279 réponses à ce sujet

[crazyrabbits]

Amioran wrote...

crazyrabbits wrote...
If a singular work doesn't give the viewer/player enough information to understand what is going on/what is at stake, that is objectively bad writing.

Sorry but no, it isn't.

Many books during a lapse base the momentum in this uncertanity and there are entire genres created appositedly on this.

Cute, but wrong again.

There are "cliffhanger" works (where the characters are left in a situation that has no immediate resolution), and even abstract works (where it takes multiple viewings to understand the significance of what you're seeing, which often doesn't make sense). I'm saying that if you can't introduce a concept (especially one that has ground-breaking consequences for the entire galaxy) and give us a better reason why we should care than, "Because I said so," you have failed as a writer, and you have failed your "agreement" with your audience.

In regards to this series, the entire universe has always been predicated on having an explanation for every mysterious phenomena (the Mass Effect itself, how Element Zero works, how the genophage works, etc). As one review mentioned, the trilogy is part of a "talky and techy" universe (much like Star Trek). It uses fantastical concepts, but grounds it in pseudo-science and technobabble to make it consistent.

In the same vein, there is a basic writing tenet that applies to all works - suspension of disbelief. All along, the audience is told by the Reapers (i.e. Sovereign and Harbinger) that we are nothing more than insects, that we barely matter enough to qualify as a threat, and that the Reapers' motivations and goal is beyond our comprehension. Then it turns out that it was a stupid reason introduced at the literal last minute.

If the audience has no investment in what's at stake, especially in a serialized work, there is no drama or conflict, nor any audience response other than disappointment (the lack of an emotion). If the audience is bogged down in unanswered questions (as Synthesis does), you lose the suspension of disbelief and the audience's interest.

If I wrote a story that revolved around a government secret agent trying to protect a witness, and then, ten minutes before the film ends, introduce a new character who was never seen in the film, has no relationship to anything that's going on, and decides to kill the witness on a whim (because they might be a threat in the future), the suspension of disbelief (and all the time you spent crafting the story) is wasted.

This is not a simple case of "uncertainty". There are so many fundamental problems with it that it lives up to its reputation as "space magic".

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 07 avril 2012 - 10:57 .

[Tirigon]

EHondaMashButton wrote...


I'm so glad you bit on that one.

Lets carry this to its logical conclusion.  You've modified everyone to the point where they are entirely new lifeform. But lets assume somehow you retain your individuality, hopes, dreams, etc.  

If you retain the mind of your prior you, then so do the humans, reapers, quarians, geth, EDI, etc.  
 
If organic minds are unaltered, then we are still inherently prone to love, hate, jealousy, power, anger, chaos, while the former synthetics are still prone to logic and order.  

And people like Xen and TiM who desire power, will countinue experimenting with creating a.i. they can control, which presumably has the capability of rebelling against its master.  

Of course. That is the beauty of the Synthesis ending: You give everyone the gift of a new perspective, but ultimately it is still up to the individual what they do with it.

I actually find it highly unlikely this would cause the Reapers to stop doing what they do. But apparently it did, which makes it just the better.

Modifié par Tirigon, 07 avril 2012 - 11:00 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Syntesis is garbage.

It is forcing change on everyone - a change who's consequences are unknown.

It's no different than forcing anyone to undergo experimental brain surgery. Your brain is modified. YOUR...BRAIN.
The very notion that you will be the same as before is silly.

[Klokateer]

I have now read this entire thread.  I may add opinions later but...

Every time I read "starchild", I am reminded of V: The Final Battle which is funny (to me) considering what the "starchild" ended up symbolizing in the V series.
(Hint: It wasn't a good thing.)

[Aleya]

Klokateer wrote...

I have now read this entire thread.  I may add opinions later but...

Every time I read "starchild", I am reminded of V: The Final Battle which is funny (to me) considering what the "starchild" ended up symbolizing in the V series.
(Hint: It wasn't a good thing.)

Been a while since I've watched that. By "starchild" here you mean the human half of the alien/human twins?

[Klokateer]

Been a while since I've watched that. By "starchild" here you mean the human half of the alien/human twins?

Yes.  Elizabeth.

Modifié par Klokateer, 08 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[frozn89]

lazuli wrote...

Maybe I'm a moron, but I didn't even realize there was a choice at first. I just walked straight ahead and got that ending. DERP.

Hahahahah 1+

I never managed to pay attention to Starchild on my first playthrough, so I did pretty much the same. He explained the choices, and by the time he was finished, I'd forgotten what he talked about. So I just "called it down the middle".

[Ivoryhammer]

I thought the "best" ending would be Destroy with high enough EMS so Shepard has the breathe scene at the end.

[Amioran]

crazyrabbits wrote...
Cute, but wrong again.

If you say so...
Then what's the "again" for?

crazyrabbits wrote...
There are "cliffhanger" works (where the characters are left in a situation that has no immediate resolution), and even abstract works (where it takes multiple viewings to understand the significance of what you're seeing, which often doesn't make sense). I'm saying that if you can't introduce a concept (especially one that has ground-breaking consequences for the entire galaxy) and give us a better reason why we should care than, "Because I said so," you have failed as a writer, and you have failed your "agreement" with your audience.

People still continue to mix things completely different as if they should have something in common just to have a point, I see. What introducing a new concept and "agreement" with your audience have to do one with another I cannot really get, and I cannot get it because they have nothing to do one with another.

But apart this during a lapse you can introduce unmotivated reasons intentionally. The reasons are explained after. The momentum is created by the uncertainity of what's happening here and there.

crazyrabbits wrote...
In regards to this series, the entire universe has always been predicated on having an explanation for every mysterious phenomena (the Mass Effect itself, how Element Zero works, how the genophage works, etc). As one review mentioned, the trilogy is part of a "talky and techy" universe (much like Star Trek). It uses fantastical concepts, but grounds it in pseudo-science and technobabble to make it consistent.

And as I've already said: where the hell it is the "rule" that a work to be "good written" must always have consistency? It doesn't work this way at all and unconsistency can be used either in various ways to create momentum.

And then I already explained before why that "talk and techy" as a justification for something in this case as it is explained in that video it is a nonsense and about the complete fail of that video on what a Socratic's exercise is; you may like to refer to that.

crazyrabbits wrote...
In the same vein, there is a basic writing tenet that applies to all works - suspension of disbelief.

Where? I never saw this "tenet" anywhere.

Suspension of disbelief is removed by many authors many times intentionally to create uncertainity (it happens, again, mostly during a lapse). One example? Ellroy.

crazyrabbits wrote...
All along, the audience is told by the Reapers (i.e. Sovereign and Harbinger) that we are nothing more than insects, that we barely matter enough to qualify as a threat, and that the Reapers' motivations and goal is beyond our comprehension. Then it turns out that it was a stupid reason introduced at the literal last minute.

I don't get this, really. Nothing has changed. Their pow it's still completely different than ours. This remains.
The only thing that changes is that now this pow acquires a value on par with the one of Shepard, being his/her pow no more absolute (as in the case of a protagonist) but relative since the narrative expanded.

crazyrabbits wrote...
If the audience has no investment in what's at stake, especially in a serialized work, there is no drama or conflict, nor any audience response other than disappointment (the lack of an emotion). If the audience is bogged down in unanswered questions (as Synthesis does), you lose the suspension of disbelief and the audience's interest.

If this happens, during a lapse, it is only the fault of the reader, not of the author, because he probably expected something different. A thing every reader should do is: don't expect nothing in advance (if you do that's your fault) and play along, no matter what, then (and only then) debate upon it. In this case you, as a reader/user, don't know in advance if: A) the plot-holes are intentional or not, this is really the "end" in its full sense, C) the story is real at all, it can be all another thing altogher and yet you pretend to say that a thing is this or that. Sorry, but this is just completely premature and even possibly counter-productive (the motive of why that's so I've explained elsewhere).

As I repeat there are many motivations on why a thing as this can be done intentionally. If instead of pretending the thing to be as you want you would play along and see what happens next maybe you will find that the "answers" you need are not too far away. Certainly if you want them *before* you are in for dissapointment because that's not going to happen if the author has done all of this intentionally.

crazyrabbits wrote...
If I wrote a story that revolved around a government secret agent trying to protect a witness, and then, ten minutes before the film ends, introduce a new character who was never seen in the film, has no relationship to anything that's going on, and decides to kill the witness on a whim (because they might be a threat in the future), the suspension of disbelief (and all the time you spent crafting the story) is wasted.

And, again, this would be your fault, not the one of the author. Introducing a new character at the end is done many many times during a lapse. You don't know who s/he his, what s/he does etc. All is uncertain as are the choices of the protagonist. This creates tension. If it doesn't it is just because, as in this case, people expected something different, but this, again, it's the fault of the reader, not of the author.

If you, as a reader, instead of playing along and see what happens next (and either wondering about it in the meantime, and using this uncertainity as a motivation to go along) decide that you don't like it for an arbitrary motivation (because that's the only motivation, nowhere it is written that you cannot create a new character in the last 10 minutes on a book/whatever, nowhere, and in fact it happens a lot of times, I would have to quote at last 200 books that do so) then that's your only fault.

crazyrabbits wrote...
This is not a simple case of "uncertainty". There are so many fundamental problems with it that it lives up to its reputation as "space magic".

And again, all of this can be intentionally done. Until you don't know what happens next this debate it is utterly premature and based on hot air.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 avril 2012 - 10:58 .

[Klokateer]

Amioran wrote... (see last post)

Fault of the reader?  I am "at fault" for not liking or enjoying something?  Please explain.

[Jayleia]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

A) Everyone lives. No sacrificing all synthetics to save organics, etc.
Synthetics and Organics are merged into a new class of hybrid lifeforms, thereby removing the rift between the two. Major theme of transhumanism.
C) Technically, destroying the Reapers is a form of omnicide, where all the species that had ever been up to that point harvested and distilled into a Reaper-form, are obliterated.

But...at the same time, you are basically raping every life form throughout the galaxy at a genetic level.  No, it's not rape as a sexual thing, but at the same time, you are violating every single one of them without their consent.  My Shepard would likely have some...psychological problems with that...to the point where if that were her BEST choice, she'd tell the Fleet the Crucible failed, and flip her pistol up into her mouth.

And, I'd argue that all the species that had been turned into Reapers, had already been destroyed, at least, everything that made them a species.  All that remains is organic matter being used by the Reapers, for the Reapers purposes, with no input from them.  It's like killing humans to make a giant meat statue that would be preserved forever even after the death of our species and then saying you're saving them from going extinct.

[Reever]

Jayleia wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

A) Everyone lives. No sacrificing all synthetics to save organics, etc.
Synthetics and Organics are merged into a new class of hybrid lifeforms, thereby removing the rift between the two. Major theme of transhumanism.
C) Technically, destroying the Reapers is a form of omnicide, where all the species that had ever been up to that point harvested and distilled into a Reaper-form, are obliterated.

But...at the same time, you are basically raping every life form throughout the galaxy at a genetic level.  No, it's not rape as a sexual thing, but at the same time, you are violating every single one of them without their consent.  My Shepard would likely have some...psychological problems with that...to the point where if that were her BEST choice, she'd tell the Fleet the Crucible failed, and flip her pistol up into her mouth.

And, I'd argue that all the species that had been turned into Reapers, had already been destroyed, at least, everything that made them a species.  All that remains is organic matter being used by the Reapers, for the Reapers purposes, with no input from them.  It's like killing humans to make a giant meat statue that would be preserved forever even after the death of our species and then saying you're saving them from going extinct.

Well, then it´s a moral dilemma. Let´s say my Shep is for Geth/Quarian peace and he achieved it. At the end he has to choose between Synthesis and having the Geth die - and by that the peace he achieved would be disolved.
In that case he´d rather "violate" everybody at a cellular level, but have everybody survive.
It´s true, we don´t know what the consequences are, but the outlook would be promising (at least for me and my Shep ^^).
And I don´t think everybody would be the same, there still are races etc. Everyone would be just...different. And Cyborg would be the wrong word, they´d be entirely different! I just wonder how the Geth would become half organic xD

[Amioran]

Klokateer wrote...
Fault of the reader?  I am "at fault" for not liking or enjoying something?  Please explain.

From where the hell did you extrapolate something as that from what I wrote is beyond me.

I said that a reader is at fault (for his own enjoyment itself or for judging the work) on expecting something specific (as a certain finale/outcome/development of story etc.) from the book he reads a priori  and/or without the full picture (this example is of a book but it applies to every other medium).

You can like or dislike what you want, that's another thing and there's no dipendency between the two.

Modifié par Amioran, 08 avril 2012 - 01:21 .

[Klokateer]

Amioran wrote...

Klokateer wrote...
Fault of the reader?  I am "at fault" for not liking or enjoying something?  Please explain.

From where the hell did you extrapolate something as that from what I wrote is beyond me.

How is it beyond you?  You didn't expect a bite on this?  Everything crazyrabbits said basically boils down to "this ending isn't satisfying to me as an audience".  Everything you said basically boils down to "the audience is at fault for having the wrong expectations".

But here, I'll illustrate how I simplified what you've stated:

crazyrabbits:

...If the audience has no investment in what's at stake, especially in a serialized work, there is no drama or conflict, nor any audience response other than disappointment (the lack of an emotion).

me: This is another way of saying, "Yo dawg, this ending is crap.  Ya dig?"

you:

...If this happens, during a lapse, it is only the fault of the reader, not of the author,

me: That's the first line of your reply to crazyrabbits.  You're saying it's our (the audience/reader) fault for not having the correct emotional response to the piece of media (game/book/movie, it all applies) put before us.

Everything you're talking about, in terms of messing with an audience's expectations, is fine in theory.  The reason I disagree with you completely as it applies to the ending of Mass Effect 3 is pretty simple though: it's the ending of a three part saga.  This isn't act II.  This isn't part three in a series of ten.  Bioware has said that this is the last Mass Effect game that will have Shepard as it's main focus/protagonist.  Any other game that comes later will have a new cast that they will have to get the audience invested in all over again.  The ending of Mass Effect 3 isn't supposed to leave lot's of dangling questions and confusion (Bioware has admitted that much, that there is unintended confusion).

Supposing an author or director tried this with a book or movie (breaking their own rules, messing with audience expectations, throwing the audience a curveball), they would be taking a huge chance on alienating their entire audience.  It would be something a creator would have to expect to happen to some degree because not everyone has the same sensibilities.  Look at the ending of The Sopranos as an example of how this kind of stunt will be hit or miss.  David Chase knew he would alienate a lot of his core audience but he just didn't care nor did he wish to explain himself or his intentions.  He basically trolled his audience and then effectively quit TV.

My position is this (my P.O.V., if you will): the creative stunt/gambit you're describing as an explanation for audience disatisfaction has no place at the end of Mass Effect 3.  Why?  Because it's not appropriate and it's not a good "bet" for a successful and satisfying ending to a trilogy.  Instead of the franchise being well-remembered by it's fans, there will be a substantial amount of disappointment (as evidenced by the clogged Bioware forums) which should never really be a creator's goal even if they want to challenge their audience.  It is especially inappropriate given the fact that Bioware isn't going to stop making games after Mass Effect 3--their success in this business lives and dies by consumer/fan/audience satisfaction and/or goodwill.  Too many gaming companies think they can get away with releasing an unfinished product that they'll "fix" with DLC (and most of them will charge for it) and this isn't a trend a company should aspire to be associated with, in my opinion.      

My expectation for Mass Effect 3 wasn't unreasonable.  I don't feel like it's my fault that Bioware didn't meet that expectation.  I also don't subscribe to you're attitude of "wait and see" given the fact that Mass Effect 3 is intended as the end of Shepard's story.

Modifié par Klokateer, 08 avril 2012 - 06:54 .

[crazyrabbits]

Amioran wrote...

Then what's the "again" for?

It was in response to a point you made before we started this back-and-forth discussion. You were trying to point out how I had no understanding of bad writing, and I was listing elements which, according to both general writing theory, critics and audiences, are considered to be bad form (deus ex machina, dead horse genre, Mary Sue, etc).

Amioran wrote...

People still continue to mix things completely different as if they should have something in common just to have a point, I see. What introducing a new concept and "agreement" with your audience have to do one with another I cannot really get, and I cannot get it because they have nothing to do one with another.

I'm not sure if you understand this, so I'll reiterate. It's one thing to build a universe or a work on a framework of thematically consistent ideas, character traits and values. It's quite another to introduce concepts that were never even hinted at before in the narrative for the sole purpose of creating an "unknowable" ending.

Amioran wrote...

But apart this during a lapse you can introduce unmotivated reasons intentionally. The reasons are explained after. The momentum is created by the uncertainity of what's happening here and there.

Every hero, villain and bystander has a reason for doing something if it ties into the narrative. Even anarchist characters like the Joker (who seemingly destroys, steals and kills at random) have motivation to do what they'r

Amioran wrote...

And as I've already said: where the hell it is the "rule" that a work to be "good written" must always have consistency?

I never said there had to be a rule. What I'm saying is that this trilogy of games was formed on the concept of using pseudo-science to explain every fantastical concept. Deviating from the universe and the system of explanations they've set up, for the sole sake of a plot twist, is bad form and a disservice to the narrative.

Amioran wrote...

And then I already explained before why that "talk and techy" as a justification for something in this case as it is explained in that video it is a nonsense.

Sorry, I'm not running through this entire conversation again. Give me the Colesnotes version. I am saying that the Synthesis ending, as it stands, deviates from the accepted form of every game so far because it violates the rules of the narrative universe and is a disservice to the player.

Amioran wrote...

Suspension of disbelief is removed by many authors many times intentionally to create uncertainity (it happens, again, mostly during a lapse). One example? Ellroy.

I only know Ellroy's work on a cursory basis, but I know his work has been criticized for introducing too many subplots (that bog down the narrative) and for forcing resolutions that strain reader interest (i.e. Blood on the Moon). That's a different conversation altogether, though.

Amioran wrote...

I don't get this, really. Nothing has changed. Their pov it's still completely different than ours. This remains.
The only thing that changes is that now this pow acquires a value on par with the one of Shepard, being his/her pow no more absolute (as in the case of a protagonist) but relative since the narrative expanded.

You mean their "POV"? Their "explanation" is a silly and convoluted excuse to try and justify galactic genocide. It's really not that difficult to understand - it's just stupid. The way it was implied in the previous games, the Reapers just wanted to destroy galactic civilization (for some complicated reason), and the destruction of the Collector Base was the first time the Reapers openly acknowledged that humanity was a threat. Now it turns out that it's this thing the Reapers do for giggles every few thousand years, where they destroy civilization in the misguided belief that they're "saving" organics?

Amioran wrote...

If this happens, during a lapse, it is only the fault of the reader, not of the author, because he probably expected something different. A thing every reader should do is: don't expect nothing in advance (if you do that's your fault) and play along, no matter what, then (and only then) debate upon it. In this case you, as a reader/user, don't know in advance if: A) the plot-holes are intentional or not, this is really the "end" in its full sense, C) the story is real at all, it can be all another thing altogher and yet you pretend to say that a thing is this or that. Sorry, but this is just completely premature and even possibly counter-productive (the motive of why that's so I've explained elsewhere).

So, what you're basically saying is "seemingly bad writing and bad plotting can be excused and ignored because the reader doesn't know what the author is going to do next".

I repeat, if the audience has no investment in what's at stake, there is no drama or conflict. In this case, if the writer didn't know how to resolve the Synthesis concept without any explanation (especially given that this game was marketed as the end of the trilogy, and is one of three wildly divergent endings), and if the writer can't explain it sufficiently without resorting to a vague, nonsenical explanation that begs more questions than answers, s/he has failed as a writer.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Amioran wrote...

And, again, this would be your fault, not the one of the author. Introducing a new character at the end is done many many times during a lapse. You don't know who s/he his, what s/he does etc. All is uncertain as are the choices of the protagonist. This creates tension. If it doesn't it is just because, as in this case, people expected something different, but this, again, it's the fault of the reader, not of the author.

First off, you keep using the word "lapse", as if a sequel is somehow inevitable. We don't know that for certain, and (given how this was intended to be the ending of this arc, and how it fractured the fanbase is splintered as a result of this game), I'd be genuinely surprised if they consider a fourth installment. They certainly haven't made any indication that they're even thinking of working on another installment.

Secondly, I don't know of any work offhand that literally introduces another character (who has never been seen before) in the last ten minutes of something in order to resolve the plot without giving them any motivation whatsoever. A device that is introduced that has no explanation, but resolves the plot, is a deus ex machina (a recognized criticism of writing form). All I see is the same thing in character format.

All I'm seeing is "you can ignore bad writing because it might be answered in the future". That is not a given.

In the case of the Synthesis ending, if the writer wanted the audience to care about, they should have done a better job explaining it than "it changes people". It's a disservice to the writing that came before, and it crushes the narrative under the weight of so many unanswered questions.

What exactly does this green ray do? Are machines suddenly given organic parts? Why does it need the body of a human to activate this ray? What does the addition of human DNA do to this beam? What if there are people who don't want to become synthetic? Do they have a choice? Why doesn't Shepard question why the Catalyst would suggest a course of action that leads to synthesis if s/he has already unified organics and machines?


It seems all you're doing is talking in circles, and your whole argument boils down to "wait for the next installment". That's not how it works, especially not with a game that (in pre-release interviews) was expressly stated to have an answer to all the lingering questions in the series.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 08 avril 2012 - 06:22 .

[Bluko]

I picked the Green Ending so I could be the Green Power Ranger!





Obviously Saren was a pretty cool dude. Way cooler then Tobacco Man or Sergeant Foley if you ask me. Also I'm pretty sure the Starchild is a young Zordan. I didn't really understand what he was talking so I figured he had to be him and that he was just smarter then me. I mean Synthetics? Damn that's a big word! I dunno even know what that means. Also when he mentioned the Geth had Deoxyribonucleic Acid I thought that was pretty deep. I didn't know computer programs had genes!

Honestly without the colors I would have had a real time keep tracking the endings. It's just like so complicated and stuff. Thankfully Bioware has not forgotten that a portion of their demographic is under the age of 7 and has a hard time reading dialogues like me. Anywho I'm off to speculate about things like the Omnigel Theory. 

[Farbautisonn]

ITT: Amioran being owned left right and center and still refusing to listen to any reason.

[Trikun]

I'll just point out that Saren in ME1 wanted synthesis, and make you all realise how wrong the green ending is by yourselves.

[Ieldra]

Trikun wrote...
I'll just point out that Saren in ME1 wanted synthesis, and make you all realise how wrong the green ending is by yourselves.

Non sequitur. The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. You are invoking evil by association. It's a common methodical flaw, and stories tend to use it profusely to enforce a certain conventional non-rational morality by circumventing reason. It's an effective manipulation method, but don't be deceived by it.

Here's an example that illustrates the fallacy: if it was said of a villain that, while he commits genocide with no second thought (which makes him a villain), he nonetheless treats his family with love and respect, would that make treating your family with love and respect evil?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 avril 2012 - 11:40 .

[Escocido]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Trikun wrote...
I'll just point out that Saren in ME1 wanted synthesis, and make you all realise how wrong the green ending is by yourselves.

Non sequitur. The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. You are invoking evil by association. It's a common methodical flaw, and stories tend to use it profusely to enforce a certain conventional non-rational morality by circumventing reason. It's an effective manipulation method, but don't be deceived by it.

Here's an example that illustrates the fallacy: if it was said of a villain that, while he commits genocide with no second thought (which makes him a villain), he nonetheless treats his family with love and respect, would that make treating your family with love and respect evil?

Yep, morally is not necessarily wrong, but narratively is a complete disaster, effectively turning the three games in the epic history of Shepard: The Man Who Was Wrong All Along. You essentially killed the hero in the first Mass Effect and spent two more games achieving the same with more pain and suffering. And then got all the credit for it. 

[Lyrebon]

Red ending every time ^^ Reapers came to destroy all sentient life -> Kill billions of organic lifeforms -> no sympathy or remorse in destroying them.

The Red ending is practically the only ending that really makes any sense. I'm disappointed by it but I'm not complaining to BW because the countless majority that are already doing so aren't being heard apparently. An extended cut is what I look forward to, but a complete rewrite of the end would be much better. Infact, I think I'll write my own fanfic, purely for my personal pleasure.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

The Green Movement seems to be working for hippies and marketing to them.

[Zeuserich]

I am one of the few percents that actually enjoyed all 3 endings of Mass Effect 3 and i still can't really understand what was all the fuss about. Compared to any number of sci-fi books - endings were pretty normal albeit grim (which is also pretty common).

I had more than 7k war assets and the first ending i chose was of course green. Considering that i always ended up with "neutral" Shepard it was a fitting end for her.

Breaking the cycle, joining synthetics and organics forever... could've been worse.

Destroy the Reapers and someday it will all happen again.

Control the Reapers and you risk corrupting yourself or loosing control someday.

Join them and become something completely different and who knows - maybe galactic inhabitants will stop fighting each other, live longer, think smarter and build something even more impressive than Citadel, Mass Relays, and death bringing shrimps from outer space.

[Virginian]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

A) Everyone lives. No sacrificing all synthetics to save organics, etc.

Dead Shepard who chose the green ending would like a word with you.

Modifié par Virginian, 09 avril 2012 - 12:41 .

[YNation913]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I've thought a lot about what the writers tried to get across with synthesis.

I feel that your conversation with Vendetta is crucial to understanding the writers' attempt to tie it all together, so I'll start there. Vendetta describes the evolution of life as a cyclical pattern that always reaches a peak and subsequently resets itself. That peak is the conflict between organics and synthetics, a conflict that has appeared under many different contexts and circumstances, but one that ultimately ends with intelligent life being blasted back into the stone age at the end of each cycle.

Now this is the crucial bit: Vendetta reveals that the Reapers actually serve this pattern and are not its masters.

This leads to my understanding of the situation, which is as follows: each side of this conflict is correct in that they recognize that this peak in the evolution of life is a problem that needs to be solved since life can not evolve past it. But there is something wrong with the way each faction chooses to go about solving this problem.

The Reapers try to manage this problem through control; by leaving their technology for civilizations to use, they control the course of evolution so that they know when to intervene before civilization advances too far, and in their view, preserve life before it destroys itself. But appart from being repulsive, the Reaper's solution is actually in service of the pattern, as life reaches its peak, it's blasted back to the stone age.

The goal of Shepard's faction is to simply eliminate the opposition, which would hopefully allow life to move past the peak. As it happens, though, the only way to eliminate something as powerful as the Reapers is to eliminate everything else like them, which creates a problem with this solution as well. The cost of destroying the opposition is the destruction of all synthetic life and most of the technology that life relies on, effectively blasting life back into the stone age, making this solution in service to the pattern as well.

So synthesis, it would seem, is designed to solve this problem permanently, giving each form of life the abilities it needs to prevent the entropy that leads to the evolutionary peak, effectively eliminating the cycle.

Now personally, I don't believe that this should be the only way to move past the peak; ideally, there should be a way to destroy the Reapers while preserving the cooperative synthetics in the galaxy. As it stands, this just isn't possible.

Modifié par YNation913, 09 avril 2012 - 12:46 .