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.
Why are they not? I don't think you need to have a character literally use the words "sentient" and "sapient" to describe EDI or the Geth for them to be so in the confines of the games.
Just because someone writes a big long post about what is wrong with the ending, doesn't mean anything, because there's a bunch of other posts of why the ending made sense.
See, I was really happy to finally see someone make a long post about arguments FOR the ending instead of the usual "I liked it. What was wrong with it?" so I read it but here's the stinger:
"The entire story and philosophy of Mass Effect is about this eternal struggle of organic vs synthetic means and ways of thinking. In some cases we are fundamentally similar (think governments and voting = geth voting for decision making) yet completely different (think synthetic reasoning vs human emotional reasoning - very different in almost all cases except the desire to survive), yet this story and theme is the one thing that lots of people seem to miss because they focus on the all action hero / romance / quests and not the undercurrent that each thread presents to itself - that's understandable it's a grand game, a giant of a story."
...I mean... is it? I totally see what he's going at here, and it IS true that there is this theme in Mass Effect and it is a conflict, at times... but like in my earlier post I just argued why this line reasoning is exactly why the ending fails. It takes a relatively small theme and places absurd emphasis on it too abruptly and without really earning it the hard way. The best thing I can say about the ending is that it has fragments of what the big picture is about. Sacrifice IS a theme in the ending, synthetics vs organics IS a theme throughout the story, I just think it generalizes too narrow a subject and aborts too many things that had happened to really feel properly conclusive. Admittedly they could've added in some proper closure (which the Citadel DLC sort of is) to ease up how bad it was. The complete de-emphasis on characters and friendships in the last 10 minutes was part of why most people felt there was this jarring shift in style and people speculated it wasn't even Bioware who had written it (like Angry Joe did)
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.
If they are sapient of not does not depend on a character calling them that or not.
--> Fun fact, Adams actually does so in ME3, in a argument with Chakwas sometime during -or after- the Ranoch arc.
All cases of ME AIs that I know of were certainly self-aware. The Presidium AI in ME1 even seems to be sentient, 'feeling' fear or hatred. (Spitting out something along the lines of "If I'm destroyed, at least I take some of you with me!")
There is also no doubt that they are intelligent, in contrast to VI which are merely 'smart' programs. They can plan ahead, cope with uncertainty and unknown situations.
These seem to be the major points that constitute 'sapient' -- and the presidium AI, the Geth and EDI fulfil them.
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.
Then you are a bad literature teacher. I'm sorry, but that's the blunt truth here. If you believe this crap is great or well-done, your students are going to be misguided about the art and skill of elegant writing.
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.
I don't read like a 10-year-old child, but it certainly feels like this ending was written by one. And yes the ending includes retroactive reading as well as retroactive damnation and ruination and future condemnation that begs Andromeda to pull something out of its ass to continue this canon.
I partially agree with you on something here. I am happy Bioware decided to stick to what they came up with. This is their version of what Mass Effect should be, not ours and they mostly stopped themselves from making a butterflies and bunnies version that's according to what the fans wanted. I just think they're morons for not ever admitting or conceding that perhaps Mass Effect 3's ending wasn't the most expertly written part of their work. It's always scapegoats and sugarcoating. "Players were grieving because it was so sad Shepard died" or "I can understand it if not everyone liked it, but there's many who DID like it :)"
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.
See you say "develop" *clap clap* you catch on quick. Yes, you hit the nail on the head again. These themes are established but not developed properly or extensively to become the central conflict at the tail-end. The theme of organics vs synthetics was a big subplot and one that contradicts the logic and plausibility of the Catalyst's claims that "because something happened once it will happen again. Always". his prediction is no better than stories that use themes such as "Destiny" to predict the future.
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.
Perhaps when you're done waving your arms in the air you can read my arguments and come up with some actual counterpoints.
Then you are a bad literature teacher. I'm sorry, but that's the blunt truth here. If you believe this crap is great or well-done, your students are going to be misguided about the art and skill of elegant writing.
It's just an opinion, relax. There's a lot of people out there who enjoyed this ending, including myself, among others.
...I mean... is it? I totally see what he's going at here, and it IS true that there is this theme in Mass Effect and it is a conflict, at times... but like in my earlier post I just argued why this line reasoning is exactly why the ending fails. It takes a relatively small theme and places absurd emphasis on it too abruptly and without really earning it the hard way. The best thing I can say about the ending is that it has fragments of what the big picture is about. Sacrifice IS a theme in the ending, synthetics vs organics IS a theme throughout the story, I just think it generalizes too narrow a subject and aborts too many things that had happened to really feel properly conclusive. Admittedly they could've added in some proper closure (which the Citadel DLC sort of is) to ease up how bad it was. The complete de-emphasis on characters and friendships in the last 10 minutes was part of why most people felt there was this jarring shift in style and people speculated it wasn't even Bioware who had written it (like Angry Joe did)
I wonder, what exactly do people mean when they say organic vs synthetic? The Catalyst itself uses the word 'synthetic' to refer to different ideas. Is 'organics' just a shorthand for humans? The Rachni have organic tissue too, but they have a hive mind like society and thought process that is entirely unhuman -- so it seems weird to glob them in with everyone else. Are we talking about sapient species that evolve from nature vs being artificially created? Does 'synthetic' refer to technology in general or the development of AI? These are all vastly different things.
See, another problem! It's too generalized and unnuanced.
Organic in this context is essentially anything made of flesh and blood. Synthetic is anything made of steel or metal. Like the Geth being a whole synthetic being with no organic parts. While the Reapers are both organic and synthetic beings.
When he says he's going to combine organic and synthetic together to create a new life form, this was clarified in the Extended Cut to mean a Reaper, because Reapers are both organic and synthetic. Leviathan essentially repeats the same thing to you on how the process works. It's essentially a rehash of the scene at the end of the game using different characters to explain the same thing the kid tells you.
But then even plants get circuit-boarded in the green ending...
So everyone turns into Reapers just in different shape, size and form?
Hm no, unless it´s similar to the whole "everyone took the name prothean" thing in the previous cycle.
When he says he's going to combine organic and synthetic together to create a new life form, this was clarified in the Extended Cut to mean a Reaper, because Reapers are both organic and synthetic.
Then you are a bad literature teacher. I'm sorry, but that's the blunt truth here. If you believe this crap is great or well-done, your students are going to be misguided about the art and skill of elegant writing.
I'm probably a bad literature teacher from your point of view but in reality that's totally different.
Perhaps when you're done waving your arms in the air you can read my arguments and come up with some actual counterpoints.
You post every day and read every day what is posted on this forum. I've already explained many times what is "coherence", I've already talked about what is art etc... it's an endless cycle because you are not here to discuss, you are here to talk about how you hate the ending (Is there any other reason to come on this topic when you consider the ending being "crap"?). Sorry but there is no discussion possible, so I won't waste my time trying to argue with you when I know it's useless.
The problem of reading can only be solved only if you remove the roots of the bad reading.
But if you really want to discuss, then you have to explain me what art is or what is your "elegant writing" you're defending.
Ah, that trick again. Grab one word, where you can write a whole paper about the topic, just to declare the other guy wrong, if he actually says something.
You are getting predictable.
Oh and remember, Linkenski, "the internet can´t help you." Quoting your source and providing a link to it, is only allowed to literature teachers, if they want to weasel out of a situation, when they actually said more than "you don´t get it."
don't forget lead scenario writer left society before ME3 was done, actually the writer's intended story & ending are unknown (something about dark matter buildup in suns due to biotic/mass effect & the reapers trying to prevent that)
the extended cut ending was satisfying in some parts, lacking in others
I downloaded the MEHEM mod & though it's a tad too much "happily ever after" I prefer it to the EC ending
Admittedly they could've added in some proper closure (which the Citadel DLC sort of is) to ease up how bad it was. The complete de-emphasis on characters and friendships in the last 10 minutes was part of why most people felt there was this jarring shift in style and people speculated it wasn't even Bioware who had written it (like Angry Joe did)
The scene following Shepard's final choice is essentially deciding the fate of the Reapers. It does tell us that Joker and the crew ended up being stranded on a different planet, but that was their initial closure.
It's not happy closure like Citadel. It's different. I assume people expected to destroy the Reapers, and all your crew would be united and we'd see them go about their normal lives after the war.
Mass Effect 3 was a galactic war against the Reapers. The characters aren't the central part of the story, the Reapers are. If you watch the trilogy trailer, the whole thing essentially says the Reaper conflict is the big arc of the trilogy and not the characters.
Another studio didn't write the ending, because Bioware produced Mass Effect 3 in its entirety.
They just didn't write an ending that clicked with the fan base and tried to do something a bit different. They did this knowing that they would upset some people. These things need to happen in order for things to evolve. Otherwise, you'd be stuck making games while making absolutely sure you don't upset anyone (not taking risks, playing it safe).
I'd personally hate it if every game a company like Bioware produces would please everyone, and no one would be upset.
Plenty of products from companies I've bought don't always win me over either. Some of their stuff I like, some I don't like.
The scene following Shepard's final choice is essentially deciding the fate of the Reapers. It does tell us that Joker and the crew ended up being stranded on a different planet, but that was their initial closure.
That's not closure. That's the opposite of closure.
It's not happy closure like Citadel. It's different. I assume people expected to destroy the Reapers, and all your crew would be united and we'd see them go about their normal lives after the war.
Maybe not "normal lives" But yes, I'm sure many people expected at least some of the more optimal outcomes to have Shepard survive as something more than a gasping, faceless torso and maybe even be reunited with the crew.
Mass Effect 3 was a galactic war against the Reapers. The characters aren't the central part of the story, the Reapers are. If you watch the trilogy trailer, the whole thing essentially says the Reaper conflict is the big arc of the trilogy and not the characters.
Then why were the Reapers almost entirely absent from ME2 (and are in fact, barely mentioned), and that game designed entirely on gathering and getting to know your team? Characters have always been central to Bioware stories.
Another studio didn't write the ending, because Bioware produced Mass Effect 3 in its entirety.
It's an understandable mistake though. The ending is so jarring it doesn't take much to imagine it was written by someone who hadn't familiarized themselves with, or even heard of, the Mass Effect franchise.
They just didn't write an ending that clicked with the fan base and tried to do something a bit different. They did this knowing that they would upset some people. These things need to happen in order for things to evolve. Otherwise, you'd be stuck making games while making absolutely sure you don't upset anyone (not taking risks, playing it safe).
Imported games were already a risk. No one had ever tried saving choices to impact future games at the level Bioware was trying. They were already evolving gaming without trying to inject "Art" into the equation.
I'd personally hate it if every game a company like Bioware produces would please everyone, and no one would be upset.
Plenty of products from companies I've bought don't always win me over either. Some of their stuff I like, some I don't like.
I hate it that Bioware didn't have a freaking clue what they were doing or where they were going and tried to cover it up with a tired "dark and edgy" theme instead of actually trying to make the range of endings the trilogy deserved.
Probably most people didn´t expect, that Shep kills himself, because Repa Commander told him to do it, spouting some nonsense with nothing to back it up, which results in all mass relays being destroyed, destroying the galactic community in the process*, your allies sitting over an Earth already plagued by famine, probably unable to ever get back home and your crew stranded on some New Eden and rekindling the spark of civilisation or some other stupid crap with at least two squaddies starving in the process, because they eat dextro food or even worse the other way around and everyone else dies. Oh and they either slowly die out, being reduced to banging stones together or create the most inbred population ever. Must be fun for Joker, too, IIRC he needed medication, which you won´t find in a pristine paradise.
*I mean just by blowing up themselves, don´t think it was ever intended to imply that the systems were blasted by a relay nova.
Probably most people didn´t expect, that Shep kills himself, because Repa Commander told him to do it, spouting some nonsense with nothing to back it up, which results in all mass relays being destroyed, destroying the galactic community in the process*, your allies sitting over an Earth already plagued by famine, probably unable to ever get back home and your crew stranded on some New Eden and rekindling the spark of civilisation or some other stupid crap with at least two squaddies starving in the process, because they eat dextro food or even worse the other way around and everyone else dies. Oh and they either slowly die out, being reduced to banging stones together or create the most inbred population ever. Must be fun for Joker, too, IIRC he needed medication, which you won´t find in a pristine paradise.
*I mean just by blowing up themselves, don´t think it was ever intended to imply that the systems were blasted by a relay nova.
That is the face value ending.
I hate it that Bioware didn't have a freaking clue what they were doing or where they were going and tried to cover it up with a tired "dark and edgy" theme instead of actually trying to make the range of endings the trilogy deserved.
There was multiple endings to the game.
That's not closure. That's the opposite of closure.
Not everyone returns home to their loved ones. See what happened during World War 2. Which Bioware has admitted taking a page out of to base this game on.
A realistic war story, and not some Hollywood-level war story, where the hero saves the day after beating a nearly unstoppable force (which the Reapers were protrayed as) and reunites with his friends and family and everything is just fine afterwards.
I mean, all the ambient music and dialogue in the game essentially makes it sound like this is the end of the universe as we know it. The galaxy isn't going to be the same after the Reaper war. It's just that dark and depressing. Which to me, is what makes this ending realistic.
Maybe not "normal lives" But yes, I'm sure many people expected at least some of the more optimal outcomes to have Shepard survive as something more than a gasping, faceless torso and maybe even be reunited with the crew.
Problem is mainly, as everyone likes to say "better endings" or lack of any optimal endings. In a game like this, with the stakes as high as they were, there wasn't going to be any. Every ending was pretty grim, before the Extended Cut came along and made things a bit brighter. There is multiple endings, but they doesn't mean that there is any "good" or "golden" endings. Every one has good parts and bad parts, but no ending is completely "good" or completely "bad".
That is the face value ending.
Yes and a face value reading and interpretation is valid.
Every frakking one of them was dark too,
Not everyone returns home to their loved ones. See what happened during World War 2. Which Bioware has admitted taking a page out of to base this game on.
A realistic war story, and not some Hollywood-level war story, where the hero saves the day after beating a nearly unstoppable force (which the Reapers were protrayed as) and reunites with his friends and family and everything is just fine afterwards.
I mean, all the ambient music and dialogue in the game essentially makes it sound like this is the end of the universe as we know it. The galaxy isn't going to be the same after the Reaper war. It's just that dark and depressing. Which to me, is what makes this ending realistic.
This was the game where:
Shepard can be instrumental in ending a 1000 year old sterility plague
Kills a reaper with a giant worm
Single-handedly saves the Council from a coup
Resolves a 400-year old war between two alien races
Kills another Reaper with a laser pointer.
Finds a 50,000 survivor of the last harvest
Discovers the creator race of the Reapers, which have been in hiding for a billion years or more
Kills a third Reaper with Bioware's version of the Fat Man mininuke launcher.
between shooting space zombies (with or without Cerberus armor on)
And that's just the stuff in Mass Effect 3. ME1 and ME2 established some pretty impressive "Hollywood war story" credentials as well.
What part of this is a "realistic war story" again?
Problem is mainly, as everyone likes to say "better endings" or lack of any optimal endings. In a game like this, with the stakes as high as they were, there wasn't going to be any. Every ending was pretty grim, before the Extended Cut came along and made things a bit brighter. There is multiple endings, but they doesn't mean that there is any "good" or "golden" endings. Every one has good parts and bad parts, but no ending is completely "good" or completely "bad".
There were multiple endings. None of them were "good" to me. It was forcing you to eat a crayon to determine what color cr*p you wanted.
Yeah this whole "it´s not a Hollywood game/ending/whatever" baffles me. I got a big Hollywood vibe from it, which wasn´t present in the first two games. At least it was a lot less.
So I take it you expected a Hollywood ending from the third game?
Every frakking one of them was dark too,
But there was multiple endings though, right? Just like they said.
There were multiple endings. None of them were "good" to me. It was forcing you to eat a crayon to determine what color cr*p you wanted.
It wasn't as simple as what color the ending was. If you've been around since the beginning of ME3 and played the Extended Cut, you can't use that color argument everyone did. It just doesn't hold any water, before or after the Extended Cut. It's one of those thoughtless responses like saying everything in the ending was space magic or the Catalyst's synthetic meme people spammed around.
I don't see how the destruction of the Reapers could be a bad thing. Sounds like a good ending to me. Oh and the mass relays were reconstructed in the Extended Cut, and you only lost EDI and the Geth. That's better than losing the entire galaxy. Wars have lots of sacrifice and sometimes people die for no good reason.
So I take it you expected a Hollywood ending from the third game?
I played the game in 2015. I knew that Shep wasn´t going to make it, which is ok. The protag biting it, is not so unusual as people claim it to be. It´s not like I liked the hollywoody parts. Quite interesting, how much some people are buying into the BW party line.
Retour en haut
