63 réponses à ce sujet

[Valmar]

I agree with you (glad to see that some people didn't follow the haters line and tried to read properly the game). But I would like to add something about the writing. Actually the writing of mass effect 3 and mostly the ending is based on how the player would receive that part, his expectations etc... A lot of people think that the A.I. is a Deus ex machina because it appears only in the end.

 

To be fair it isn't only "haters". I certainly don't hate the ending yet I never realized it wasn't a DEM.

 

 

First, that's not true because the game makes Shepard's dreams ambiguous (the kid can be seen as the A.I. so that's why they, Shepard and the A.I., burn in the last part of the dream sequence). The A.I. appears before the ending.

 

Again to be fair this isn't entirely true. Like you said, its ambiguous.

 

At anyrate even if you believe the catalyst is meant to literally be the same kid from Shepard's dreams (I don't, I see it as a reused and heavily modified art asset) that still doesn't mean the catalyst was introduced earlier through the kid. The kid and the catalyst are clearly two completely different entities in the lore even if you think the catalyst is using its image.

 

That being said it IS untrue that the game doesn't introduce the catalyst before the ending because the Leviathan DLC is clearly nothing but foreshadowing of the catalyst. So the character was introduced as "The Intelligence" before the ending actually came up, within the narrative of lore.

 

So you're right but not necessarily for the reason you bring up, imo.

 

Third, the purpose of a deus ex machina is to create a happy end. That's why it has been criticized : it isn't coherent, it doesn't care about coherence because its purpose isn't about it it's just happy end! Mass Effect 3 doesn't have bad end or happy end. The purpose of a deus ex machina is to please people, but mass effect ending wasn't written to please people (it was written to be consistent).
 

 

I don't necessarily agree that the sole purpose of DEM is to make a happy ending. Though it certainly gets the spotlight for such things.

 

 

You made very good points... maybe it is simplier to just rewrite my first post accounting for them rather than to address them singularly:

(P.S. I'm using MEHEM, thank you!
I also give up on the idea of modding the game...

 

It is quite unfortunate they decided to make modding such a challenge. If it was as open as, say, Skyrim... Mmmm. In the very least you can always check out some of the cool stuff laying around Nexus.

http://www.nexusmods.com/masseffect3/?

 

My ME3 is so heavily modded at this point I had to get two installs just to feel comfortable touching multiplayer.

 

Those HD texture packs though. Mmmm. My PC game isn't suffering so much from the Console disease now. 

 

As towards your possible mod story, I think its better now, yes. Though I still don't like it more than what we already have and would have many issues with it. Though Im sure you made some forum-goers' giddy with the talk of killing Liara. On a unrelated note I apologize the topic was so quickly derailed. You might see now what I meant earlier when I said everything gets turned into a rant about the ending.

 

-the longer you talk, the more evidently Shepard is showing signs of indoctrination (eyes change, skin color changes, etc). This proceeds faster the lower Shepard's moral meters are (a strong personality is harder to overcome).
 

 

Indoctrination doesn't work that way. Unless Shepard was injected with reaper nanites at some point. In which case, he's a goner anyway.

For some reason this was the only part I felt like specifically commenting on.

[themikefest]

That being said it IS untrue that the game doesn't introduce the catalyst before the ending because the Leviathan DLC is clearly nothing but foreshadowing of the catalyst. So the character was introduced as "The Intelligence" before the ending actually came up, within the narrative of lore.

What about the people who never played the dlc or refuse to buy it for whatever reason? Until Leviathan was released, there was no foreshadowing of the catalyst unless you want to count the line with Shepard asking Vendetta, who is the master?

[Valmar]

What about the people who never played the dlc or refuse to buy it for whatever reason? Until Leviathan was released, there was no foreshadowing of the catalyst unless you want to count the line with Shepard asking Vendetta, who is the master?

 

That changes nothing about the narrative lore. Which is what I said. I never said it was in the base game, just that its within the narrative lore. Which it is.

 

The lore includes the entire game with all its content. I was talking from the narrative lore standpoint not a "I only have base game" standpoint. The fact remains that within the narrative of the lore the catalyst was foreshadowed. People who didn't buy the DLC are missing out on the lore. Which sucks. Much like From Ashes this type of DLC should had been in the base game for precisely that reason. That has nothing to do with the narrative lore, however.

[Esthlos]

As towards your possible mod story, I think its better now, yes.

 

Indoctrination doesn't work that way. Unless Shepard was injected with reaper nanites at some point.

Shepard has been exposed to Reaper tech since ME1, and was on an actual Reaper in ME2; also, s/he's been fighting the whole time, especially in the end, and adrenaline is known to speed up the process.

[angol fear]

@Valmar, I was taking the original game. Actually I'm always talking about the original game with the original ending. But if you add the Leviathan DLC, sure the A.I. is introduced very soon in the game. With that it is impossible to say that the ending is a deus ex machina, sure.  

The whole writing of Mass Effect 3 is made to create possibilities of interpretation, it would be unfair to say to the dreams doesn't count. And then why do Shepard and the kid burn? Why do they burn when Shepard reach the kid? It can be seen as a regret, a run to the past (Shepard didn't save the kid), but, in the last sequence, it makes more sense if it is an anticipation, a run to the future where Shepard will burn when he will reach the A.I..

I've never said that the kid and the A.I. were the same characters. It actually goes from one to another.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree that the sole purpose of DEM is to make a happy ending. Though it certainly gets the spotlight for such things.

 

Well, the Deus ex machina is a tool coming from antiquity. Its purpose was to have a happy ending in the tragedies because people wanted "a better ending", a "satisfying ending" (It's kinda ironic to see that people always want the same things). So Its purpose had always been to have a happy ending. That's why people criticized it. That's why Nietzsche criticized it : because the purpose is to please people. It breaks with the antic rules : tragedies end tragically. The problem is that the writing of ther tragedy is made to have a sad ending, if the problem is solved without internal reason it's incoherent. If you don't trust what I'm saying, you can make your reseach (and you'll see what I'm saying, actually, but don't go to the wikipedia, go to a real source of knowledge!).

Anyway, a complete analysis of the writing shows that it's not a deus ex machina but Bioware wanted to make it feel like it.

[Valmar]

 
Shepard has been exposed to Reaper tech since ME1, and was on an actual Reaper in ME2; also, s/he's been fighting the whole time, especially in the end, and adrenaline is known to speed up the process.

 

 

No, that isn't what I meant. I meant the indoctrination you described doesn't work that way. There are different types of reaper indoctrination. Nanite based and signal based. They're not the same. You don't get "husk" features from reaper signal indoctrination. The things you were describing were nanite-based indoctrination.

 

 

The whole writing of Mass Effect 3 is made to create possibilities of interpretation, it would be unfair to say to the dreams doesn't count. And then why do Shepard and the kid burn? Why do they burn when Shepard reach the kid? It can be seen as a regret, a run to the past (Shepard didn't save the kid), but, in the last sequence, it makes more sense if it is an anticipation, a run to the future where Shepard will burn when he will reach the A.I..

I've never said that the kid and the A.I. were the same characters. It actually goes from one to another.

 

 

The kid in the dreams still doesn't count, though. The kid in Shepard's dreams is very clearly not the catalyst. They may share a base model and the catalyst might be reading Shepard's mind in the end (interpretation) it but its clear the two are distinct from one another. That's like saying Shepard's clone was foreshadowed to be the one behind Citadel DLC because Shepard was always there in the game and they look the same. They're clearly two distinct characters. The kid in the dream is not the catalyst.

 

Where as with Leviathan, for example, the Intelligence is very clearly meant to be the catalyst. It is foreshadowed there. The dreams do not count as foreshadowing for the catalyst.

[Esthlos]

No, that isn't what I meant. I meant the indoctrination you described doesn't work that way. There are different types of reaper indoctrination. Nanite based and signal based. They're not the same. You don't get "husk" features from reaper signal indoctrination. The things you were describing were nanite-based indoctrination.

Oh, didn't know: always assumed that they both were nanite based (from various sources, like the reaper's surfaces or even air suspension), just at different stages: in the earlier stages it is subtle, in the final stages it is evident, and that husks and the like were made by means that speed up the progression through these stages.

How does the signal based one work exactly?

[Valmar]

Oh, didn't know: always assumed that they both were nanite based (from various sources, like the reaper's surfaces or even air suspension), just at different stages: in the earlier stages it is subtle, in the final stages it is evident, and that husks and the like were made by means that speed up the progression through these stages.

How does the signal based one work exactly?

 

The signal based is what we see in the majority of the game actually. The only times where we see nanites used, outside of the obvious husks, is with The Illusive Man and Saren.

 

Remember how the indoctrinated worship the dragon's teeth and impale themselves on it? Thats when nanites are generally involved  - at the point of impalement. Up until that point it was signal-based. In the novel Retribution we see Paul Grayson being injected with reaper nanites by Cerberus in their first experiment. From that point onward we watch him gradually but nevertheless quickly (relatively speaking) loses control of himself and his body begins changing as the nanites covert him more and more. That's what nanites can do.

 

We've never seen anyone who is indoctrinated by the signal show any signs of cybernetic augmentation by the signal since it only messes with our brainwave and doesn't actually implant us with anything. In all the cases where the indoctrinated have the telltale glowy tech bits there have been instances where they were changed physically. Well, kinda. To be fair I guess they never did directly show when it was Saren was taken (assuming the glowy tech in him before the end of the game were reaper-oriented) but its reasonable to assume that since he was the first to find Soverign and was his willing tool for a number of years and used him as a flag ship... he was upgraded at some point.

 

If I had to guess it was probably something like what happened to TIM that first began his 'change'. Which coincidentally Saren was involved with. Saren, Saren's brother and TIM all have a bit of a history together, interestingly enough.

 

Anywho. As for the specifics of how the signal indoctrination works... the wiki page covers it pretty well. http://masseffect.wi.../Indoctrination

 

As for the nanites (which I guess the lore calls nanides to be original, whatever) the best thing to read up on, if you don't mind spoilers, is this page the wiki: http://masseffect.wi...ki/Paul_Grayson

 

Specifically the section about "Retribution". It describes the process of reaper indoctrination by means the "nanides". Though at that point I don't know if indoctrination is really a fair term anymore. They have complete control this way. Unlike the signal-based indoctrination where they DON'T actually have full control of the victim. Signal indoctriantion is more like mental manipulation rather than direct control. They break down your resolve until you obey or they subtly influence in. Did you ever find the indoctrinated STG in ME1 during Virmire? The one you speak to gives you an idea of how the process works. Though the wiki probably covers that.

[Esthlos]

The signal based is what we see in the majority of the game actually. The only times where we see nanites used, outside of the obvious husks, is with The Illusive Man and Saren.

I see, thank you.
This actually made me cringe, since it shows an underlying misunderstanding of what brain waves are* on the part of the game's writers, but thank you anyway for the explanation.

*(there aren't actual electrical waves in the brain, at least not in this sense; these "brain waves" that the media sometimes refer to are just the result of the measurement done through the EEG exam, which measures the activation of the external cortex areas but not the orientation and polarity of this electrical activity)

[angol fear]

The kid in the dreams still doesn't count, though. The kid in Shepard's dreams is very clearly not the catalyst. They may share a base model and the catalyst might be reading Shepard's mind in the end (interpretation) it but its clear the two are distinct from one another. That's like saying Shepard's clone was foreshadowed to be the one behind Citadel DLC because Shepard was always there in the game and they look the same. They're clearly two distinct characters. The kid in the dream is not the catalyst.

 

You can think that if you want, but you'll miss a lot of things if you want to think this way.You close the doors in a game that is supposed to open doors. You refuse something that the writers tried to create. Could you tell me how you can say that the kid can't be the A.I. in the last dream? (There's no IT idea behind that, because maybe you think that I'm talking about IT). The last dream isn't an anticipation? there's no "fate" theme in that dream?

[Valmar]

You can think that if you want, but you'll miss a lot of things if you want to think this way.You close the doors in a game that is supposed to open doors. You refuse something that the writers tried to create. Could you tell me how you can say that the kid can't be the A.I. in the last dream? (There's no IT idea behind that, because maybe you think that I'm talking about IT). The last dream isn't an anticipation? there's no "fate" theme in that dream?

 

Shepard isn't dreaming of the Reaper AI god living on the citadel and controlling the cycles. He's dreaming of the boy he failed to save on earth. Bioware even mention this in the "art of Mass Effect" book.

 

The two are not the same. There may be symbolic messages behind the images we see, sure. That doesn't mean this is foreshadowing for the catalyst, however. The catalyst was still, without Leviathan, brought up at the last moment. The character was not introduced to us earlier through the dreams because the two are not the same. Again this is like saying Shepard's clone was foreshadowed because we play as Shepard. They share the same base models, thats it. The kid and the catalyst are two very distinct characters within the game.

 

I don't think you're talking about IT. Like I said the dream may very well be symbolic of something. I'm sure they intended it to be. As to what exactly, well, only they know for sure. Its subjective. I think it represents how Shepard will fail if he keeps trying to save everyone. A representation that hard choices must be made or everyone will be lost. Considering how many difficult decisions Shepard's been forced to make throughout the game to get to this dream, it makes sense for me.

 

That still doesn't make it a foreshadowing of the catalyst, however. Foreshadowing that the ending will have sacrifice? Sure, you could say that. Foreshadowing about the catalyst ghost child controlling the reapers and living on the citadel? Not even in the slightest. I really, sincerely doubt that ANYONE who played the game saw the kid in their dreams and thought "I bet the catalyst will be a glowing blue model of this child and it controls all the reapers and is responsible for the cycle." The two characters are independent from one another. That isn't my opinion, its simply fact.

[Esthlos]

I think it represents how Shepard will fail if he keeps trying to save everyone.

A theme which is also part, if I recall correctly, of a conversation with Anderson, one with Garrus, and pretty much half of what Javik says during the whole game.

It is worth noting in my opinion that the kid in the dream is fleeing and cowling, which as far as I know isn't compatible with the behaviour of a Reaper-controlling AI but is with the behaviour of a scared child...

[angol fear]

@Valmar, well, if you want, read how you want to read... but no, it's not facts you're talking about. Just like anyone on the forum, you think that foreshadowing is showing thing so that even the most stupid guy on earth can understand. Foreshadowing was made in the original game, Leviathan was made for those who can't understand it.

[Valmar]

Actually it is facts. The child in the dreams is factually not the catalyst. The two are, factually, not the same character. They're both, factually, independent of one another. These are not my opinions, these are facts. You don't have to be a genius to spot these facts. Are you seriously going to tell me that the first time you played the game and saw the kid from earth in your dreams you went "I see where this is heading, the reapers are all ruled by a central intelligence that created a cycle of reaper harvests to solve the problem of synthetic vs organic. It will live on the citadel - NO! It /is/ the citadel! It will also have the same model as the child. For extra twist, it will be the catalyst we've been looking for. DUN DUN DUNNNN!"

 

Hey, who am I to say you didn't come to that conclusion. Maybe you did. I would argue however that even if you did you're a very, very, very special case. Very much the exception to the rule.

 

Anyone who thinks the child from the nightmares was a foreshadowing of the reaper AI god living on the Citadel being the catalyst are either trolling, religiously devout to Mass Effect, or have a clear misunderstanding of what "foreshadowing" is.