978 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

It's stuff like this that makes Mass Effect a very weird free-for-all, because the CAT6 mercs should never have been able to do that in a million years. If EDI wanted, she could suffocate everyone on the ship and no one would be able to do anything about it.

[AlanC9]

Themes are somewhat subjective.

Only somewhat?After a couple of years of this debate, I'm starting to think that the whole concept is worthless. (Or did I pick that up in literature class?)

[angol fear]

Themes are somewhat subjective.

 

Is it a joke or you're serious? Themes aren't subjective! Reading and interpretation are subjective.

[AlanC9]

If reading and interpretation are subjective, how are themes objective? Don't you get to the themes by reading and interpretation?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Is it a joke or you're serious? Themes aren't subjective! Reading and interpretation are subjective.

 

Well this explains a lot.

[HTTP 404]

I chose the "Red" ending.  I spent so much time playing mass effect 1 and 2 that I believed in destroying the Reapers.  The other options never occurred to me during the hundreds of hours I sank into ME1 and ME2.  So going into ME3 was there any other way?  When new options such as control or synthesis was offered, I was skeptical of it. 

 

For me, the other two options seemed like a pipe dream, too good to be true.  

[AlanC9]

I chose the "Red" ending.  I spent so much time playing mass effect 1 and 2 that I believed in destroying the Reapers.  The other options never occurred to me during the hundreds of hours I sank into ME1 and ME2.  So going into ME3 was there any other way?  When new options such as control or synthesis was offered, I was skeptical of it. 
 
For me, the other two options seemed like a pipe dream, too good to be true.

Hmm... how come wanting to do something for a long time makes it more believable?

[Farangbaa]

Hmm... how come wanting to do something for a long time makes it more believable?

For the same reason people go so nuts over the Catalyst: things turn out not be as they thought it was, so it must be wrong/bad/preposterous

[AlanC9]

I don't think I've actually answered the thread question for myself yet. Let's rectify that.

All three endings struck me as plausible contenders. For instance, the Reapers would be susceptible to Control, since they've been successfully controlled for millions of years. (I was pretty sure even before Vendetta came along that the Reapers weren't actually masters of their own fates, since their whole plan ran large risks to no rational end.) All of the endings come with some unknowns, of course. In Control, the possibility of a Shepard transcription error leading to unexpected Sheplyst behavior. In Destroy, the possibility that the Catalyst was right all down the line and you've blown up the only real line of defense. (Assuming you're not going to go all Padok Wiks here and not care whether synthetics take over or not.) In Synthesis, the desirability of the synthesized state. But there's no principled way to assign probabilities to these unknowns, so there's not much to do with them. And distrusting what the Catalyst tells you just sends you down a rabbit hole -- although it makes sense for Shepard to stand around for a bit and see if the Crucible fires on its own.

But of the three endings, the positive case for Synthesis is very weak. If it's inevitable, then there's no particular need to rush to it. I can see picking it -- I have picked it on occasion-- but even if free bionic upgrades for everybody are desirable, it's a little bit much to cram this down everyone's throat absent some compelling reason to do so.

Which leaves Control and Destroy. (I consider Refuse an obvious fail, although I've RPd Shepards who go that way.) I don't have any moral issues with Control; I didn't have a problem with Asimov's Second Foundation either. For a Shepard who trusts his own wisdom and judgement, Control wins on the merits -- even leaving the geth aside, reconstruction will be much faster in Control. If Shepard doesn't, it's Destroy.

Shepard's personal survival is a non-factor. Any Shepard who would prioritize that over the other factors should have picked a different career.

[Kabraxal]

For the same reason people go so nuts over the Catalyst: things turn out not be as they thought it was, so it must be wrong/bad/preposterous

People hate the Catalyst because he is one of the most glaring examples of Deus ex Machina... or DIablos depedning on how you chose to look at it.  90 hours of story and then in the last 10 minutes a new character pops in, offers only a few choices with absolutely terrible reasoning that now suddenly revolve around themes of a technological singularity and "organics v synthetics" that, by that point, could be a non issue.  The Catalyst is simply a terrible character offering terrible choices with terrible reasons that utterly undermine the entire trilogy.  

 

That is why people detest the Catalyst.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Yeah, but this particular interpretation isn't very mind-bending:

 

Destroy - The organic choice. Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect. Organics rule the galaxy (the chaos of organic evolution).

Control - The synthetic choice. Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect. Synthetics rule the galaxy (in the form of the Reapers; bring order to the chaos).

Synthesis - The balance choice. Shepard's entire being is added to the Crucible. Organics and synthetics are equal in power.

 

It's very straightforward and easy to grasp. The biggest problem is the presentation. Synthesis is supposed to be the best, but its botched presentation allows people to associate it with themes of racism and anti-diversity.

 

 

If your Shepard wnet Renegade with the Rannoch Reaper

 

Shepard: You're just machines. This time the organics are taking control.

Reaper: A philosophy reminiscent of the Quarians. Observe the results of their efforts.

Shepard: The Quarians are doing just fine. You're the ones who should worry. Tell your friends we're coming for them. *boom* Never mind. I'll tell them myself.

 

Then Destroy is your Shepard's proper role playing choice.

 

If you didn't, then the other two are open to you.

[Iakus]

If your Shepard wnet Renegade with the Rannoch Reaper

 

Shepard: You're just machines. This time the organics are taking control.

Reaper: A philosophy reminiscent of the Quarians. Observe the results of their efforts.

Shepard: The Quarians are doing just fine. You're the ones who should worry. Tell your friends we're coming for them. *boom* Never mind. I'll tell them myself.

 

Then Destroy is your Shepard's proper role playing choice.

 

If you didn't, then the other two are open to you.

Or the Paragon route:

 

Shepard:  I have a better idea: we destroy you and lives our lives in peace.

Reaper: A philosophy reminiscent of the quarians.  Observe the results of their efforts.  We...

Shepard You- Whatever species you came from, before the Reapers decided to "preserve" them?  They're dead.  They died thousands of years ago... *Reaper light goes out* ...and now they can rest in peace.

[SporkFu]

If your Shepard wnet Renegade with the Rannoch Reaper

 

Shepard: You're just machines. This time the organics are taking control.

Reaper: A philosophy reminiscent of the Quarians. Observe the results of their efforts.

Shepard: The Quarians are doing just fine. You're the ones who should worry. Tell your friends we're coming for them. *boom* Never mind. I'll tell them myself.

 

Then Destroy is your Shepard's proper role playing choice.

 

If you didn't, then the other two are open to you.

Or the Paragon route:

 

Shepard:  I have a better idea: we destroy you and lives our lives in peace.

Reaper: A philosophy reminiscent of the quarians.  Observe the results of their efforts.  We...

Shepard You- Whatever species you came from, before the Reapers decided to "preserve" them?  They're dead.  They died thousands of years ago... *Reaper light goes out* ...and now they can rest in peace.

Those are both kinda awesome. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Those are both kinda awesome. 

 

Yeah, but after f***ing around with that Rannoch reaper for two hours... I did not feel like playing paragon with it.

[SporkFu]

Yeah, but after f***ing around with that Rannoch reaper for two hours... I did not feel like playing paragon with it.

Fair enough. 

I think about it now, I've never taken that renegade interrupt, I'm gonna have to try that this time. 

[HTTP 404]

Hmm... how come wanting to do something for a long time makes it more believable?

 

Are you asking in general or me specifically?  In general, I could give you an examples of religion, politics, and other social norms that ingrain in our psyche in what we believe through habit and repetition.  I love to be challenged to think outside the box and love it when it is presented in story.  But the last 10 minutes being presented new possibilities that seemed so out of left field, I just couldn't buy it in the moment.  I have nothing against the other two options, I think they are good choices too, it just seems if I was to RP this situation as Shepard I would stick with what I know his truth first before changing my mind after a 5 minute conversation.  I hope you understand where I am coming from with this, I don't mean to be rude or put down others' ideal choices. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

If your Shepard wnet Renegade with the Rannoch Reaper

 

Shepard: You're just machines. This time the organics are taking control.

Reaper: A philosophy reminiscent of the Quarians. Observe the results of their efforts.

Shepard: The Quarians are doing just fine. You're the ones who should worry. Tell your friends we're coming for them. *boom* Never mind. I'll tell them myself.

 

Then Destroy is your Shepard's proper role playing choice.

 

If you didn't, then the other two are open to you.

 

That's what my Shepard says, but I still pick Green. Not the first time that new information causes a change in opinion for my Shepard, either. I consider that a strength, not a weakness.

[myahele]

I chose control. Had I not been spoiled I would've chose the destroy ending, but since that'll destroy earth and people I actually cared about I didn't go through with it.

Control was the choice for me since my "Shepard" can do whatever they want with the reapers. Though like the saying goes "no matter how much has changed things still remain the same"

[angol fear]

If reading and interpretation are subjective, how are themes objective? Don't you get to the themes by reading and interpretation?

And what about real analysis? You should take a look at semilogy, and structuralism, you'll see how wrong you are.
Theme are part of the structure made by the writer (and the writer knows which themes he uses) just like a brick is part of a house. It's not the reader who creates the themes, he just discovers it. He can interpret it and put subjectivity when he develops but themes are facts. Mass Effect is a story about cycle, fate, hope, religion etc... it's not subjective. What you say after can be subjective (that's why people are wrong about the religion theme in Mass Effect trilogy, for instance)

 

edit : reading doesn't pre-exist to the text. Reading is actually creating a meaning in the possibility offered by a text. Themes (writing can't exist without themes) exist before the reader see them.

[AlanC9]

And what about real analysis? You should take a look at semilogy, and structuralism, you'll see how wrong you are.

Dude, I've done hard time in a literature department. Law too. Don't assume I haven't heard this stuff before. (Is semilogy a typo, or have they come up with new terms now?)
 

Theme are part of the structure made by the writer (and the writer knows which themes he uses) just like a brick is part of a house. It's not the reader who creates the themes, he just discovers it. He can interpret it and put subjectivity when he develops but themes are facts. Mass Effect is a story about cycle, fate, hope, religion etc... it's not subjective. What you say after can be subjective (that's why people are wrong about the religion theme in Mass Effect trilogy, for instance)
 
edit : reading doesn't pre-exist to the text. Reading is actually creating a meaning in the possibility offered by a text. Themes (writing can't exist without themes) exist before the reader see them.

I'm going to go ahead and grant the assumption that the authorial intent is relevant in the first place. That's not true for all interpretative traditions, but I don't have a problem with it. But that still leaves two problems with your position.

First, does a work assembled by a committee even have a writer? Does a singular intent exist? If so, whose?

Let's say we get past that issue; we can handwave it and assume that the staff talked this stuff out and agreed on it, or that Super Mac's vision trumps everybody else's, or whatever you like. So there's an objective reality out there someplace. OK. Now, how do we access that reality, since the author(s) aren't telling us what the themes are? (I could go all Stanley Fish here and say that even if we had a statement of the author's intent, that statement itself would also have to be interpreted, so we'd still be exactly where we were... but let's not go down that particular rabbit hole.)

Most of the candidates for "themes" on this board aren't all that compelling. Some outright contradict authorial intent -- or rather, Drew K.'s intent, which we can talk about since he's opened up a little about his thought processes.

 

If you've got candidates for the "real" themes of Mass Effect, go ahead and put them up. But don't expect universal agreement on them just because you say they're the themes.

[Inprea]

I went with control/blue. My reason was more process of elimination then anything else. I would have chosen to destroy but that would have meant murdering Edi and all the Geth. This goes against my own ideology and I don't see it as the paragon way. Then when it comes to synthesis I see several things wrong with it. First there is the fact that you're forcing a transformation on billions if not trillions that they may not want, their was also the implication of a hive mind set up and I don't want anyone in my head other then me and well God, if you'll excuse the moment of spiritualism. I also take great issue that with synthesis the worse murderers who committed actions we'd consider war crimes thousands of times over not only continue living but get to go about their existence happily and freely. How people could happily go about their lives after being forced into some transformation living with the murderers that killed eighty percent of their family or more and inflicted who knows what horrors upon them is beyond me. I don't even know how the writers imagined people just accepting that and it somehow resulting in a utopia.

 

I like to view control as a lobotomy for the reapers. I know there is no real evidence to support this but I like to imagine them being reduced to mindless tools in the control ending like a necromancer's undead minions.

 

I often feel Edi and the geth's death was a cheap shot to try and chase players away from the destroy ending. That so many still choose it I find very amusing and while I didn't choose it I'm glad so many did.

[AlanC9]

I also take great issue that with synthesis the worse murderers who committed actions we'd consider war crimes thousands of times over not only continue living but get to go about their existence happily and freely. How people could happily go about their lives after being forced into some transformation living with the murderers that killed eighty percent of their family or more and inflicted who knows what horrors upon them is beyond me. I don't even know how the writers imagined people just accepting that and it somehow resulting in a utopia.

 

Well, it's not like the Reapers are actually responsible for their own programming. They're as indoctrinated as Saren. 

 

But yeah, I suppose some folks would want to take revenge anyway. Sounds like a good way to win a Darwin Award, at least in the short term. Though I suppose murderous humans could get away with lynching husks and whatnot.

[HTTP 404]

I went with control/blue. My reason was more process of elimination then anything else. I would have chosen to destroy but that would have meant murdering Edi and all the Geth. This goes against my own ideology and I don't see it as the paragon way. Then when it comes to synthesis I see several things wrong with it. First there is the fact that you're forcing a transformation on billions if not trillions that they may not want, their was also the implication of a hive mind set up and I don't want anyone in my head other then me and well God, if you'll excuse the moment of spiritualism. I also take great issue that with synthesis the worse murderers who committed actions we'd consider war crimes thousands of times over not only continue living but get to go about their existence happily and freely. How people could happily go about their lives after being forced into some transformation living with the murderers that killed eighty percent of their family or more and inflicted who knows what horrors upon them is beyond me. I don't even know how the writers imagined people just accepting that and it somehow resulting in a utopia.

 

I like to view control as a lobotomy for the reapers. I know there is no real evidence to support this but I like to imagine them being reduced to mindless tools in the control ending like a necromancer's undead minions.

 

I often feel Edi and the geth's death was a cheap shot to try and chase players away from the destroy ending. That so many still choose it I find very amusing and while I didn't choose it I'm glad so many did.

 

Is it possible for the geth to survive with the reaper upgrade since they are technically living beings?  I agree with synthesis, there's something creepy about transforming everyone against their will.  I also don't get how destroy kills reapers and all synthetics and that it knows what's a synthetic vs what a high tech toaster.  But taking things at face value, control seems the most appealing even though I rather destroy the reapers.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Dude, I've done hard time in a literature department. Law too. Don't assume I haven't heard this stuff before. (Is semilogy a typo, or have they come up with new terms now?)

 

I think he meant semi-o-logy, other wise it's a way to plot data on a graph used in MATLAB.

[KaiserShep]

And what about real analysis? You should take a look at semilogy, and structuralism, you'll see how wrong you are.
Theme are part of the structure made by the writer (and the writer knows which themes he uses) just like a brick is part of a house. It's not the reader who creates the themes, he just discovers it. He can interpret it and put subjectivity when he develops but themes are facts. Mass Effect is a story about cycle, fate, hope, religion etc... it's not subjective. What you say after can be subjective (that's why people are wrong about the religion theme in Mass Effect trilogy, for instance)

 

edit : reading doesn't pre-exist to the text. Reading is actually creating a meaning in the possibility offered by a text. Themes (writing can't exist without themes) exist before the reader see them.

 

I can't say that any of this stuff really matters in a story in which the major arcs can vary so greatly from each other, not to mention be able to have the protagonist express wildly different views, especially with regards to the krogan, the geth, aliens in general, etc..

 

Control vs. freedom is a theme I like to consider one of the biggest ones to apply to the trilogy, myself. We have the reapers' control over the evolution of technological advancement, the protheans' control over everyone before their demise, the uplifting of various species, the geth, etc..