3560 réponses à ce sujet

[aoibhealfae]

I have more problem with ME2 ending.. I like that it show TIM's true purpose of why he want to resurrect Shepard but what I don't get was this massive humanoid Reaper with four eyes... and why liquefy women and children if they end up using them to build a giant man anyway.... 

[rossler]

The game explains why it is.

 

The Reapers ascend their enemies and preserve them in Reaper form. Like the kid at the end says. They believe themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution. Once everyone is killed or converted into Reapers, there is no need to harvest anyone. So they retreat back to dark space so organics can rebuild so this cycle of extinction can begin again.

 

They take humans melt them down and when combined with Reaper DNA, they absorb the essence of whatever species they are trying to make. Read the entry titled The Reapers: Harvesting in the secondary codex. It explains how it works. If you combine humans with Reapers, they look like humans, but are called husks, or a big human Reaper larva (ME2) if you have that many. Same goes for the scions. A bunch of husks smushed together into one body. It was said to take millions to make the human Reaper.

 

If you combine Batarians with Reaper tech you get Cannibals with four eyes like batarians. The Brutes are a cross between turians/krogan, which is why it has the body of a krogan, but the head of a turian. Etc, etc.

 

They even tell you why there isn't any Quarian, Drell, or Salarian Reapers in the game. There isn't enough of them to make a Reaper. So they just kill or enslave them. They are spared from being harvested and converted into Reaper constructs.

[angol fear]

It's like writing an assignment about poverty in south africa where your main points are about welfare and socio-economic subjects and then concluding that the climate of South Africa is the problem without having focused on it. Your teacher would tell you your text is incoherent, as any lector of drama or literature would tell Bioware if they read Mass Effect 3's script.

 

That's boring... so once again, I am a literature teacher and no! the ending isn't incoherent. Once again I know other people who work as literature teacher and in art in general and no! they don't think the ending is incoherent. You need to learn what is incoherence, and your literature teacher should learn too.

 

 

They could've told a much more impactful and fitting conclusion than they did. What we got was nonsense that seemed deep on the surface, and I've not even mentioned the retcons and retroactive ruination the final twist caused yet.

 

Once again, Bioware did an ending that fits to their own writing. You didn't get it, that's obvious. You can say that you understood the ending but reading like a ten years old child, understanding the general meaning, sorry but that's not reading.

So why do I say that you don't know how to read? Because the writing of the trilogy is based on retroative reading and you separated it from the superficial depth you see. We didn't get nonsense, we got the same writing that was here since the beginning based on paradox, implicit and retroactive reading. You didn't see it during the trilogy, that's your problem. You didn't take seriously what should have been taken seriously in the game, that's your problem. The writing isn't incoherent. You can play how many times you want, if you're a bad reader you will never understand.

 

 

Side-notes:

 Leviathan DLC establishes the idea of synthetics vs organics being the central conflict earlier for you... but like I said. Making it the central conflict is still a huge stretch, even though it's the (retroactively made-up) reason behind the existence of the Reapers and the Mass Effect universe. It feels like it's only placed and put emphasis on in the ending and then completely hidden in the remainder aside from being heavily emphasised in a lot of side-content from Mass Effect 1. Every time I've played ME1 since ME3 I've noticed how it seemed like the metabolic conflict between organics and synthetics was a big idea for a central conflict from the beginning, but as the series went on it diverged and placed more emphasis on other ideas that became the central themes, like humanity vs aliens, heroism, implications and ramifications of war, transhumanism, transalienism, cthulhu-ism and ****. We just moved too far away from the big Synthetics vs Organics idea throughout ME2 and ME3 to arrive back at that conclusion, even though I would believe Casey Hudson if he told me it was the first idea of the Reapers they came up with and the idea he always wanted to be the theme for the trilogy's ending.

 

The DLC doesn't establish the idea of the central conflict, it only create an explicit foreshadowing because people was asking for it. The original game established implicitly the "central conflict" but you need to analyze the writing to understand it.

Now you blame the writing for having developed other themes (that were already there), but you actually didn't see how they are connected. That is bad reading.

 

 

You loved it, and ignorance is bliss then.

 

You should learn how to read before trying to get pretentious like you do. Ignorance doesn't know its limits, you should learn yours. In literature we use words with a specific meaning. Wikipedia, tvtropes etc... won't make you understand them, it will give you the illusion of knowledge. It works on people who are more ignorant, that's all.

[oddball_bg]

 

As stated in another game:Ignorance is bliss,when it's not fatal!

[Reorte]

The game explains why it is.

No it doesn't. It comes up with a bunch of words that don't actually make much sense when you think about it.

[Reorte]

You should learn how to read before trying to get pretentious like you do. Ignorance doesn't know its limits, you should learn yours.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[angol fear]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I knew there would be a pseudo intellectual, who is actually an anti intellectual, who would come to try to sound smart. Always the same formula. What I said is valid for you too.

[Dantriges]

Ah Angol is still waving around his credentials with nothing to back them up?
 

The game explains why it is.

I think the question is rather why build a human skeleton as the inside structure? Yeah I know the game says that the outside is Leviathan in homage to the AI´s creators and the inside is the particular race which makes as much sense as building a cargo ship hull on the internal structure of an airplane. The explanation given is on the same level as the one given in the lore for the gameplay change to ammo ehm thermal clips.

 

It probably would make more sense to synthsize all the carbon in our body into some kind of carbon nanotubes or so and use them in some parts of the construction, if you want to build a ship out of the flesh of your enemies and use the DNA in some kind of DNA supercomputer or database, it´s not like there is any need to bury a human skeleton in the reaper shell. Yeah ok, if you want to go symbolic like "this species is now assimilated and remolded into our image" or "deep down the species is stll there" or more silly "the Reapers have a lot of skeletons in their closets."

 

The real explanation why they dropped the idea of Reapers built in the image of the harvested civilisations is probably one or several of these reasons:

1. It´s too expensive/time consuming to make individual Reapers and the art department had deadlines, too.

2. The Reapers would lose their iconic image.

3. Most species we encountered were humanoid, unless our and the prothean cycle were an oddity, most Reapers would have a humanoid appearance, too. The Reapers would look less like a space fleet but like an assembly of space mecha and no one wanted to turn the last game into galaxy meets Macross.

[angol fear]

@Dantriges I remember trying to explain you the difference between "don't" and "can't" so at this level of reading...

[Dantriges]

AFAIK it wasn´t me. And well, I am a nonnative speaker, like you. So well even if, what´s the problem with that? I appreciate it, when someone tells me, that I made a mistake unless they are a jerk about it or use it to derail the discussion with grammar, because they have nothing else to say. 

 

IIRC the only time we had a debate about poper english words was when I mentioned that you claimed to be an expert with nothing to back it up and used some wrong words for it. Some other people agreed that I used a very specific term wrong.

[Iakus]

The whole point of Synthesis is that EDI is different. She should sound different.

And the Sheplyst isn't supposed to be the same being as Shepard; it says so itself. Again, the difference doesn't mean what you're pretending it means.

INdeed.

 

It's also the horror of the endings.

[Iakus]

 

The exact "sudden shift" at the end(throughout the whole ME3,I should say)you are talking about is the reason it elevates the series.The first two games had very rich,detailed and interestingly built lore.But that's it.They just tell stories for different characters and conflicts between them.The games don't STUDY anything.They were just games.However with the third one they changed that.They tried to go beyond the banal cliches and trends of the "domestic" endings we get with every AAA game.The moment I started playing ME3 i felt there was something very very different in this game.The tone of the suffering and desperation was much more grounded,much more mature,if you will,compared to the other two games.Shepard was also different.Much closer to a real human being than before.He/she was unsure,scared,sometimes not knowing what to say...I felt that the whole game somehow has "moved" into another league(hope it makes sense).It moved from a video game to...I don't know,something that can be discussed,something that can imply different ideas and toy with them,something that brakes your established video game comfort,especially with a AAA titles.And,honestly,I really don't care if it leaves many "domestic"questions unanswered,because the sudden change of scale it provided,along with not giving you straight answer to everything elevated it for me.

How do you explain the shift in AI?  For two games they had been beating us over the head with how AI are intelligent, sentient beings, albiet alien and potentially quite hostile.  Then along comes ME3 which starts telling us that AI aren't really sentient unless they start thinking like humans.

 

Anthropomorphism at its finest.

[KrrKs]

The DLC doesn't establish the idea of the central conflict, it only create an explicit foreshadowing because people was asking for it.

"Explicit foreshadowing"? As in "directly stating that there is a 'central conflict' that is different from what the rest of the game(s) --until the last 10 minutes-- tell you"?

I believe that qualifies as 'establishing'.

 

>>The original game established implicitly the "central conflict" but you need to analyze the writing to understand it.<<

First: You don't need to analyze anything there, it is directly stated by Tali, Valern and Anderson (if i'm remembering correctly)

Second, this entire 'central conflict' Idea was discarded in ME2, when Legion states that the Synthetics in ME1 were all puppets to the (not entirely synthetic) Main Antagonist/Reapers.

What became Main Conflicts/Arcs instead were the Geth/Quarian and Krogan Genophage plots that were hinted at since ME1.

 

Remarks:

1) If you could argue points instead of people or grammar, maybe I could begin to take you seriously.

2) Also, tone down your not-so-passive aggressiveness, it's tiring.

3) For a self proclaimed 'literature teacher' that constantly reminds other of their horrible spelling, grammar or other deficits, you make a lot of errors yourself.

(Having a non-native speaker tell you that must hurt )

[rossler]

I think the question is rather why build a human skeleton as the inside structure?

 

As in, why does it look human?

 

It's even stated that the exact construction methods are unclear. EDI is just speculating on how the Reaper is made. It's like coming across a technology you've never seen before, and trying to figure out how it works without having any information before hand.

 

Imagine a guy from 252,525 who goes back in time and puts a computer from his time in front of someone from 2015. The technology would be so advanced for him, they'd have to come up with theories on how it works and how to use it. Or the guy from that era would use language no one from 2015 would be able to understand. Even then it's just a guess with no real answer. Which would kind of make sense because the Reapers are so much more advanced than organics. So trying to figure out how the Reapers reproduce or how their technology actually works, you could only speculate.

[oddball_bg]

How do you explain the shift in AI?  For two games they had been beating us over the head with how AI are intelligent, sentient beings, albiet alien and potentially quite hostile.  Then along comes ME3 which starts telling us that AI aren't really sentient unless they start thinking like humans.

 

Anthropomorphism at its finest.

What are you talking about?I don't really understand your point here!Mass Effect never stated synthetics are sentient creatures.People and aliens are living with them and hate them,like them fight war with them,use them in everyday life,maybe even make love with them,but it's not stated ANYWHERE they see them as sentient creatures like humans and aliens,and organics in general.They are used to them and machines are fundamental part of their life.Maybe you mean they suddenly become the main focus of the story in comparison to the previous games?However,let me tell you that the previous two games don't focus on anything in particular as a main problem(philosophical,if you want).ME3 is the first game to actually put an actual coherent problem.As I said,the first two games just tell stories with a rich lore,the third one is different.

[Dantriges]

As in, why does it look human?

 

It's even stated that the exact construction methods are unclear. EDI is just speculating on how the Reaper is made. It's like coming across a technology you've never seen before, and trying to figure out how it works without having any information before hand.

 

Imagine a guy from 252,525 who goes back in time and puts a computer from his time in front of someone from 2015. The technology would be so advanced for him, they'd have to come up with theories on how it works and how to use it. Or the guy from that era would use language no one from 2015 would be able to understand. Even then it's just a guess with no real answer. Which would kind of make sense because the Reapers are so much more advanced than organics. So trying to figure out how the Reapers reproduce or how their technology actually works, you could only speculate.

 

 

Oh I based my argument on the codex entry or something like that, which explained that the Reapers are harvested species inside and Leviathan hull outside. It´s rather obvious that they scrapped their original idea and lampshaded it.

 

Or we can go with "you need a pyhsical representation of the species in question inside the Reaper so you can capture the "essence" of the species, a symbol " or something like that.

 

Which is quite funny because I use that too, in my homebrew RPG setting.

If you are so hyper advanced and have shields protecting cities, why are there these incredible city walls?

To anchor the shield. A physical representation of protection at the boundaries of the city defines the shield´s borders which helps strengthen it and reinforces the shield with its physical presence. And ah well we put the generators there. It´s value is as much as a symbolic as its physical presence.

 

Funny thing is, the hyperadvanced race actually uses magitech or simpler: Magic.

Even stole something from ME after my players asked one of them for immortality treatment: First we have to kill you in a most cruel and horrible way so that you linger on as a ghost and your soul won´t journey to the afterlife, by dissolving it into its components while you are still alive. Afterwards we reassemble it at an age of your choice and put your ghost back. Done.

 

I get Clarke´s saying about advanced technology looking like magic to the less technical adept, but this whole essence, lifeforce (the catalyst also uses the word), internal structure of harvested species, external Leviathan thing, sniffs too much like someone took it too literally.

 

In short this whole thing doesn´t look like so unbelievable advanced we have no explanation but more like someone broke out the candles, summoning circles and incantations in weird languages.

 

I prefer the "they scrapped the idea" explanation.

[Iakus]

What are you talking about?I don't really understand your point here!Mass Effect never stated synthetics are sentient creatures.People and aliens are living with them and hate them,like them fight war with them,use them in everyday life,maybe even make love with them,but it's not stated ANYWHERE they see them as sentient creatures like humans and aliens,and organics in general.They are used to them and machines are fundamental part of their life.Maybe you mean they suddenly become the main focus of the story in comparison to the previous games?However,let me tell you that the previous two games don't focus on anything in particular as a main problem(philosophical,if you want).ME3 is the first game to actually put an actual coherent problem.As I said,the first two games just tell stories with a rich lore,the third one is different.

 

I mean the geth, despite being hostile to quarians, are still sentient.  Reapers, again, were this race of sentient AI dreadnoughts.  Even EDI while not human, was quite intelligent (and friendly)

 

But in ME3, suddenly the geth consensus isn't a "true AI" and isn't really sentient.  And can never be unless they eat Reaper their code like good little toasters.

 

Then the Reapers themselves are simply automatons controlled by the Catalyst, unable to adapt their programming like a true AI.   Like EDI....  

 

And of course EDI, so human, yet still not really alive.  Not unless Shepard spews his green "organic energy" all over the galaxy and becomes even more human.

 

I suppose she's still "a credit to her race" or something...

 

And yet way back in ME1, we learn the geth's question, which scared the quarians so badly, was "Does this unit have a soul?"

[oddball_bg]

I mean the geth, despite being hostile to quarians, are still sentient.  Reapers, again, were this race of sentient AI dreadnoughts.  Even EDI while not human, was quite intelligent (and friendly)

 

But in ME3, suddenly the geth consensus isn't a "true AI" and isn't really sentient.  And can never be unless they eat Reaper their code like good little toasters.

 

Then the Reapers themselves are simply automatons controlled by the Catalyst, unable to adapt their programming like a true AI.   Like EDI....  

 

And of course EDI, so human, yet still not really alive.  Not unless Shepard spews his green "organic energy" all over the galaxy and becomes even more human.

 

I suppose she's still "a credit to her race" or something...

 

And yet way back in ME1, we learn the geth's question, which scared the quarians so badly, was "Does this unit have a soul?"

Hm...maybe we should specify what exactly does "sentient" mean,then.

[Reorte]

I knew there would be a pseudo intellectual, who is actually an anti intellectual, who would come to try to sound smart. Always the same formula. What I said is valid for you too.

Well that depends whether you're actually right or not then, doesn't it? However I'm not the one who's always blustering on about how he's such an authority without actually demonstrating it.

[Reorte]

Hm...maybe we should specify what exactly does "sentient" mean,then.

Not what the word often seems to get used to mean. I think (and I may have gotten this one a bit muddled up) that it just means being aware of stimuli and so-on, so a dog is sentient but a tree probably isn't (I say probably because it does respond in limited ways). The word often seems to get used where I think "sapient" would be more appropriate, so (if my definitions are right) it's best just to assume that was what was really meant and move on.

[rossler]

Sometimes leaving things open to interpretation is better than trying to explain how the Reapers do their thing, because people might not like it. Which kind of seems to be the case. That way people are free to believe whatever about them.

[oddball_bg]

Not what the word often seems to get used to mean. I think (and I may have gotten this one a bit muddled up) that it just means being aware of stimuli and so-on, so a dog is sentient but a tree probably isn't (I say probably because it does respond in limited ways). The word often seems to get used where I think "sapient" would be more appropriate, so (if my definitions are right) it's best just to assume that was what was really meant and move on.

If we are talking sapient,synthetics are definitely not sapient.And no one ever referred to them as such.

[Reorte]

If we are talking sapient,synthetics are definitely not sapient.And no one ever referred to them as such.

"Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgement". Seems to fit the bill. No-one has but perhaps they should, it's far more relevent than sentience and the word sentience seems to (mistakenly) get used to describe it. It's not totally impossible that they're sapient but not sentient, being able to make decisions, plan, think about the world but not necessarily responding to stimuli beyond "sensor reads pressure X, temperature Y" and reacting accordingly.

[ImaginaryMatter]

If we are talking sapient,synthetics are definitely not sapient.And no one ever referred to them as such.

 

What 'synthetics' are we talking about. The Geth? EDI? Sapience partly seems to be a philosophical issue but I find it hard to classify the main AI characters in ME as neither sapient nor sentient. They engage in philosophy themselves and seem to have never ending existential crises. I'm not an expert but those seem to be some pretty higher level thought processes.

[oddball_bg]

What 'synthetics' are we talking about. The Geth? EDI? Sapience partly seems to be a philosophical issue but I find it hard to classify the main AI characters in ME as neither sapient nor sentient. They engage in philosophy themselves and seem to have never ending existential crises. I'm not an expert but those seem to be some pretty higher level thought processes.

Yeah,of course they are not sapient or sentient.They are just not.No one called them that,or was discussing something like that in ME,at least not to my knowledge.