3584 réponses à ce sujet

[rossler]

Circular logic is actually a logical fallacy and therefore should be avoided. BioWare didn't avoid it.

 

Terminator used it. Lots of movies used it. In your opinion, it's bad writing. Keep justifying your anger bro. 

 

Pointing out how the ending doesn't make sense is the same as your nonsensical head canon? Holy fanboy Batman.

 

You just want everyone to agree with you that it doesn't make sense. 

 

When there's no logical reason given as to why the organic energy of a human can alter the DNA of billions/trillions of other species and synthetics in a galaxy and only head canon can justify it, then it's space magic.

 

The Crucible has an ambiguous function. Working as intended. 

 

"Hating it for no reason?" Wow, no wonder you go into the 3deep5u, you don't understand why people are complaining. Anyway, the Reapers fighting a total war has nothing to do with the logical clusterfvck of the ending.

 

You just want the writers to agree with you, and fix the ending to your specifications. Good luck with that at this point.

 

Not gonna stop until you get a new ending. 

 

LOL, you really are reaching ain't ya? I don't need to hate the writers to feel good about myself, I criticize them for causing such a huge mess in their setting that they have to make a not!sequel in another galaxy. That's like hiting the bullseye in a game of let's not hit the bullseye.

 

There you go again, putting it on the writers. Getting mad because the next game doesn't take place in the Milky Way.

 

You: They didn't design it according to how I wanted it! They should have stayed in the Milky Way! 

 

The Mass Effect 3 ending doesn't give me pain, only laughter when the BioDrones try to defend it with their headcanon.

 

So anyone who defends the ending is a BioDrone, but anyone who doesn't isn't. Good one. 

[General TSAR]

Terminator used it. Lots of movies used it. In your opinion, it's bad writing. Keep justifying your anger bro. 

Because it makes sense in their context and didn't come from left field in the last 15 minutes. Can't speak the same about the new one.

 

Keep justifying your anger bro.

Do I have to use the same amount of effort to justify my RAGE that you have to justify your beLIEve headcanon bro?

 

 

You just want everyone to agree with you that it doesn't make sense.

I want to see how the ending especially the synthesis ending makes sense without headcanon please.

 

 

The Crucible has an ambiguous function. Working as intended.

Ahh, so you don't know how it works. Got it.

 

 

You just want them to agree with you, and fix the ending to your specifications. Good luck with that at this point.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no. I want Konami to add the cut Kingdom of the Flies DLC to the base game, but I know that will never happen. As for ME3, I'm just enjoying how the defenders of the ending are forced to use headcanon to try to make sense of the ending.

 

 

 

There you go again, putting it on the writers. Getting mad because the next game doesn't take place in the Milky Way.

Man for a shrink, you're not really good at this whole getting inside of people's heads.

 

I actually got hyped when I heard the news about Andromeda, how often in AAA Sci-Fi game does a species explore another Galaxy?

 

Milky Way could have used more stories and it has Earth, but Andromeda here we come. Plus Andromeda is a much cooler name than Milky Way.

 

You: Man, BioWare screwed up the Milky Way so hard they had to wipe the slate clean in Andromeda! LMAO

Ftfy.

 

So anyone who defends the ending is a BioDrone, but anyone who doesn't isn't. Good one.

Only those who use fan canon to justify their delusions.

 

Not gonna stop until you get a new ending.

Nah, not gonna stop till the popcorn runs out.

 

Honestly, if the whole "U MAD!" thing is the best you have for defending your fancanon, then I'm disappoint.

[gothpunkboy89]

 

Only those who use fan canon to justify their delusions.

 

 

So the exact same thing you are doing now?

[General TSAR]

So the exact same thing you are doing now?

Nope, I'm not using headcanon to justify a lousy ending.

 

Infact, I'm asking questions and receiving made up nonsense.

 

But nice try.

[gothpunkboy89]

Nope, I'm not using headcanon to justify a lousy ending.

 

Infact, I'm asking questions and receiving made up nonsense.

 

But nice try.

 

Really cause it seems like you are using head cannon to validate your complaints.

 

The photo you posted on last page I suppose could have been used ironically but based on your replies seems like you posted it while being 100% sincere. Which means you have formed your own head cannon and are using it as reason why ending was lousy.

[AlanC9]

I don't follow. This could be my bad, since "telling off" is pretty vague, but the Catalyst just stands there and lets you. The more intuitive, simpler option just seems to let Shepard say it versus taking out every single AI.

That's true. Destroy blows away everything the Catalyst ever stood for, but it doesn't involve telling him that Shepard's rejecting his ideas. Shepard just does it.

[rossler]

I want to see how the ending especially the synthesis ending makes sense without headcanon please.

 

If I was to explain it, it would be headcanon. So you should ask Bioware how it works. They have the official explanation. Mine would just be made up nonsense, right General Tsar?

[Prince Enigmatic]

Ok, genuine question for some folks here.

Up until what point did most of you start taking issue with the ending for ME3? Did your problems with it begin from the get go, say when the Fleets arrived? Earlier, the beginning of ME2? Or is it just the Catalyst scene?

Cause there are a lot of things I liked about London as a final level, and the set up that our confrontation with TIM and Anderson gave made the Catalyst seem all the out of the blue IMO. I can see why some saw it as a contrived arty move by BioWare for some.

[kal_reegar]

So why is Synthesis an option if the Reapers are already Synthetics? From the Catalyst's perspective, what purpose does Synthesis actually serve?
 

 

Because if every living being in the galaxy achieve synthesis, the synthetcis-organic conflict is over, the risk of extinction is over. Pinnacle of evolution etc.

 

 

And he says this with no evidence except for a cycle that was possibly billions of years ago. Not to mention that I would like the opportunity to self-determine, thank you very much. If we're going to kill ourselves, I'd like it to be because of decisions we made, not because an elderly machine race decided what's good for us.
 

 

I agree.

But it's like a chess software that, after 5 moves, said to you "the black will checkmate you in max 29 moves, unless you sacrifice your the queen right now". Your organic mind can't possibly establish if this is really inevitable or just possible. You haven't the deep knowledge of the game or the mathematical capacity of to decide whether this is true or not.

You can trust the software or you can trust your human abilities. You could be a better chess player than he think you are, who knows.

But the software logic is not flawed. He made analysis, calculation, and reach a conclusion.

 

 

 

Organics create synthetics to improve their own existence, but those improvements have limits. To exceed those limits, synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators (tech singularity). The result is conflict, destruction, chaos. It is inevitable.
 Without us to stop it, synthetics would destroy ALL organics.

 

If you accept that this is what the catalyst truly believe (I'm not saying that you should agree with him!), his solution, the red-blue-green solutions and the ending in general makes sense. He's not lying, he's not trying to deceive you, he's not making an irrational speech.

He's just saying to you that after tech singularity is reached, all organic life will be at risk.

So organic civilizations must be somehow eliminated before they are able to create synth that will rech singularity.

[dorktainian]

If you accept that this is what the catalyst truly believe (I'm not saying that you should agree with him!), his solution, the red-blue-green solutions and the ending in general makes sense. He's not lying, he's not trying to deceive you, he's not making an irrational speech.

He's just saying to you that after tech singularity is reached, all organic life will be at risk.

So organic civilizations must be somehow eliminated before they are able to create synth that will rech singularity.

 

What the Catalyst fails to take into account is that to live is to risk.  There is always risk everywhere.  To remove risk is to remove everything (everything being an all encompassing word, but what the hell?  the Catalyst started it)  Synthesis might seem like an ideal end, but where would life be without evolution?  Where would life be without the dream of a better tomorrow?  Where would life be without...........life?

 

What the Catalyst talks about might in his mind be to prevent said singularity, but he fails to see that his answer is an answer to a non existant problem.  

 

The reapers may well have started out with the best of intentions, as all evil things do.  The reason the catalyst asks shepard alone is that Shepard is alone, and has his support mechanism removed, ergo he is more open to "suggestion" as it were.  

 

anyone who thinks the cayalyst is talking any kind of sense is clearly indoctrinated.

[angol fear]

Because it makes sense in their context and didn't come from left field in the last 15 minutes. Can't speak the same about the new one.

 

So it's just a matter of time? The fact that there is no beginning and no end, the fact that what happens in Terminator is not logically possible, isn't a problem but for Mass Effect it is? Could you explain how the context of Terminator makes it good and the one from Mass Effect makes it bad?

[TurianSpectre]

I'm glad you liked it. No, actually I'm not, because it's terrible and cheap.

Are people not allowed to have opinions?

[TurianSpectre]

Ok, genuine question for some folks here.

Up until what point did most of you start taking issue with the ending for ME3? Did your problems with it begin from the get go, say when the Fleets arrived? Earlier, the beginning of ME2? Or is it just the Catalyst scene?

Cause there are a lot of things I liked about London as a final level, and the set up that our confrontation with TIM and Anderson gave made the Catalyst seem all the out of the blue IMO. I can see why some saw it as a contrived arty move by BioWare for some.

I didn't actually have a problem with the ending for a start but the more i played it, the more i thought about it and the many ways that they could have made the final confrontation much better and more immersive for the character and actually make you care for what happens to Shepard and the other crew members... but after 2 playthroughs i just didnt feel anything for the characters because the ending for me had run its course...

[BloodyMares]

So it's just a matter of time? The fact that there is no beginning and no end, the fact that what happens in Terminator is not logically possible, isn't a problem but for Mass Effect it is? Could you explain how the context of Terminator makes it good and the one from Mass Effect makes it bad?

Easy. Terminator involves time-travel. This "circular logic" is called "Temporal Paradox". It's not a bad writing, it's a trope. "Doctor Who", "The Flash" and several other types of media use temporal paradox. It doesn't have to make sense because we can't comprehend how it works. We can't relate to it because we can't travel through time (obviously).

The Catalyst's circular logic is a whole another story. It says that there is a cycle of extinction (I have no problems with that) that involves synthetic-organic conflict. It's not complicated like time-travel. We can relate to it. The thing is, the game tells us from ME2 and on that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully (EDI and Joker). The core of the conflict wasn't rebellion of synthetics that want to exterminate organics just because (like Skynet) but a misunderstanding between the 2 groups. A basic fear of the unfamiliar. The quarians initiated the conflict because they expected the Geth to behave like organics. That's it. Joker feared EDI as well but in the difficult moment he trusted the AI and this way the conflict was not only prevented but turned into friendship and even a weird romantic attachment. This is the solution. Not the Reapers (machines that kill organics).

[kal_reegar]

 

The Catalyst's circular logic is a whole another story. It says that there is a cycle of extinction (I have no problems with that) that involves synthetic-organic conflict. It's not complicated like time-travel. We can relate to it. The thing is, the game tells us from ME2 and on that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully (EDI and Joker). The core of the conflict wasn't rebellion of synthetics that want to exterminate organics just because (like Skynet) but a misunderstanding between the 2 groops. A basic fear of the unfamiliar. The quarians initiated the conflict because they expected the Geth to behave like organics. That's it. Joker feared EDI as well but in the difficult moment he trusted the AI and this way the conflict was not only prevented but turned into friendship and even a weird romantic attachment. This is the solution. Not the Reapers (machines that kill organics).

 

 

If I tell you that I've observed infinite civilizations, all around the universe, and I've noticed that:

a. there are always conflict between factions

b. in the end, some weapon of mass destruction in created (iper-uber-nuclear waepon, bacteriological weapon, or something more advanced) and, sooner or later, used.

 

Do you think that you can convince me that on the Earth there is no risk because of:

a. the friendship/love between some very different people from Usa, Europe, China and Russia (Edi-Joker/Shep)

b. the UN/UE and/or 60 years of absence of major conflicts between the super-power (geth-organic)

c. the regulation and strictly controls for weapons of mass destruction

 

I can simply answer you "wait and you'll see"...

[BloodyMares]

If I tell you that I've observed infinite civilizations, all around the universe, and I've noticed that:

a. there are always conflict between factions

b. in the end, some weapon of mass destruction in created (iper-uber-nuclear waepon, bacteriological weapon, or something more advanced) and, sooner or later, used.

 

Do you think that you can convince me that on the Earth there is no risk because of:

a. the friendship/love between some very different people from Usa, Europe, China and Russia (Edi-Joker/Shep)

b. the UN/UE and/or 60 years of absence of major conflicts between the super-power (geth-organic)

c. the regulation and strictly controls for weapons of mass destruction

 

I can simply answer you "wait and you'll see"...

If you say something like that, you need to present some irrefutable evidence of that. No matter how ancient the Catalyst is, he was the voice of my enemies. So excuse me if I have reservations believing him. If he wants me to resolve this certain problem, he has to prove that this problem exists.

Well, except the Catalyst doesn't let us wait and see, does he? I'd rather wait and see than let some unknown force eradicate everything I care about. But to see this I need to be alive. Organics need to be alive. You can't just say "So be it" and murder everyone anyway.

[angol fear]

Easy. Terminator involves time-travel. This "circular logic" is called "Temporal Paradox". It's not a bad writing, it's a trope. "Doctor Who", "The Flash" and several other types of media use temporal paradox. It doesn't have to make sense because we can't comprehend how it works. We can't relate to it because we can't travel through time (obviously).

The Catalyst's circular logic is a whole another story. It says that there is a cycle of extinction (I have no problems with that) that involves synthetic-organic conflict. It's not complicated like time-travel. We can relate to it. The thing is, the game tells us from ME2 and on that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully (EDI and Joker). The core of the conflict wasn't rebellion of synthetics that want to exterminate organics just because (like Skynet) but a misunderstanding between the 2 groups. A basic fear of the unfamiliar. The quarians initiated the conflict because they expected the Geth to behave like organics. That's it. Joker feared EDI as well but in the difficult moment he trusted the AI and this way the conflict was not only prevented but turned into friendship and even a weird romantic attachment. This is the solution. Not the Reapers (machines that kill organics).

 

I've already said to you that I've stopped with you. As expected, TVtropes level (and "Doctor who", "flash"... which isn't surprising)...

[kal_reegar]

If you say something like that, you need to present some irrefutable evidence of that. No matter how ancient the Catalyst is, he was the voice of my enemies. So excuse me if I have reservations believing him. If he wants me to resolve this certain problem, he has to prove that this problem exists.

Well, except the Catalyst doesn't let us wait and see, does he? I'd rather wait and see than let some unknown force eradicate everything I care about. But to see this I need to be alive. Organics need to be alive. You can't just say "So be it" and murder everyone anyway.

 

Of course you have reservation believing him, and doubts. Me too.

But the catalyst has no time to present irrefutable evidence, and even if this evidence exist and are presented to you, you probably won't be convinced.

As I've said, if a chess software says to you "the black will checkmate you in 43 moves, it's inevitable", and show you all his calculations, you won't be able to establish if what the software is telling you is right or wrong. You cannot elaborate the same amount of datas and variables. You can't possibly fully understand them. Not even close. You're like a 3 years old baby talking about quantum mechanics implications with Bohr.

 

So, in the end, it's a matter of trust. Do you trust organics ability to overcome any challenge? Choose destroy or refusal.

Do you trust the catayst? Do you think that tech singularity is dangerous? Do you care about the long-term survival of organic life? Choose control or synthesis.

 

Personally, the total extinction scenario pictured by the catalyst seems a believable, possible one, and I think that the catalyst is not trying to deceive you: he's telling you what he thinks is the truth.

Anyway, destroy is still the better option, imho.

[Dantriges]

It has all the time in the world unless its Reaper buddies are able to disagree. They can´t disagree with the Shepalyst after all and there is no real indication that the Catalyst has less control. After all, every nation of millions of uploaded minds is pretty eager to do its bidding and not one of them is sending an Occulus to pick you off the butt of the Citadel or do it themselves. You are standing out in the open after all and you are in no shape to dodge the dreadnaught destroying ray of molten metal.

The Catalyst handed you the big red button on a silver platter, I am pretty sure the organic fleets wouldn´t mind not getting blown up for some time.

 

You don´t even need to understand it yourself, you have a ton of VIs, AIs, too perhaps and EDI flying out there. If I have to put the fate of the galaxy in the hands of AIs, I rather prefer the ones on our side.

[Iakus]

Ok, genuine question for some folks here.

Up until what point did most of you start taking issue with the ending for ME3? Did your problems with it begin from the get go, say when the Fleets arrived? Earlier, the beginning of ME2? Or is it just the Catalyst scene?

Cause there are a lot of things I liked about London as a final level, and the set up that our confrontation with TIM and Anderson gave made the Catalyst seem all the out of the blue IMO. I can see why some saw it as a contrived arty move by BioWare for some.

ME2, when Shepard didn't do sh*t to find a way to defeat the Reapers, and not even much to learn about the Collectors.  But instead spent most of the game running down corridors shooting random mercs.  At that point I knew ME3's resolution would be a complete arsepull.

 

But going in to ME3, I was ready for that, and had my expectations low.  Sadly, ME3 didn't even manage to achieve the already low bar I had.

 

It forces Shepard to commit what I see as an atrocity of galactic proportions in order to "save" said galaxy.  

[AlanC9]

So it's just a matter of time? The fact that there is no beginning and no end, the fact that what happens in Terminator is not logically possible, isn't a problem but for Mass Effect it is? Could you explain how the context of Terminator makes it good and the one from Mass Effect makes it bad?

Depends on which Terminator film we're talking about. A stable time loop as portrayed in the first film is considered possible. There's no technical reason why events have to follow their causes; we just see things that way because we only travel in one direction. It works the same way in Interstellar -- Cooper is enabled to pass on the message that saves humanity because he always did and always will.

Actually changing the past as in the later films requires some version of the many-worlds interpretation. A new version of reality branches off where you appear in the past and starts doing stuff. Of course, this implies that your original timeline still exists just as you left it, except that you're not in it anymore.

[AlanC9]

As I've said, if a chess software says to you "the black will checkmate you in 43 moves, it's inevitable", and show you all his calculations, you won't be able to establish if what the software is telling you is right or wrong. You cannot elaborate the same amount of datas and variables. You can't possibly fully understand them. Not even close. You're like a 3 years old baby talking about quantum mechanics implications with Bohr.

I'm not sure the chess analogy works precisely as written. Every individual step of the chess program's reasoning could be followed by anyone familiar with the rules of chess. The problem would be following all the steps in a sane amount of time.

In practice, this leads to the same conclusion you came to, though. Shepard doesn't have any particular reason to accept that there isn't a faulty premise buried somewhere in the Catalyst's reasoning, and there isn't time to look into it.

[gothpunkboy89]

Easy. Terminator involves time-travel. This "circular logic" is called "Temporal Paradox". It's not a bad writing, it's a trope. "Doctor Who", "The Flash" and several other types of media use temporal paradox. It doesn't have to make sense because we can't comprehend how it works. We can't relate to it because we can't travel through time (obviously).

The Catalyst's circular logic is a whole another story. It says that there is a cycle of extinction (I have no problems with that) that involves synthetic-organic conflict. It's not complicated like time-travel. We can relate to it. The thing is, the game tells us from ME2 and on that synthetics and organics can coexist peacefully (EDI and Joker). The core of the conflict wasn't rebellion of synthetics that want to exterminate organics just because (like Skynet) but a misunderstanding between the 2 groups. A basic fear of the unfamiliar. The quarians initiated the conflict because they expected the Geth to behave like organics. That's it. Joker feared EDI as well but in the difficult moment he trusted the AI and this way the conflict was not only prevented but turned into friendship and even a weird romantic attachment. This is the solution. Not the Reapers (machines that kill organics).

 

Everything is a trope if done more then once. So claiming it is a trope isn't much logic for you to use.

 

There was no misunderstanding between the Quarians and Geth. Quarians were afraid the Geth wouldn't be satisfied as slaves so they tried to kill them. Geth didn't want to be killed so they fought back. Geth then developed a mentality that they and they alone should decide their own fate. This directly ignores that Legion was only sent out from the collective to track down Shepard because the Geth realized they were personally in trouble. The Quarians were equally well aware of what their actions in attacking the Geth would ultimately mean. Either A wiping the Geth from existence or B instigating a multi generation war for control of former Quarian Territory which would ultimately side with the Geth as they would have endurance.

 

So claiming it was a misunderstanding between two groups is a lot like claiming slavery was a misunderstanding between rich land owners and their slaves. Clearly the rich plantation owners though their slaves love to have their skin burned off making sugar. I mean how could they know any better they just seemed so thrilled to work long hours for no pay, little food while being whipped.

 

Joker and EDI how ever are just one couple. Despite what Disney may want to state in all their movies a single couple is not capable of changing the world and everyone in it. Glossing over how their entire relationship makes no sense at least how it started Joker going from a bigot to buddy buddy simply because EDI didn't kill him.  But your assumption works on the basic that everyone organic would have to think like joker and every synthetic would have to think like EDI. Which just isn't true.

 

And this is equally ignoring the fact synthetics are superior to organics. The technological gap isn't that great now but over time it would widen significantly. There is a limitation to what organic beings are capable of doing with technology. Synthetics are that technology and so the same limitations do not exist. The only way for organics to reduce that gap would be to start hybridizing organics with technology to allow them to keep up.

 

Peace between two groups of equal power I think peace is possible. How ever peace between two groups were one is superior with the gulf between them constantly widening. That is a breeding ground for fear and resentment.

[kal_reegar]

It has all the time in the world unless its Reaper buddies are able to disagree.

 

not necessarily... we don't know how much the sheparlyst differs from the catalyst. After all, if the green space magic can change all the DNA in the galaxy, the blue space magic could give the new catalyst a stronger, more immediate and direct control over the reapers.

 

 

But let's say that the catalyst can perfectly control every reaper, even in the middle of a battle...

1. Shepard could blood to death in few minutes

2. The Crucible my have limited time to be used (maybe it will overload in few minutes or, being in the middle of a huge battle, it will be inevitably destroyed by stray bullet)

3. lot of other possible hypothesis

[kal_reegar]

In practice, this leads to the same conclusion you came to, though. Shepard doesn't have any particular reason to accept that there isn't a faulty premise buried somewhere in the Catalyst's reasoning, and there isn't time to look into it.

 

premises/axioms are arbitrary by definition (see Godel etc).

You can believe that the catalyst premises/axioms are truth, or you can refuse them. They are something you can disagree with, doubt, debate, refuse... but call them irrational? Circular logic? I don't see why.

 

I can say "there is free will", and than elaborate a perfectly logical philosophic theory based on that premise, and reach conclusion A

Or I can say "there is no free will" and than doing the same, and reach conclusion Z.

Each premise is equally valid.

Accepting or refusing the premises (and thus reaching different conclusion about the meaning of life) has nothing to do with "logic".