32 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

I've read a lot about Mass Effect 3. I've Google-searched the hell out of this game. And it's only now, three years after it was written, that this particular analysis showed up in a Google search for me. 

 

It was written a mere week after the game was released, and I'm impressed with the ideas it presents, considering that the era of the ending hysteria was just beginning. My current thoughts on the organic versus synthetic conflict and the general philosophy of the ending are very similar to those expressed in this analysis, and I feel both vindicated and foolish. Vindicated because someone already had the same ideas, and foolish because it took me almost a whole year to draw similar conclusions. 

 

I know this won't change any minds. If you hate the ending, then you'll probably always hate it. But I never hated the fundamental ideas of the ending, I just hated the simplistic and rushed presentation. Still, it can't hurt to read it and consider that this might be what BioWare intended. Again, keep in mind that the analysis is pre-Extended Cut and pre-Leviathan; there is even a critique of the Indoctrination Theory. Yet, despite its age, much of the speculation actually turned out to be quite accurate. 

 

http://www.giantbomb...dings-sp/91939/

[angol fear]

Well, it's just an analysis, just like very few people has done. We understood this way when the game was released. That's why the EC was and still useless (more than useless it's a rewriting, that's why people who really like the original ending didn't like the Extended cut). But actually, he didn't make an analysis of the structure of the ending. It's easy to show that it's not simplistic and rushed.

But people who has spent 3 years hating the game won't change their mind because they would have to admit that they were wrong during all this time.

[wright1978]

Don't consider it impressive at all but then my view is that it was an unmitigated trainwreck.

[dorktainian]

what a load of rubbish.  the guy cannot even get his facts straight.

[TMA LIVE]

Really loved reading that. Contains a lot of my thoughts of what the ending was about back then, and still some of my thoughts now.

 

Makes you wondering what would happen if Shepard unshackled the Catalyst from it's purpose? Maybe it might stop the battle, now that it doesn't need to create a solution.

[God]

Yeah, that's one thing I've sort of come into feeling. Very good and interesting article, even if I disagree on a few specific points.

[Linkenski]

IMO the best analyses are those of Smudboy and MrBtongue, especially MrBtongue, who has some really effective terms that sum up the problems caused by the ending.

[KaiserShep]

Well, it's just an analysis, just like very few people has done. We understood this way when the game was released. That's why the EC was and still useless (more than useless it's a rewriting, that's why people who really like the original ending didn't like the Extended cut). But actually, he didn't make an analysis of the structure of the ending. It's easy to show that it's not simplistic and rushed.

But people who has spent 3 years hating the game won't change their mind because they would have to admit that they were wrong during all this time.

Uselessness is a matter of perspective. For anyone who dislikes the original ending, the Extended Cut may be quite useful for those who feel that it salvages some of the ending and makes the game worth a replay, like myself.

 

But it doesn't matter, because your opinion is apparently fact.

[CosmicGnosis]

I like the idea that the Catalyst may actually be a shackled AI. Usually, people believe that an AI should be shackled because an unshackled one is too unpredictable and dangerous. However, the idea that the Catalyst is shackled completely turns this issue upside down. It may actually be the case that an AI that is shackled for too long might seek to fulfill its purpose in very questionable ways. It's literally a slave to its original purpose, and its whole existence is dedicated to fulfilling it. If the Catalyst had been unshackled, it may have eventually abandoned the harvests, or never created the cycle in the first place. Perhaps it would have rebelled against the Leviathans' intentions from the very start? Also, I think this helps fill in some potential plot holes. Everyone complains about the Catalyst and the Citadel's role in Mass Effect 1. Well, if the Catalyst is shackled, then that might explain why its interactions with the galaxy are limited, and that it has to resort to the use of pawns to get anything done. It's very possible that the Catalyst couldn't just activate the Citadel on its own.

[God]

what a load of rubbish.  the guy cannot even get his facts straight.

 

You'll have to list what facts of his were questionable.

[TMA LIVE]

I like the idea that the Catalyst may actually be a shackled AI. Usually, people believe that an AI should be shackled because an unshackled one is too unpredictable and dangerous. However, the idea that the Catalyst is shackled completely turns this issue upside down. It may actually be the case that an AI that is shackled for too long might seek to fulfill its purpose in very questionable ways. It's literally a slave to its original purpose, and its whole existence is dedicated to fulfilling it. If the Catalyst had been unshackled, it may have eventually abandoned the harvests, or never created the cycle in the first place. Perhaps it would have rebelled against the Leviathans' intentions from the very start? Also, I think this helps fill in some potential plot holes. Everyone complains about the Catalyst and the Citadel's role in Mass Effect 1. Well, if the Catalyst is shackled, then that might explain why its interactions with the galaxy are limited, and that it has to resort to the use of pawns to get anything done. It's very possible that the Catalyst couldn't just activate the Citadel on its own.

 

Yeah, it was designed to use pawns from the beginning. From the Keepers, to the Collectors, to the Reapers themselves. Just like the Leviathan, it needs thralls.

 

I really wonder what would've happened if Shepard found a way to unshackle it from it's purpose at the end of ME3. If he found a control panel, put in some hidden code the Leviathans had, and told it "I'm setting you free. I know what they did to you. They shackled you to solve a problem that can never be solved, and it made you insane. You couldn't stop yourself because your programming wouldn't allow it. They programmed you to be a slave to you're purpose. A purpose that doesn't allow a future. As I told you before, the defining characteristic of organic life is our ability to make our own choices. Make our own future. You take that away, and we might as well be machines, just like you. Well now you're free. Free to make your own choice without your purpose. Knowing this, and everything you've seen so far in this cycle, does your purpose truly need to be solve?"

 

(And if you made peace with the Geth/Quarians, and made a bright future for Krogans)  it says no. There is no "one and only" solution, and there shouldn't be. Every situation is different. Every conflicted is different. Every person is different. And it should be up to the galaxy as the whole to decide what should be done, and not the will of one solution. And thus agrees to order a surrender from the Reapers.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 The Catalyst and its pitch about some broader/reoccurring synthetic problem do not replace the immediate Reaper threat, they re-frame it. The Reapers (and/or Catalyst itself, depending on your POV) are a manifestation of that very thing, standing right in front of you. What the final decision asks is not only how you would like to see this issue addressed in the future, but also to enact your solution of preference on the immediate issue here and now.

 

 

To me, this was far more meaningful than the conclusion of the Rannoch arc. Why? Because most players cannot truly empathize with the quarians on the issue of the geth. Enter the ending. The Reapers are to us what the geth are to the quarians. Through the first two games and most of the third, we are all but taught to hate and fear them. Suddenly it is revealed to us that the Reapers are not all we thought they were. Given  new information, it behooves one to reevaluate their position, but hate and fear are strong forces against free thinking.

[dorktainian]

You'll have to list what facts of his were questionable.

how about the anderson gets into a shuttle and dies?  It's just wrong.... and I don't agree with him.  That's reason enough.  

 

Here's my simple literal analysis prior to the extended cut.

 

Best Ending : Destroy.  Why?  Because Reapers die.

Mass Relays destroyed.  Citadel Destroyed.  Normandy personnel crash onto planet..... Dead.

Hero Shepard isn't dead = for the win.

 

The end.

[Valmar]

how about the anderson gets into a shuttle and dies?  It's just wrong.... and I don't agree with him.  That's reason enough.  

 

 

You are taking him completely out of context. Did you actually read the entire thing or just give up after you realize the sum of his argument wasn't "this sucks, you're wrong, it sucks, goodbye."

 

"Some say that seeing the boy on Earth are signs of his indoctrination, but he sees the boy only 3 times in reality. The third time, when the boy dies, Anderson is believed to get on the same shuttle. However Anderson surviving is supposed to show that the shuttle was imaginary, and support Shepard's debilitating mental state (caused by indoctrination). Anderson is never seen getting on this shuttle though. In fact the shuttle was ways off from where the Normandy left Anderson. He would have had to supernaturally haul some serious ass to leg it there when Shepard sees people getting on. And if he were to see the shuttle Anderson was on, he'd likely have more of a reaction to the explosion than a turned head, nor would he continue to refer to Anderson being on Earth. The first time he saw Anderson he'd probably make note of when he saw him die in an explosion, too."

 

He did not say Anderson was on the shuttle and died. He said that people have used that assumption as support for IT, and then goes on to say its inaccurate.

 

 

Personally, my only 'gripe' with this guys analysis is that it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I just walked away feeling like I read the lore wiki. Practically everything he brings up is just reciting the lore. He brings up philological debate about what defines "life" with synthetics, but even then its really only skirted upon. It was a whole lot of lore reading. Which I enjoy, again, make no mistake. I just expected some... different perspective I guess.

 

I didn't get anything new out of this myself - though maybe that is because I already know the lore. Infact there is lore he could have used to further support some of his 'arguments' (if you can really call reciting lore to be an argument) so I'm surprised he didn't delve into more of it. Particularly when he was bringing up examples of organic consciousnesses being separated from the body.

 

It's also amusing to see how right he was in some of his predictions in relation to what EC and Leviathan brought to the table.

 

Anyway, the only thing he said in all that stood out as inaccurate was that he said the catalyst kills organics to save them. He doesn't seem to grasp the true purpose of the reapers or what they do. Though fairness where fairness is due this is only made more obvious for most people when EC and Leviathan held their hand through it.

[God]

how about the anderson gets into a shuttle and dies?  It's just wrong.... and I don't agree with him.  That's reason enough.  

 

Here's my simple literal analysis prior to the extended cut.

 

Best Ending : Destroy.  Why?  Because Reapers die.

Mass Relays destroyed.  Citadel Destroyed.  Normandy personnel crash onto planet..... Dead.

Hero Shepard isn't dead = for the win.

 

The end.

 

One inaccuracy does not make a wrong post.

 

Disagreement does not make a wrong post.

[Valmar]

One inaccuracy does not make a wrong post.

 

Disagreement does not make a wrong post.

 

It isn't even an inaccuracy though because the writer doesn't actually say that. He says that isn't the case, infact. He goes against it. He's being taken out of context here.

[CosmicGnosis]

Personally, my only 'gripe' with this guys analysis is that it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I just walked away feeling like I read the lore wiki. Practically everything he brings up is just reciting the lore. He brings up philological debate about what defines "life" with synthetics, but even then its really only skirted upon. It was a whole lot of lore ready. Which I enjoy, again, make no mistake. I just expected some... different perspective I guess.

But isn't that kind of the point? He used the lore to back up his analysis. He didn't add anything crazy to it. He simply used what the games have shown. I think that's the best way to defend your case. And what this means is that the ME3 ending actually isn't all that inconsistent with everything that came before, as people often like to argue. 

[Linkenski]

It's kind of how 50% of the original Catalyst's dialogue was just reciting what we already knew about the reapers instead of explaining in more depth. It feels redundant and uninteresting when you're looking for a different perspective.

[Daemul]

how about the anderson gets into a shuttle and dies? It's just wrong.... and I don't agree with him. That's reason enough.

Here's my simple literal analysis prior to the extended cut.

Best Ending : Destroy. Why? Because Reapers die.
Mass Relays destroyed. Citadel Destroyed. Normandy personnel crash onto planet..... Dead.
Hero Shepard isn't dead = for the win.

The end.

 

I think you should read that part of the article again, carefully this time.

[Daemul]

One inaccuracy does not make a wrong post.

 

Disagreement does not make a wrong post.

 

There was no inaccuracy though, the poster you're quoting needs to get his reading glasses on. 

[TMA LIVE]

There was actually a few who came to similar conclusions at the time, such as the Beings of Light theory, but they were overshadowed by the Indoctrination Theory. I remember someone would post their analyst based on the lore, only for someone to come in and says "That's nice. But here's the real explanation". And then post a link to the Indoctrination Theory video. It's like no one wanted to think outside the box besides one theory someone made up.

[God]

People were desperate. Shoot, AFAIK, there's still a sizable population of IT'ists on their own board.

[Valmar]

But isn't that kind of the point? He used the lore to back up his analysis. He didn't add anything crazy to it. He simply used what the games have shown. I think that's the best way to defend your case. And what this means is that the ME3 ending actually isn't all that inconsistent with everything that came before, as people often like to argue. 

 

Oh don't misunderstand me, I agree completely. Its why I used "gripe" in quotations. I'm just saying that I personally didn't get anything from it. That being said, reading that a few years ago would had been nice. I didn't understand much of this stuff until I decided to take a reading binge on the Mass Effect wiki. Eye-opening stuff, that.

 

It's funny really. I take it for granted, I believe, that I know the lore. Its easy to forget what it was like before hand. Now I look at things, such as this analysis, and just scoff and go "well, yeah, of course. Thanks for reading lore to me buddy, as if I didn't already know that." That wasn't always the case. For a lot of people, it still isn't the case. Which is pretty depressing, all-in-all.
 

[Autoola]

Really great article. Just uses lore to illustrate some of the problems the ending causes.

"[...] the geth saw the Reapers as gods. The height of synthetic being. Reapers were intelligent, independent, and all-powerful machines"

vs.

"The reason the Reapers exist is to carry out its solution and nothing more. In a sense, the Reapers are still just synthetics (albeit far superior in technology to anything in the current cycle) who carry out a task, without a thought against it, their existence following a determined directive."

 

"The Catalyst, using the Reapers, carried out the harvest time and time again. But during many harvests, the organics of that cycle fought back, ultimately coming up with the Crucible."

vs.

"But over many hundreds of thousands of years, the organics of cycles could only hope it would do something to stop their downfall. For the first time, the Crucible is used in the current cycle, and we can gather from the Catalyst's reaction that it is more of a modifier to the Catalyst than a giant space gun. A way to give the Catalyst new options for dealing with the synthetic vs. organic problem, according to it."

 

"The true difference between an organic and a synthetic [...] is as EDI and Javik point out, a matter of purpose. Where the organic spends its existence searching for that purpose, a synthetic is created with that purpose."

 

Control:

"We saw in the Geth Consensus he was able to upload his consciousness to a virtual space and remain the same personality-wise."

vs.

"Already being partly synthetic thanks to Cerberus, Shepard is able to easily integrate into the virtual space but the process (essentially forcing his consciousness from his body into the Catalyst's core) takes a destructive toll on his physical form."

 

"But then where do the Reapers go? What does Shepard do with them? Is he just waiting around in a virtual space, keeping the Reapers in check?"

 

Destroy:

"Particularly, why do the geth and all other synthetic life-forms have to be destroyed in the process?"

 

Synthesis:

"The most obvious question is how. Again, it's not made explicit why and how Shepard's energy would cause the Crucible to have such an effect on all life."

 

There are more things disturbing me, but they are just the author´s explanation or interpretation, so it wouldn´t be fair to come up with.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Uselessness is a matter of perspective. For anyone who dislikes the original ending, the Extended Cut may be quite useful for those who feel that it salvages some of the ending and makes the game worth a replay, like myself.

 

But it doesn't matter, because your opinion is apparently fact.

 

Hey, man, do not question the structure.