3428 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Natureguy85]

But here you seem to talk about what the catalyst says as if it was the first time we have it. But the central part of Mass Effect 3 is Rannoch and we have :

 

http://m.imdb.com/ti...es?qt=qt1672323

 

"Without our intervention, organics are doomed", "The Battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion".

 

We can add that the Rannoch conflict was made without the reapers, but the peace is made with a different context : the reapers and the harvest.

 

You can disagree with the catalyst, but what he says was already said in the middle of the game, he only made explicit, more concrete what was said by the reapers. And at the same time, you can disagree with him : the destroy choice is a choice that can be interpreted as "organics are not doomed".

 

Emphasis mine. While I may have said something like that in other posts, I didn't say any such thing in what you quoted.

 

Notice how the Reaper just talks about Order vs Chaos and it's Shepard who brings up Organics vs Synthetics? It's a strange transition. No question about how the Reapers killing everyone is "salvation." But the Reaper did say that Rannoch showed that Organics and Synthetics can't get along. But doomed to what? Eternal war? Extinction, as the Catalyst claims? Or just their lower, non-Reaper existence? How did "two sides fight all the time" morph to the one sided "Synthetics will destroy all Organics"?

 

Also, while this was in the middle of the game, it's late in the series. It wasn't stated by "the Reapers." It was stated by one Reaper and it doesn't really align with what Sovereign said, in word or in attitude.

 

 

 

"We need to be able to argue against the enemy" : Mass Effect has never shown a situation where Shepard could convince a synthetic. Legion asked Shepard something to get his point of view but I don't remember something like this (Shepard trying to convince a synthetic, or he always failed).

 

The ability to convince is not as important as the ability to argue.

 

 

 

 And there another thing in this quotation : the "enemy". The ending made it explicit : there is no battle, it's only a harvest, the reapers are not good or evil, they simply are. When you states that they are the enemy, it means that you are not following the writing, you are making your own interpretation where you consider the catalyst to be an enemy but it seems that Shepard disagree with you. And it seems that the Catalyst is very cooperative for an enemy. The ending is supposed to be "high level" (casey Hudson's words, and the whole catalyst scene is supposed to give the impression that you are far from the battle, you have the feeling of someone who observes, who is outside and see the big picture), above good and evil, and here you go against the writing.

 

What does the Reapers being good or evil have to do with them being the enemy? We oppose their actions regardless of their motivations. They are trying to kill everyone and we are trying to stop them. They are the enemy.

 

I know the ending was supposed to be "high level" and it was a failure. Being far removed from the battle can work well because the more important battle is going on in that other space. Look at Return of the Jedi. The imagery is similar, in fact. Luke is watching the space battle, far from it and his friends on the Forest Moon. Luke cares about the war and his friends but the battle he's waging with the Emperor and Darth Vader is way more important to the film than either the space or ground battle. It is a battle of wills and ideology. Similarly, that is what the battle between Shepard and the Catalyst should have been. They did that with Saren and it was awesome. Their arguments were more important than the times they were shooting at each other.

 

 

 

All sense of accomplishment is gone : here you are talking about satisfaction. This has nothing to do with the quality, it has to do with the reception. It's not because you are not satisfied that it's bad. The satisfaction part of your perception can't be said to be objective. Do you think that the developers wanted to create a satisfying ending? Do you really think that they wanted to create the sense of accomplishment people want? Then why didn't they create a final boss? And why did Mike Gamble said before the game was released that the ending would not please everybody?

So you can consider the ending to be a bad part as a video game, but from the writing point of view they were coherent and that's the most important point, from an objective perspective.

If a writer creates a character who is supposed to be hated, then it would be ridiculous to blame the writer for having created that character because you  hate it. In that case, the writer succeed and you dislike. But from an objective perspective there is no problem. Here I'm not talking about good or bad, I'm just talking about the objective aspect of analysis because all our discussion is about that point.

 

Well, sure, the sense of accomplishment is subjective. But what have you really done? You got to the room where the main antagonist is, and he just lays down and lets you win.

 

Conglaturation! A winner is you!

 

Why does accomplishment need a final boss? You can beat Saren, the real Saren, with dialogue and that was awesome. That the ending will not please everyone is a way of not saying anything. Nothing pleases everyone. That statement tells me nothing and the only inference you could make, correct or not, is that it's actually bad and he's just being diplomatic about it.

 

There are lots of characters I'd hate as people but like or appreciate as characters in a story. I like Udina, Saren, and Sovereign a lot and two of them are enemies.

 

 

What I meant is that people can watch a lot of films, TV series, read a lot of book, if there is no quality they won't know what is quality. The same goes for analysis, if they watch and read what is on internet or if they think that what they have learnt at school (or even in university) is enough to think that they know and can make a real analysis, they are wrong, once again. they will use argument to sound like a critique, but it will be an opinion disguised. So my last line wasn't a cop out because what you said is very vague, which means that I can't disagree, but at the same time it's not true because it's incomplete.

Do you think that if you write a thesis at the university, using internet source (wikipedia, youtube...) will be valid source? When I talk about Barthes and someone answers with youtube, don't you think that there is a problem, a gap between the sources? And sure internet or the lessons (which are incomplete and are not equal to real reading of the books) make people say "I'm pretty sure that the critic/philosopher ..." while if they would have read they would know that they are wrong. But when people think they know because they have read it on internet and people agree with them (so they have repeated it, and you see it everywhere on internet), they do not develop their skills for analysis.

Reading few but with intelligence is better than reading a lot without thinking.

 

And where did these experts from which you pull your arguments from authority get their experience and authority? I like the Youtube videos because they explain these concepts well. To try and invalidate their argument based on who they are is the definition of the ad Hominem fallacy. Make the case rather than just dropping a name and expecting people to be impressed.

[BloodyMares]

And where did these experts from which you pull your arguments from authority get their experience and authority? I like the Youtube videos because they explain these concepts well. To try and invalidate their argument based on who they are is the definition of the ad Hominem fallacy. Make the case rather than just dropping a name and expecting people to be impressed.

Yes, I'd like him to guide us (noobs in his opinion) to the real credible source of information (in his opinion) that we could read, learn and then come to the realization that his point is indeed valid instead of just stating that he has an authority (we can't even confirm that on the internet). But for some reason he doesn't want to communicate with me, so I will just throw it out there.

[straykat]

I'm not an ending hater, but I'd hardly call it brilliant. I can just work with it. I'll reserve Dostoevsky or something, for that word.

[Natureguy85]

Yes, I'd like him to guide us (noobs in his opinion) to the real credible source of information (in his opinion) that we could read, learn and then come to the realization that his point is indeed valid instead of just stating that he has an authority (we can't even confirm that on the internet). But for some reason he doesn't want to communicate with me, so I will just throw it out there.

 

That's one thing and he did name drop Barthes, but why is he a credible source vs anyone else, scholar or youtuber? I'm sure And while I can appreciate sources that might say things better than one can say oneself, (I do it), I appreciate the attempt at least to put ideas in one's own words.

 

But I'm trying to keep focused on the arguments rather than the source of the argument. This is particularly fair when we're talking about a craft rather than, say, a scientific discipline. He mentioned people on youtube. But what if those youtubers had scholars as their influences? Would that suddenly make the same arguments worthy where they weren't before?

[straykat]

I think you just should wash this out of your brain. Mass Effect scholars? This is not a good thing... I'm sure of it. No matter what they say.

[Natureguy85]

I think you just should wash this out of your brain. Mass Effect scholars? This is not a good thing... I'm sure of it. No matter what they say.

 

No, writing in general. The things we're using to analyze Mass Effect.

[straykat]

No, writing in general. The things we're using to analyze Mass Effect.

 

Ah... like literary critics or something?

 

Well, I'll just say that the Ending works for me (Destroy) because it follows the Iceberg theory. It's from Hemingway originally. Show, don't tell -- all games/movies/visual mediums are better off like that imo. It's why I can find satisfaction in the Breath Scene. It tells a lot, with just one image.

 

The conservation with the Catalyst itself, not so much. But that was all Casey Hudson apparently. He doesn't understand writing and he went overboard on exposition.

[fraggle]

People can believe what they want but that's not how you tell a story. The events don't support the Catalyst. If people are supposed to use their own thoughts on AI outside of the narrative, we might as well have skipped everything between Sovereign and the Catalyst.

 

I really see your point, but then, what if events did support the Catalyst? The main problem with this is that the cycle structure as it currently is prevents us from seeing it. Organics are harvested before a complete wipeout happens, but it already almost happened to the quarians. This is the one example we could use, but of course, while it shows that synthetics had the potential to wipe out an organic race in its early stage, it also shows synthetics did not wipe out this race even when they could, for whichever reasons (they differ a little afair depending on whether you have Legion or Geth VI). So basically we'd need a complete rewrite of the cycle solution, right?

And then... coming to the next part:

 

It doesn't have to show that the Catalyst is right, but it has to show that it might be right if we are supposed to consider that it's conclusion and solution might be right. It's also possible to accept that the Catalyst is right but still reject the Reapers as an appropriate solution. The problem is only that the Catalyst is making claims without presenting evidence to the player. Again, we might as well have just skipped to this point because the Catalyst is just looking for a decision based on his exposition, not on 3 games worth of experience.

 

How would you prove something from the past so long ago that people would believe in it? I somehow can't see it change the outcome, because I'm fairly sure some people would still say that a few events prove nothing. Just as it is now, although maybe the balance changes a little, that in this case more people would be inclined to believe the Catalyst instead of hating on it.

 

In Deus Ex, people can get augmented with technology. Those with older, obvious augmentations are worried that they will be surpassed and looked down on now that new technology makes augmentations far less obvious. I haven't played Human Revolution yet but I think that gets more into the Ethics of it.

In Bioshock, this substance called ADAM allows people to manipulate their DNA to give themselves various abilities, including what functions as the game's "magic." But people become addicted to the process and go insane, killing each other to get ADAM.

 

I see, thanks for the info. I've heard that both games are really good, but I will likely never play Bioshock since it's 1st person. Deus Ex is too, but it changes into 3rd sometimes from what I've seen, and maybe I can get along with that. I had considered trying out Deus Ex at some point in the future (I just really hate 1st person, or rather the feeling I can't see what's behind me, haha).

Maybe I should watch a playthrough of Bioshock on YT at least.

 

Sure, but what matters is the presentation within the story. An outside observer might think that Boromir is right and they should use the One Ring against Sauron, but the story tells you this is a bad idea. Likewise, even if you think that using the enemy's technology or methods is a good idea, the story tells you it isn't. This is a matter of themes again.

 

http://www.shamusyou...edtale/?p=28485

 

http://www.escapistm...en-Fanfiction.2

 

True, everything we've seen tells us for example "Control is bad! Look what happens!", however I'm not sure if we should truly compare this. In the example, there is a personal value added to the term "power", that it's bad. Of course this is what the story suggests, and that it's about defeating the enemy through different means, but that doesn't mean that everyone thinks of power as bad. Some might be in favor to use it. So no matter how something is presented, people do not have to agree with this way of thinking.

 

And in ME's case, the very future of your choice and the scenarios are still out there, and it's the players' choice to handle this his/her way. As I said, we have different perceptions of Control, Synthesis and Destroy based on how we interpret it. You don't like what Control and Synthesis imply for you, and neither do I, but people can take these very outcomes and make up their own scenario about it. There is no retcon, or rather a change in the themes in this place in my opinion, because there was nothing set in stone for the outcomes of these choices. We see examples, yes, but in the end it's up to the player what to make of it. Trust it? Deny it? Everyone will figure it out for themselves.

 

And see, just because I prefer Destroy and to let the universe run its course, why should I tell people that Control or Synthesis sucks just because they have their own ideas about what's to happen? Even if I feel that having some higher entity watching over us is creepy, I respect if some people prefer this outcome. They can spin their own story to its end just like I head-canon what happens with my Shepard, or the future, if I picked Destroy.

Mass Effect gave you an idea, no matter how negative it was presented, about the 3 choices at the end, and it's in your own power to turn one of them into your own ending. This is exactly what I meant in an earlier post. Despite what we see, it can encourage people to think way beyond what they are presented with in the game, they go beyond it and think about the ideas they see, and then come up with their own presentation of the idea after the end.

 

It seems we just have to agree to disagree here, because I think of a presentation within a story very differently. Just because we see something in the game doesn't mean this will ultimately be the truth after the game ended, especially if it has an open ending, which is very true for ME.

 

You're right that we were introduced to Control. Synthesis is an order of magnitude over what we've witnessed so far, though they could have framed the Reapers themselves as a crude attempt at Synthesis. Of course, Sovereign said they were already the pinnacle of existence. But only antagonists ever framed Control or Synthesis as good and both caused problems. Whatever you think on your own, the story never framed them positively. Control had an easy fix. Just take Xen's idea from ME2 to Control the Geth and have that as a possible way to resolve the Rannoch arc. Have it work and the Geth not break free or anything. That would show that Control can be a very good idea and help you. We'd consider that TIM might be right and be more inclined to take that option.

 

I agree some instances where both ideas work more positively would not have hurt, in fact it's true that likely the endings would've benefited from it, because we'd know that it can also go in a positive direction. Which of course it still can as I mentioned above, but since we never saw this, people are less inclined to trust these ideas, or even try them out.

 

Btw, I really enjoy this conversation, and I'm sorry if I take long sometimes to reply

[gothpunkboy89]

Then why didn't every species make their own Geth? Sure, species still use tech to make some thing easier, but you don't know they would have developed the same way. We don't know what other tech would or wouldn't have been developed along side it without advancements from the Protheans/Reapers. Or if the Quarans might have had different technology that would have allowed them to more easily defeat the Geth and not be pushed off Rannoch.

 

Actually, we don't even know if the Quarians would exist as they are or if they'd have been enslaved or killed by some other species the Reapers killed. That was the plot of Descent Freespace, from which ME3 seemed to borrow.

 

 

They did they simply did not improve them the way the Quarians did that eventually lead to their evolution creating the Geth as we know them in game. Automatic mining rigs, security mechs, etc they all exist in the game world and are used by all the different races.

[Natureguy85]

They did they simply did not improve them the way the Quarians did that eventually lead to their evolution creating the Geth as we know them in game. Automatic mining rigs, security mechs, etc they all exist in the game world and are used by all the different races.

 

So they didn't make their own Geth, but just made some robots. Once you remove the Reapers, the development path of every species changes. They could end up turning out the same or wildly different. It's not possible to know what would have happened.

[Natureguy85]

I really see your point, but then, what if events did support the Catalyst? The main problem with this is that the cycle structure as it currently is prevents us from seeing it. Organics are harvested before a complete wipeout happens, but it already almost happened to the quarians. This is the one example we could use, but of course, while it shows that synthetics had the potential to wipe out an organic race in its early stage, it also shows synthetics did not wipe out this race even when they could, for whichever reasons (they differ a little afair depending on whether you have Legion or Geth VI). So basically we'd need a complete rewrite of the cycle solution, right?

And then... coming to the next part:

 

If events supported the Catalyst, then we'd have to consider its position more carefully and if the Reapers were an appropriate solution. As it stands, we don't need a rewrite of the cycle solution as much as you need a rewrite of the Reapers' motivation for the cycle.

 

 

 

How would you prove something from the past so long ago that people would believe in it? I somehow can't see it change the outcome, because I'm fairly sure some people would still say that a few events prove nothing. Just as it is now, although maybe the balance changes a little, that in this case more people would be inclined to believe the Catalyst instead of hating on it.

 

This is a great question and it demonstrates why this kind of thing really doesn't work well in a story. However, if the events of the current cycle matched what the Catalyst was saying, then we'd have reason to take the Catalyst's word on the past because it would match our own experience. 

 

 

 

I see, thanks for the info. I've heard that both games are really good, but I will likely never play Bioshock since it's 1st person. Deus Ex is too, but it changes into 3rd sometimes from what I've seen, and maybe I can get along with that. I had considered trying out Deus Ex at some point in the future (I just really hate 1st person, or rather the feeling I can't see what's behind me, haha).

Maybe I should watch a playthrough of Bioshock on YT at least.

 

I would recommend at least watching a Let's Play of Bioshock. It has one of the best twists in gaming. The good ending is one of the best I've ever seen too.  The problem is that after the awesome twist, the game goes on too long before finally ending in a silly boss fight.

 

 

 

True, everything we've seen tells us for example "Control is bad! Look what happens!", however I'm not sure if we should truly compare this. In the example, there is a personal value added to the term "power", that it's bad. Of course this is what the story suggests, and that it's about defeating the enemy through different means, but that doesn't mean that everyone thinks of power as bad. Some might be in favor to use it. So no matter how something is presented, people do not have to agree with this way of thinking.

 

 

That is correct, but Shepard is not a total blank slate and I don't remember the game ever allowing Shepard to view Control as a good thing. Whatever your personal views, the game takes one side of the issue. There's no reason to suddenly open both sides.

 

For contrast, look at some other games, including ME2. In ME2, you can be pro Cerberus and express admiration for them. In KotOR, you can spend the whole game moving toward the dark side. In both cases, you can take either position based on your personal beliefs or for Role Play. This isn't available in ME3 regarding Control.

 

Speaking of KotOR, I played mostly light side, but was always using Mind Trick to manipulate people into giving me info or doing what I wanted. The light side Jedi on the team called me out for this. I always thought that was awesome.

 

 

 

And in ME's case, the very future of your choice and the scenarios are still out there, and it's the players' choice to handle this his/her way. As I said, we have different perceptions of Control, Synthesis and Destroy based on how we interpret it. You don't like what Control and Synthesis imply for you, and neither do I, but people can take these very outcomes and make up their own scenario about it. There is no retcon, or rather a change in the themes in this place in my opinion, because there was nothing set in stone for the outcomes of these choices. We see examples, yes, but in the end it's up to the player what to make of it. Trust it? Deny it? Everyone will figure it out for themselves.

 

This was more the case before the Extended Cut, but the new epilogues have a lot less room for interpretation or head canon. As for themes, the very concepts of the choices violate the themes in some way. Check out the "All were thematically revolting" peace in my signature.

 

 

 

And see, just because I prefer Destroy and to let the universe run its course, why should I tell people that Control or Synthesis sucks just because they have their own ideas about what's to happen? Even if I feel that having some higher entity watching over us is creepy, I respect if some people prefer this outcome. They can spin their own story to its end just like I head-canon what happens with my Shepard, or the future, if I picked Destroy.

Mass Effect gave you an idea, no matter how negative it was presented, about the 3 choices at the end, and it's in your own power to turn one of them into your own ending. This is exactly what I meant in an earlier post. Despite what we see, it can encourage people to think way beyond what they are presented with in the game, they go beyond it and think about the ideas they see, and then come up with their own presentation of the idea after the end.

 

Sure, but those endings didn't fit the story that came before. I'm critiquing the writing. Game design to give players a choice is another conversation entirely. As I said in a different post, if we're supposed to make a decision based on our own opinions of what the Catalyst says rather than on what happened in the three games, then there was no point to everything that came before and we should just start the story at the Catalyst.

 

 

 

I agree some instances where both ideas work more positively would not have hurt, in fact it's true that likely the endings would've benefited from it, because we'd know that it can also go in a positive direction. Which of course it still can as I mentioned above, but since we never saw this, people are less inclined to trust these ideas, or even try them out.

 

It's more than "would not have hurt." They would have greatly benefited the story and really are required for Control to be presented properly at the end.

 

 

 

Btw, I really enjoy this conversation, and I'm sorry if I take long sometimes to reply

 

Good, I enjoy it as well. Don't worry; I know real life happens.

[gothpunkboy89]

So they didn't make their own Geth, but just made some robots. Once you remove the Reapers, the development path of every species changes. They could end up turning out the same or wildly different. It's not possible to know what would have happened.

 

No they didn't because they did this really stupid thing called learning from past mistakes.  When one advanced VI system gains sentence and nearly wipes out an entire race. The clear and obvious thing to do is to repeat that action again on a galactic scale.

 

Are you just stupid or do you just not understand the concept of cause and effect?

[angol fear]

No. The story happens within a fictional world. That world can be as like or unlike the real world as the author likes. I like this Tolkien quote:

 

"What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator'. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true' : it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken ; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive secondary World from outside."

 

When a work of fiction establishes what is and is not possible within that world, we allow for that with suspension of disbelief. However, if the work starts to violate its own established rules, then our immersion and suspension of disbelief are damaged. It's not always catastrophic, but it's always damaging.

 

 

I'll have to answer little by little.

 

"The story happens within a fictional world" : I agree with it, but since you disagree with what I said it means that I disagrees with how you use that sentence.

First, you consider the fictional world but not the writing, it means that you see it as a character in a story, who knows that it's fictional but a character placed in the story. So how can you say that you are objective? Objectivity doesn't require distance? When you are emotionally involved into something you can be objective? Since you disagree with the distance that I impose, you have to explain how can you be objective if you consider it to be a world.

Second, we are talking about coherence, and you use a youtube video about narrative coherence. But if you only consider the world, you don't consider the writing and the structure. What you're talking about looks like more a 3D city that can be seen on your computer than a story. You consider that it's a world as if was already created while it's actually created by something (words, images), and you decide to ignore what this world is made from and what it's made of. Basically, it's like saying to someone "hey, I'll show you the world of Mass Effect" and you make him play the trilogy. If he is serious, he will say :" I don't see a world, I see a story that makes me discover little by little a fictional world created by images and words". But you decide to set the coherence in the world not in the writing, so how can you talk about the narrative coherence? If you decide to ignore the writing how can you talk about the coherence of the structure of the storytelling? I mean there is a contradiction between what you say and what you quote (while the youtuber is actually wrong about what is the narrative coherence).

 

Now let's see your quotation. While I like Tolkien, honestly he is a terrible critic. One of the most important part of your quotation is :

"He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter" : so how does he make that secondary world? That part is totally ignored. He states that we can enter it, it means that it exists outside of the writer and the reader. So where is it? You'll say that it's in a book for example. Ok but if it exists and we can enter it so how can you explain that there are people who can't enter this world? tolkien doesn't explain it and he can't explain it because what he says is wrong. If a reader can't enter it, it's because he can't create a representation with the words in the book. So the reader is active, he creates the representation with the words choosen by the writer. But with Tolkien's quotation the reader does nothing else than enter, and the storyteller only tells what already exist. We all know that the philosophy of the language developed in the XXth century, the linguistic and the literature of the XXth century contradicts what he says. The theory of the reception, the structuralism etc... show that it doesn't work like that.

And if we pay attention to what Tolkien says after that we can understand that what he says is actually working for a part of the literature but it totally ignore another part (so how can it be so general when he it only works for a specific part?). Tolkien is coherent : his literature is a reactionary literature. He used legend and tales (elements and structure). When we take a look at what he says, the writer is a world maker, that idea is a romantic idea, it comes from an aesthetic which was in the XIXth century and was still living ni the beginning of the XXth century. For him, the writer is a creator of a secondary world in the primary world, the writer is like a god. And if we go further we see : "the spell is broken ; the magic, or rather art, has failed". So the writer is actually a magician, and the world appears just like that, the world exists by itself and disappears if the creator disagrees with the laws of that world. Seriously? How can anyone believe that? Honestly, that beautiful but it can't be taken seriously. Tolkien was not a critic, he never aimed to be a critic. What he says is actually his point of view that works for his own writing and fantasy that follow that aesthetic. You can't use that quotation as if it was a serious analysis of the process of "creation" and apply this idea on a totally different aesthetic.

 

"When a work of fiction establishes what is and is not possible within that world, we allow for that with suspension of disbelief. However, if the work starts to violate its own established rules, then our immersion and suspension of disbelief are damaged. It's not always catastrophic, but it's always damaging." : ok but who establishes the rules if even the writer himself doesn't establish it? And how can we know the established rules?

[KrrKs]

>>So they didn't make their own Geth, but just made some robots.[...] <<

No they didn't because they did this really stupid thing called learning from past mistakes. [...]

So, why did we need the reapers in this cycle, again?

[Natureguy85]

No they didn't because they did this really stupid thing called learning from past mistakes.  When one advanced VI system gains sentence and nearly wipes out an entire race. The clear and obvious thing to do is to repeat that action again on a galactic scale.

 

Are you just stupid or do you just not understand the concept of cause and effect?

 

The Quarians weren't the most advanced race. Why didn't the Asari create their own version of the Geth long before the Quarians? It's funny you asking me if I understand cause and effect when you don't realize that the species would possibly, if not likely, take on very different development paths if they never found the Reaper's technology. The pot calls the kettle black once more.

 

 

 

As for learning from past mistakes, let's look at KrrKs comment:

 

 

So, why did we need the reapers in this cycle, again?

 

If the galaxy learned their lesson, the Reapers are totally unnecessary. If they have  to do something, they should just wipe out the Geth and go on vacation after a job well done. They can be laid off due to their work being complete. Of course, I keep hearing that the Geth don't prove anything because there might be killer Synthetics later at some point. But how is that possible if everyone learned from the past mistakes?

[Natureguy85]

"The story happens within a fictional world" : I agree with it, but since you disagree with what I said it means that I disagrees with how you use that sentence.

First, you consider the fictional world but not the writing, it means that you see it as a character in a story, who knows that it's fictional but a character placed in the story. So how can you say that you are objective? Objectivity doesn't require distance? When you are emotionally involved into something you can be objective? Since you disagree with the distance that I impose, you have to explain how can you be objective if you consider it to be a world.

 

The development of the world and its rules is one part of the writing. You have to judge a fictional world by itself and not use the rules of the real world except where the fictional world is like the real world.

 

Objectivity requires distance in terms of me being personally invested in the work in some way, like knowing the author or having a financial stake in it. Some will argue whether or not those automatically preclude an objective analysis but they are factors to consider. However, one of the measures of good fiction is how well it can get the reader/viewer/player to become invested in the story, world, and characters. This is where drama comes from. If these things hadn't happened, there would be no point in allowing player choice and we certainly wouldn't be discussing this series still. There would have been no massive negative reaction to the endings.

 

 

 

Second, we are talking about coherence, and you use a youtube video about narrative coherence. But if you only consider the world, you don't consider the writing and the structure. What you're talking about looks like more a 3D city that can be seen on your computer than a story. You consider that it's a world as if was already created while it's actually created by something (words, images), and you decide to ignore what this world is made from and what it's made of. Basically, it's like saying to someone "hey, I'll show you the world of Mass Effect" and you make him play the trilogy. If he is serious, he will say :" I don't see a world, I see a story that makes me discover little by little a fictional world created by images and words". But you decide to set the coherence in the world not in the writing, so how can you talk about the narrative coherence? If you decide to ignore the writing how can you talk about the coherence of the structure of the storytelling? I mean there is a contradiction between what you say and what you quote (while the youtuber is actually wrong about what is the narrative coherence).

 

I use a Youtube video because he explains it well. Let's try and focus on substance here.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. The "writing," through text, dialogue, and visuals, creates the setting (world) and the plot (events). Because the plot happens within the setting, there will be overlap. The Citadel and the Mass Relays are part of both the setting and the plot, for example. Establishing the setting establishes what is and is not possible in the fictional universe. We have to be informed about those things which are fantastical or we won't understand what's happening. This is part of why the very first thing that actually happens in Mass Effect is the Normandy going through a Mass Relay. This was done on purpose to start to establish how spaceships get around in this fictional universe. The setting also establishes what the different species are and how they interact, and the plot uses some elements from this.

 

What is the contradiction? Where is he wrong?

 

 

 

Now let's see your quotation. While I like Tolkien, honestly he is a terrible critic. One of the most important part of your quotation is :

"He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter" : so how does he make that secondary world? That part is totally ignored. He states that we can enter it, it means that it exists outside of the writer and the reader. So where is it? You'll say that it's in a book for example. Ok but if it exists and we can enter it so how can you explain that there are people who can't enter this world? tolkien doesn't explain it and he can't explain it because what he says is wrong. If a reader can't enter it, it's because he can't create a representation with the words in the book. So the reader is active, he creates the representation with the words choosen by the writer. But with Tolkien's quotation the reader does nothing else than enter, and the storyteller only tells what already exist. We all know that the philosophy of the language developed in the XXth century, the linguistic and the literature of the XXth century contradicts what he says. The theory of the reception, the structuralism etc... show that it doesn't work like that.

And if we pay attention to what Tolkien says after that we can understand that what he says is actually working for a part of the literature but it totally ignore another part (so how can it be so general when he it only works for a specific part?). Tolkien is coherent : his literature is a reactionary literature. He used legend and tales (elements and structure). When we take a look at what he says, the writer is a world maker, that idea is a romantic idea, it comes from an aesthetic which was in the XIXth century and was still living ni the beginning of the XXth century. For him, the writer is a creator of a secondary world in the primary world, the writer is like a god. And if we go further we see : "the spell is broken ; the magic, or rather art, has failed". So the writer is actually a magician, and the world appears just like that, the world exists by itself and disappears if the creator disagrees with the laws of that world. Seriously? How can anyone believe that? Honestly, that beautiful but it can't be taken seriously. Tolkien was not a critic, he never aimed to be a critic. What he says is actually his point of view that works for his own writing and fantasy that follow that aesthetic. You can't use that quotation as if it was a serious analysis of the process of "creation" and apply this idea on a totally different aesthetic.

 

"When a work of fiction establishes what is and is not possible within that world, we allow for that with suspension of disbelief. However, if the work starts to violate its own established rules, then our immersion and suspension of disbelief are damaged. It's not always catastrophic, but it's always damaging." : ok but who establishes the rules if even the writer himself doesn't establish it? And how can we know the established rules?

 

Totally ignored? What needs explaining? He makes it by being the author, by writing. We enter it by reading and accepting the premise of the story. If people have a hard time suspending disbelief then they may not be able to enter and that work (and perhaps fiction in general) is not for them. "Where is it" is a ridiculous question. He says "your mind can enter." It's called imagination. It's obviously not creating a real place.  This is called Immersion. Without suspension of disbelief or immersion, we'd get hung up on the real world impossibility of lightsabers and the force, of Mass Relays, of FTL in any science fiction, etc.

 

So now you can't argue against Tolkien's point and you're trying to pick on his use of the word "magic." Yes, the storyteller IS like a magician in that way. He creates a fictional world out of his mind and lays it out for the audience to experience. A break in the established rules is like an obvious wire holding up the "levitating" object. Sure, we know going into the magic show that the magician isn't really levitating the box, but we ignore that in order to get caught up in the illusion because it's fun! But it's hard to get caught up in the illusion of the levitating box when instead of thin wire, the magician is using a red shoelace.

 

The writer does establish the rules through writing. If they don't, on things that are different from the real world, then they haven't done a proper job of world building. You really need to go study what "world building" is. At this point, you can't be taken seriously.

[gothpunkboy89]

The Quarians weren't the most advanced race. Why didn't the Asari create their own version of the Geth long before the Quarians? It's funny you asking me if I understand cause and effect when you don't realize that the species would possibly, if not likely, take on very different development paths if they never found the Reaper's technology. The pot calls the kettle black once more.

 

 

 

As for learning from past mistakes, let's look at KrrKs comment:

 

 

 

If the galaxy learned their lesson, the Reapers are totally unnecessary. If they have  to do something, they should just wipe out the Geth and go on vacation after a job well done. They can be laid off due to their work being complete. Of course, I keep hearing that the Geth don't prove anything because there might be killer Synthetics later at some point. But how is that possible if everyone learned from the past mistakes?

 

 

You really are just absent mindlessly ignoring a ton of stuff in game to keep up this failing rear guard action of trying to make me wrong aren't you?

 

1. AI overlord threat appears to be alive and well in the minds of every race similar to the way that possibility is alive in our own real world mind set.

 

2. AI research was out lawed besides a handful of very heavily regulated companies.

 

With those two in mind you would think the problem would be solved.

 

But wait!!!!

 

Quarians without actually breaking the law manage to create a very sophisticated VI program that all on it's own started to evolve and gained sentience.

 

Showing even when you attempt to prevent the problem life finds away. And is also why the rest of the galaxy stuck with very dumb VI programs rather then more sophisticated ones like the Geth. To prevent that from happening again.  And to prevent that would require technological stagnation as they would not be able to improve computer any more then they already are without worry of another Geth situation happening.

[BloodyMares]

 

And is also why the rest of the galaxy stuck with very dumb VI programs rather then more sophisticated ones like the Geth. To prevent that from happening again.  And to prevent that would require technological stagnation as they would not be able to improve computer any more then they already are without worry of another Geth situation happening.

And this is a bad thing...why? You pretty much said that organics themselves can fix the synthetic problem. You don't need anything more than a VI to do pretty much everything. VI can handle automation on par with any AI and that's all they should do. They can analyze the situation and give the necessary input/guidance. The only difference is that AI have the pinocchio complex (which is a bad thing, right?). They are an efficient tool. And if the species of the galaxy don't have galaxy-wide dangerous AI because they learned from quarian mistake of the Geth (you say it yourself), why are Reapers needed? Why did they come in the first place?

[dorktainian]

when a genocidal AI reaches the conclusion that to save organic life it has to destroy it or harvest it into liquid form so it can form some kind of sick tribute to it's masters, it's time to pack our bags and get the hell out of this galaxy.  I still after all this time cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could defend the reapers or their mindset.  

 

the definition of AI is....

 

"Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines. In computer science, an ideal "intelligent" machine is a flexible rational agent that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal."

 

The only 'success' the reapers are having is killing every advanced sentient organism every 50,000 years, ergo that must form a part of their orginal plan.  

 

Who or what would want to limit organics to a certain development?  A level of development which would then be used to obliterate them?

 

ME3 DLC actually revealed them.  They're called leviathan and (although they were not exactly telling the truth) they created this whole mess.  

[gothpunkboy89]

when a genocidal AI reaches the conclusion that to save organic life it has to destroy it or harvest it into liquid form so it can form some kind of sick tribute to it's masters, it's time to pack our bags and get the hell out of this galaxy.  I still after all this time cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could defend the reapers or their mindset.  

 

the definition of AI is....

 

"Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines. In computer science, an ideal "intelligent" machine is a flexible rational agent that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal."

 

The only 'success' the reapers are having is killing every advanced sentient organism every 50,000 years, ergo that must form a part of their orginal plan.  

 

Who or what would want to limit organics to a certain development?  A level of development which would then be used to obliterate them?

 

ME3 DLC actually revealed them.  They're called leviathan and (although they were not exactly telling the truth) they created this whole mess.  

 

Because you are looking at it from a very narrow short term view. Which isn't surprising because that is basically how we live our lives. Worried only about own own little world which composes yourself and maybe a significant other and immediate relatives. If some new dictator or war lord comes to power in some small African village you might state oh that is bad or maybe shed a tear about what will happen but it never goes beyond that. Your attention will then primarily be focused on does this effect me and how and after realizing it doesn't you continue on your merry way not really giving a thought to the fact there are people being killed just because they accidentally walked on the wrong side of the road and the insane dictator made it a capital offense because the stars told him to change it.

 

The original plan is to prevent organic life from being wiped out by synthetic after trying several attempts the AI switched tactics. You do not continue to pound a square peg in a round hole after you realize it will not fit.

 

Anyone who wouldn't want to see them self destruct would limit them. It also helps when the harvest comes to allow easier harvesting of the races.

[dorktainian]

Because you are looking at it from a very narrow short term view. Which isn't surprising because that is basically how we live our lives. Worried only about own own little world which composes yourself and maybe a significant other and immediate relatives. If some new dictator or war lord comes to power in some small African village you might state oh that is bad or maybe shed a tear about what will happen but it never goes beyond that. Your attention will then primarily be focused on does this effect me and how and after realizing it doesn't you continue on your merry way not really giving a thought to the fact there are people being killed just because they accidentally walked on the wrong side of the road and the insane dictator made it a capital offense because the stars told him to change it.

 

The original plan is to prevent organic life from being wiped out by synthetic after trying several attempts the AI switched tactics. You do not continue to pound a square peg in a round hole after you realize it will not fit.

 

Anyone who wouldn't want to see them self destruct would limit them. It also helps when the harvest comes to allow easier harvesting of the races.

I realise that i may look at this from a human point of view.  As you have said I'm looking at this from our perspective, but what gave leviathan / reapers the right to exterminate entire species?  Javik hit the nail on the head, in that we must destroy them.  They might not think this is a war, but this is a battle for our survival.  To survive we must do whats right by ourselves, not some monster that thinks it knows better.  

 

Would you give up everything we are and everything we will ever be on the whim of a creature or AI whose sense of morality is so distorted?

 

Forget what it knows.  This is about our survival.

[fraggle]

If events supported the Catalyst, then we'd have to consider its position more carefully and if the Reapers were an appropriate solution. As it stands, we don't need a rewrite of the cycle solution as much as you need a rewrite of the Reapers' motivation for the cycle.

 

The Catalyst already admits that the Reapers are not the ideal solution, so they might not even be appropriate if we had events supporting the Catalyst. I mean... would organics be more willing to be harvested if they knew the Catalyst was right? I actually think 'No'.

I'm curious how you would change the motivation. You mean that you'd give them a different objective than to 'save' organics from synthetics?

 

This is a great question and it demonstrates why this kind of thing really doesn't work well in a story. However, if the events of the current cycle matched what the Catalyst was saying, then we'd have reason to take the Catalyst's word on the past because it would match our own experience. 

 

Yeah, I can see that. But I'm just not sure, like I wrote above, if it would really change anything. It might simply go from not believing the Catalyst and pick Destroy to believing the Catalyst but still pick Destroy, because we don't want to get harvested, haha.

 

I would recommend at least watching a Let's Play of Bioshock. It has one of the best twists in gaming. The good ending is one of the best I've ever seen too.  The problem is that after the awesome twist, the game goes on too long before finally ending in a silly boss fight.

 

Ah, that's ok, there's plenty of silly boss fights in games But I will start to watch it!

 

That is correct, but Shepard is not a total blank slate and I don't remember the game ever allowing Shepard to view Control as a good thing. Whatever your personal views, the game takes one side of the issue. There's no reason to suddenly open both sides.

 

For contrast, look at some other games, including ME2. In ME2, you can be pro Cerberus and express admiration for them. In KotOR, you can spend the whole game moving toward the dark side. In both cases, you can take either position based on your personal beliefs or for Role Play. This isn't available in ME3 regarding Control.

 

Speaking of KotOR, I played mostly light side, but was always using Mind Trick to manipulate people into giving me info or doing what I wanted. The light side Jedi on the team called me out for this. I always thought that was awesome.

 

True, Shepard is not a total blank slate. I do wish we had the option to support Cerberus in ME3, at least to a certain point (the story could've still played out more or less the same with this I believe). Or I also would've liked dialogue options that were in favour of the concept of Control TIM talks about, but that Shepard just doesn't like his methods to achieve this goal.

I have not played KotOR, but it sounds nice with the calling out. I'm always in favour of such things (I also hope that things like that happen in Andromeda!).

 

This was more the case before the Extended Cut, but the new epilogues have a lot less room for interpretation or head canon. As for themes, the very concepts of the choices violate the themes in some way. Check out the "All were thematically revolting" peace in my signature.

 

You're right of course, but actually I don't feel like the epilogues leave less room for interpretation in so far that the Shepard people played is still kinda 'there', the mindset of Shepard is still included in these epilogues. They mirror what kind of Shepard you played I'd say, a continuation perhaps, of the Shepard that used to be. I think it's a nice touch with the Paragon/Renegade/Neutral alignment.

The first post of the thread in your sig is interesting, however I also see that this is only his opinion. He gives the choices a personal value. This is one side, his side. Other people feel different about this. They might think that Control is great. And they have ideas about it, and how their Shepalyst might make it work afterwards. To be completely honest I agree that Control and Synthesis are repulsive, I remember reloading immediately after my first playthrough where I picked Synthesis because of how it all played out. But this is also just my opinion. Not everyone is repulsed by what they saw or were shown.

Even what he says about Destroy has a counter; not everyone considers EDI or the geth alive, so they do not consider it genocide at all. Or maybe they have already killed off the geth, then EDI would be the only one left that's truly affected (from AIs we met). Some people might say even then Destroy is not acceptable, for me it would be. But that's because I feel that one death, if you want to call it that, would save the entire galaxy. And also because I believe that EDI would die for this cause, to enable a future without Reapers for others.

 

Sure, but those endings didn't fit the story that came before. I'm critiquing the writing. Game design to give players a choice is another conversation entirely. As I said in a different post, if we're supposed to make a decision based on our own opinions of what the Catalyst says rather than on what happened in the three games, then there was no point to everything that came before and we should just start the story at the Catalyst.

 

 

I actually think both of these merge already, our experience and the Catalyst's explanation. The experience people had from the trilogy gives them enough reason to either believe, not believe or stay neutral towards the Catalyst.

 

It's more than "would not have hurt." They would have greatly benefited the story and really are required for Control to be presented properly at the end.

 

I see it a bit different I guess. Of course, it would have benefited the story, I totally agree. But on the other hand, why do some people still pick it and defend their decision even when Control in the game was always shown as something bad? It was enough for them to believe that good things still can come out of Control.

[straykat]

 This is about our survival.

 

You'd think that simply posting that old Yo Dawg pic would be enough, but it never is.

 

The only way I could see the Reapers doing a "good" thing is if I held no value on life at all. Like if I was literally psychotic. Maybe some guy who carves up cats and hangs their skulls on his wall. Better yet, what if I was one of those German citizens that Eisenhower dragged to see the death camps? And I just rolled my eyes and felt no shame at seeing heads cut in half, and people's skin turned into lampshades? That's the closest I can think of how horrific the reaper forces are.

 

And if I couldn't maintain any disgust, or somehow let EDI and Joker's friendship override it (lol), there's something odd about that.

 

But perhaps I'm just not smart enough to understand. I won't stop anyone from thinking so. 

[Obadiah]

Its a fairly straightfoward equation, the lives of everyone currently in the most advanced civilizations vs all life in the galaxy ever.

[straykat]

Its a fairly straightfoward equation, the lives of everyone currently in the most advanced civilizations vs all life in the galaxy ever.

 

There's only one advanced civilization in it's own right. The Geth. And it got hijacked by the Reapers.

 

Everyone else is a consumer. Even their so called advancements.

 

 

....at least other than Eezo, I guess. That exists without the Reapers. Not sure anyone would find it without the help, but lets assume they did. Then biotics would be a natural occurance.

 

 

I think the choices come down to giving these people a chance to simply live their lives for a change Vs Continuing the madness.