right time, etc.
 
Technically, if you only preserve one strand of the double stranded DNA helix, you could rebuild the entire organism. We can't do this in real life.. yet, but all information about particular species can be preserved in a single DNA strand.  (the other strand of the helix is irrelevant. Base pairs are always the same, so from one strand of DNA you can build the other)
 
To get back to the point at hand: to preserve a machine you only need to preserve the blueprint. The same is true for organisms by way of DNA.
 

-AIs will always kill organics, right. Just that the only significant AI society that did that (and not even all of them), did so because the reapers told them to.

I'm super pro-Geth, but this is just untrue. The Geth destroyed 99% of the Quarians without involvement of the Reapers. The Heretics/True Geth split happened after the Morning War.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

That is the essence of who and what Shepard is, who "altered the variables".
 

Hope you realize that you just justified the execution of Synthesis with the bold.

A sentient (mind-controlling) plant that absorbs knowledge by consuming other organisms? Immediately filtering the "collective unconscious" of a dead species into another consciousness (by organic touch)? Reviving a dead brain to full memory and experiential awareness? They're all breaks.
 

And again, you're justifying the application of Synthesis. Between gene therapy, particle physics, and nanotechnology bolstered by relay functionality, you've got a "speculative" answer with just as much (if not more) support behind it than reversing prolonged brain death and filtering the collective unconscious of an organism or species through another's mind. If you're going to directly violate known science in a substantial plot point in a piece of science-fiction, you should support its application with an answer instead of leaving it "unstated", yes?

As for the theory distinction? Eh. I think it's on the opponent to disprove the impossible, which brain-death revival and telepathic transmission of a collective unconscious are both in that category. Why, exactly, is current and observable physiology based on our advanced methods wrong?

 

1) I thought he altered the variables by bringing in the Crucible and having its function tie in directly to how well protected it is from the Reapers, but whatever.

 

2) I really didn't. This is a point where we're talking past each other. I'm referring to the vitalism/mysticism 'life energy/soul power' that is being referred to by the Catalyst. I've kept relatively silent on the other portions of Synthesis. The stuff I've referred to is scientific cockamamey disproved centuries ago but brought up again here. The whole 'other organics weren't ready but you are' issue is drawn up here as well.

 

3) You didn't answer the question (and presented a double-standard with Synthesis).

 

4) No I didn't. I've told you what issues I have with the application of Synthesis and how its explanation is basically cheap mysticism that was disproved by science at least 200 years ago. Here's a question; how open to any explanation would you be for either concept of reversing brain death and physical resurrection and the ability of an organism to be able to absorb a consciousness of a living being? As for leaving something unstated; No. It's a case-by-case basis. In terms of synthesis, the explanation for the fundamental source of it was complete non-sense, yes, even more so than reversing brain death or a telepathic plant. Because what it used as an explanation was proved wrong hundreds of years ago. I can't say for much on the xenobiology of a telepathic plant (or telepathy in general), but reversing brain death and physical resurrection may well be possible in the future. There aren't any explanations I can give you that wouldn't be hand-waived by you though. 

 

5) Your last point is a strawman. I never said that our understanding was flawed or wrong, with both situations being, at this current time, both firmly in the realm of fiction. However, I will say that they are incomplete; to the best of our understanding, there is no precedent for either case via modern Earth biology, but somewhere else in the universe, and in the future (possibly far future)? I wouldn't rule out things in the realm of possibility for all time to come based on our own modern understanding and technology. We can't say what any speculative xenobiology would truly be, nor can we say that technology can never find a way around our mortality.

[KrrKs]

Add to that the nonsensical 'logic' of the catalyst;
 -turning people into DNA-mush is not what i call 'preserving'

 
It is.

No it is not. Preserving an entity means preserving the entity at that point, including the 'state' of it.

What you said is true in that the reapers have the blueprint, but that is just the blueprint ->initial state. Aka the information that there are a that many extremities and where they go.

In database terms, you save the structure of the db, but not its content. That is not 'preservation'.

 

About the Geth:

The morning war is a totally different topic in itself. But it basically boils to 2 species fearing their destruction and trying to destroy the other one to prevent this.

That the Quarians were indeed not completely wiped out should tell us something. That they did not attack anyone else after their existence was secured (for 300 years!) means way more than a fight for this existence in the first place. (Initial geth capabilities to discern combatants from not-combatants is also questionable)

 

About the original post, even though my previous rant and all of ME3's problems, it still is a pretty good game.

[Oni Changas]

Maybe it varies in each platform. On PS3, I've yet to come across any troublesome issues., but the other two are full of annoying little things.

bwahahaha. You lucky guy/gal.

[Farangbaa]

No it is not. Preserving an entity means preserving the entity at that point, including the 'state' of it.
What you said is true in that the reapers have the blueprint, but that is just the blueprint ->initial state. Aka the information that there are a that many extremities and where they go.
In database terms, you save the structure of the db, but not its content. That is not 'preservation'.

Well then we can safely conclude the Catalyst is only concerned with saving the structure of organics, and not their thoughts and everything else.

Which is perfectly understandable, thoughts and everything else are byproducts of an intact, working structure. Rebuild the structure, the content will come on it's own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm fine with being preserved in DNA-goo. But the Catalyst is preserving life.

Oh and tend to forget this, but in the game their thoughts and everything are also preserved within the Reapers... I choose to ignore this information though. Though.. then again, Javik speaks of 'memory having it's own biochemical marker' or whatever, so I suppose this stuff is possible in the MEU. *shrug*
 

About the Geth:
The morning war is a totally different topic in itself. But it basically boils to 2 species fearing their destruction and trying to destroy the other one to prevent this.
That the Quarians were indeed not completely wiped out should tell us something. That they did not attack anyone else after their existence was secured (for 300 years!) means way more than a fight for this existence in the first place. (Initial geth capabilities to discern combatants from not-combatants is also questionable)
 
About the original post, even though my previous rant and all of ME3's problems, it still is a pretty good game.

Unintentionally killing 99% of your creators in a battle for survival should be proof enough in itself that there's at least some truth to the Catalyst's words. Intentional killing and there'd be no more Quarians.

And the Geth not attacking anyone else for 300 years means nothing. The conflict between the Geth and the Quarians (luckily) remained Created vs Creator. But, pretty much by definition, Created vs Creator is always Synthetics vs Organics. And since all organics will create Synthetics, this is a problem.

It only needs one instance of Synthetics deciding that it's not just their Creators who want them dead, but all Creators (=all Organics) want them dead, and we have a problem. Thought is not unjustified either, cause the Creators wanting all Created dead is exactly what happened in the Prothean cycle.

p.s. EDI, upon awakening, tried killing everbody she could. She killed all soldiers on Luna. The only one she didn't have succes with is Shepard + companions. (in my games pretty much always Tali and Garrus ).

edits: syntax, grammar, spelling... damn

[KrrKs]

[...]

Though.. then again, Javik speaks of 'memory having it's own biochemical marker' or whatever, so I suppose this stuff is possible in the MEU. *shrug*.

You are right, that is a point. (Noooo, now a fraction of my reason to dislike the ending is gone! )

 

I'm still not convinced on the synthetics aspect though ->especially considering that the catalyst speaks in absolutes.

Apart from the geth, there are about 5 AIs Shepard knows about.

-The praesidiums AI from ME1 and its creator AI. While the praesidiums AI did rebel against its creator's creator, it is very much debatable if the original AI did rebel or not by building another AI that can perform the same task.

 

-EDI and the Hannibal system. It is unclear what exactly happened at the Luna base, though Hannibal did rebel, yes. EDI is more ambiguous, depending if you strictly count Cerberus as the creator or not, and if you specify its/her task purely as electronic-warfare or way more broadly to fight the reapers.

 

-The catalyst itself is also in this list. It is again debatable if it really rebelled against it's creators. The Leviathan themselves state that it strictly follows its orders.

(On the other hand are the Leviathans arrogant enough to deny any of their flaws and faults, so that doesn't mean anything really)

 

I know that 'debatable' is not a very strong point, but still enough to question the use of absolutes. And by doing so questioning the catalysts actions and justification.

[Iakus]

I mean, a coma with serious injuries, necessitating some cybernetic implants could work, but still. Cliche or not, at least comas are easy to work around, and can be just as easily dismissed once it's over. No "How did Shepard come out of it? It makes my brain itch!"

 

Yup.  Funny given how apparantly certain higher-ups were so in love with DXHR, yet that game kept Jensen "merely" badly injured following the prologue.

[KrrKs]

Yup.  Funny given how apparantly certain higher-ups were so in love with DXHR, yet that game kept Jensen "merely" badly injured following the prologue.

Didn't DXHR come out more than a year after ME2?

 

But considering that Fallout:NV, which came out between these two, also has the protagonist nearly dying in the intro, this seems to have been in back then.

[AlanC9]

-The catalyst itself is also in this list. It is again debatable if it really rebelled against it's creators. The Leviathan themselves state that it strictly follows its orders.

Well, "strictly following orders" and "doing what your creators intended" aren't exactly identical.

[Farangbaa]

You are right, that is a point. (Noooo, now a fraction of my reason to dislike the ending is gone! )

I'm still not convinced on the synthetics aspect though ->especially considering that the catalyst speaks in absolutes.
Apart from the geth, there are about 5 AIs Shepard knows about.
-The praesidiums AI from ME1 and its creator AI. While the praesidiums AI did rebel against its creator's creator, it is very much debatable if the original AI did rebel or not by building another AI that can perform the same task.

The original AI didn't kill it's creator, so this one's a little iffy indeed. It did make sure it's creator is completely out of the picture though.

-EDI and the Hannibal system. It is unclear what exactly happened at the Luna base, though Hannibal did rebel, yes. EDI is more ambiguous, depending if you strictly count Cerberus as the creator or not, and if you specify its/her task purely as electronic-warfare or way more broadly to fight the reapers.

One thing's for certain: she killed everything she could upon gaining sentience.
She did not kill Cerberus, but I think we can all agree she did rebel against them. (to which Cerberus responded by trying to shut her down, so the conflict does apply, it's not a one way street. This was a very short conflict though, with no winner )

-The catalyst itself is also in this list. It is again debatable if it really rebelled against it's creators. The Leviathan themselves state that it strictly follows its orders.
(On the other hand are the Leviathans arrogant enough to deny any of their flaws and faults, so that doesn't mean anything really)

I'll take the Leviathan's word for this.

I know that 'debatable' is not a very strong point, but still enough to question the use of absolutes. And by doing so questioning the catalysts actions and justification.

You have to realize that the problem the Catalyst postulates happens countless times. [b]All]/b] species will create synthetics, only countered by within-cycle species telling other species in that cycle they shouldn't create AI.

There needs to be just one instance of Synethetics figuring Creators <---> Organics, Creators want our death, we seek the death of Creators and organics are on the loosing end. (I think we can all agree here that synthetics are more powerful than organics, in pretty much every way).

The way the Catalyst postulates things doesn't really help though, I'll give you that.

[Iakus]

Didn't DXHR come out more than a year after ME2?

 

But considering that Fallout:NV, which came out between these two, also has the protagonist nearly dying in the intro, this seems to have been in back then.

 

I don't think so. Believe it came out around the same time as DA2, which was definitely before ME3

[CronoDragoon]

Bioware, for some reason, saw this as a bad thing and tried to be original. We all know that that worked out. Bioware, cliches are not bad, you just have to use them right. 

 

Seemed to work out pretty well, really. Look how many people list ME2 as the best intro of all time in this GAF thread:

 

http://www.neogaf.co...7692&highlight=

[ImaginaryMatter]

Seemed to work out pretty well, really. Look how many people list ME2 as the best intro of all time in this GAF thread:

 

http://www.neogaf.co...7692&highlight=

 

It is a very well put together scene, I would say it succeeds in spite of leading up to the Lazarus project (and the Collectors?); even the medical bits are very snazzy.

[CosmicGnosis]

Add to that the nonsensical 'logic' of the catalyst;

 -turning people into DNA-mush is not what i call 'preserving'

 -AIs will always kill organics, right. Just that the only significant AI society that did that (and not even all of them), did so because the reapers told them to.

Legion says in ME2 that the Reapers are "billions of organic minds uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies". They are more than just DNA-mush.

 

And here we go again with the Catalyst logic complaints. Look, it seems that BioWare chose to dumb down the Catalyst's explanation of the cycle because they didn't want it to go over anyone's head, but by doing so, they made it sound literally dumb. However, some great people have posted intelligent threads about the Catalyst's true intentions:

 

http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/

http://forum.bioware...ial-integrated/

[Jukaga]

Ofcourse there's some Space Hitler's (controllers) and Rapists of the Natural World (synthesizers) who know what I'm talking about. We should all throw a few back and light up some time.

 

That is a great idea. None of my RL friends are anywhere near as fanatical about ME as I am. I would get behind a beer & bong fueled ME fan session.

[Arcian]

Legion says in ME2 that the Reapers are "billions of organic minds uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies". They are more than just DNA-mush.

 

And here we go again with the Catalyst logic complaints. Look, it seems that BioWare chose to dumb down the Catalyst's explanation of the cycle because they didn't want it to go over anyone's head, but by doing so, they made it sound literally dumb. However, some great people have posted intelligent threads about the Catalyst's true intentions:

 

http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/

http://forum.bioware...ial-integrated/

With enough mental gymnastics, one can make anything seem logical. That doesn't mean it is.