279 réponses à ce sujet

[kalle90]

Well looking at Human Revolution for example: Synthesis = Improvement

Why couldn't synthesis mean longer lives, no diseases or severe injuries, improved intelligence and adaptibility...

Of course there's the drawback of going against peoples' wishes and chance of mind control, but Shepard usually ignores what others say. "I make the choice for the good of everyone and that's it"

[Solmanian]

I won't disscuss the ending in this non spoiler thread, but what I had to say is very importent and interesting.

[FanHarel]

Synthesis made a lot of sense to me.

Choosing Destroy, to me, meant that I would wipe out the Reapers sure, but I would also wipe out the Geth who proved to the galaxy that machines do have souls and EDI who had been given the chance at actual life. And at the end of the day, Earth is still in ruins and millions of alien races are trapped in our system cut off from their homes. Destroy just felt like a hollow victory.

Control wasn't even an option as far as I was concerned. Assimilating to the Crucible only means that a new Catalyst will be reborn. Your one desire for them to leave will be obeyed, but over time you will succumb to the logic of machines and realize that the Reapers are necessary once again, at least in my opinion.

Synthesis gets rid of the one thing that kept the galaxy from standing united in the first place: diversity. Yes individuality is important, but in our darkest hour, it proved that it was a hindrance to us as well. It's true even in the real world; differences in race and religion keep us from coming together as a whole. By initiating the final evolution, really what is separating us? Our only differences would be skin deep. The galaxy could finally come together and realize that we are all the same. This would also help the other races adapt. Without the dextro and levo boundaries, there would be no need for special foods or anything like that. The Quarians wouldn't need the enviro-suits because their synthetics could help keep them alive. The Salarians might have a longer life span. The Geth and EDI wouldn't be labeled as machines any longer.

Honestly, in the end Synthesis just makes the most sense to me.

[Amioran]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
My Shep hated the Illusive Man with a blind fury.

"Your" Shepard is a nonsense. While you can shape some factors in Shepard, he is what he is. He is not more yours than anybody's else. At the root Shepard is something more than users can make him be, it is never your creation because at the root it is an archetype already decided by the author.

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Even if he was right, she'd never admit it.

Again this assumes that what you think Shepard will do from your pow is absolute just because you get to control him/her for a while. This is completely wrong.

FlyingWalrus wrote...
Perhaps Bioware's worst design choice in ME3 (besides the journal) was not allowing you to participate in the final "debate" with the Power That Be, real or imagined.

It is not at all a bad decision choice. Shepard is not "yours" at all. S/He is what s/he is.

Then, apart this, there are some decisions that you cannot partecipate in. You are just a spectator, nothing more. The illusion of choice is just that, an illusion. This, again, is perfectly plausible and the sad reality of many a situation.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 10:02 .

[Farbautisonn]

Does it really matter what colour the ending is? Or even what choise we make? 

Im not at all even remotely sure that there will be a ME4. And I personally believe that if there ever such a bird, it will be "Mass Effect: Syndicate". "An epic futuristic rpg with fps elements and rts elements not seen better since Tetris".

And even if there is another ME trilogy would you dare to invest hundreds of dollers, hundreds of hours establishing a bond with ingame npcs and setting, only to have it shredded completely in the last 10 minutes by some inane pseudo-intellectual with aspirations for "Artistic Visions"™?

You have got to be kidding me.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 07 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[Tirigon]

Solmanian wrote...

I won't disscuss the ending in this non spoiler thread, but what I had to say is very importent and interesting.

Please, never visit this forum again.

No kidding.

[Amioran]

Farbautisonn wrote...
And even if there is another ME trilogy would you dare to invest hundreds of dollers, hundreds of hours establishing a bond with ingame npcs and setting, only to have it shredded completely in the last 10 minutes by some inane pseudo-intellectual with aspirations for "Artistic Visions"™? 

Sure, let's all forbid "artistic aspirations" in the name of mediocrity and mass acceptance. What good freedom does to this world?

"You have to be kidding me".

[ParagonX30]

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.

HAHA lol, i didn't even know what i did exactly. I accidentally walked towards the destroy ending. It was so freaking confusing and made no sense at all to me.

[Farbautisonn]

Amioran wrote...
Sure, let's all forbid "artistic aspirations" in the name of mediocrity and mass acceptance. What good freedom does to this world?
"You have to be kidding me".

-Did I state anywhere that I wanted to "forbid artistic aspirations"? Please quote me back? And "What good freedom does to this world?" Did I ever state any such thing? Please. Do quote me back.

Because you wouldnt be sprouting inane bull****e and putting words in my mouth in some feebleminded attempt at pushing the "artistic vision" ™ of a game that claims to be "artsy" and yet has been "streamlined" (commercialized) to cater to the masses to the point where its a "cinematic pew pew"? 

That logic clashes so ****ing hard it boggles the mind.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 07 avril 2012 - 10:17 .

[Amioran]

Farbautisonn wrote...
-Did I state anywhere that I wanted to "forbid artistic aspirations"? Please quote me back? And "What good freedom does to this world?" Did I ever state any such thing? Please. Do quote me back.

 
It was implied, or don't you even understand what you write?

If you say "...only to have it shredded completely in the last 10 minutes by some inane pseudo-intellectual with aspirations for "Artistic Visions"™?" you imply that you would not like that to have happened.

And since you don't put any motivations on the fault of this "artistic vision" apart your dislike for it in general terms it may seem like (or better, it is a logical conclusion) you pretend all things called as such are bullsh*t.

Farbautisonn wrote...
Because you wouldnt be sprouting inane bull****e and putting words in my mouth in some feebleminded attempt at pushing the "artistic vision" ™ of a game that claims to be "artsy" and yet has "streamlined" the game to cater to the masses to the point where its a "cinematic pew pew"? 

What this all have to do with the story or the game and even more to the talk here about the ending? Why people continue to mix completely different things togheter pretending they are the same just to have a point I don't really understand.

Farbautisonn wrote...
That logic clashes so ****ing hard it boggles the mind.

You don't know how much.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 10:26 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Read my sig.

[Peregrin25]

I think the reason they pushed for Shepard to not survive the ordeal was so they could rush it into ending Shepard's story. He/She isn't technically supposed to survive. That is why after you make your choice from that point on each ending is exactly the same. Because Shepard wasn't supposed to live.

Well that is how I took it anyway. I chose destroy. I like my Shepard and I want my Shepard to survive no matter what. I stayed the course from the first 2 games.. Destroy by any means necessary.

[Amioran]

Peregrin25 wrote...

I think the reason they pushed for Shepard to not survive the ordeal was so they could rush it into ending Shepard's story. 

If you want to rush a story you simplify it, not the contrary. If Bioware really wanted to push the ending they could have faulted by oversimplifying, not the contrary.

Probably if they really did do that now 90% of the people that are angry here would be perfectly happy not understanding at all what happened, because they had their "perfect happy ending" a la Cinderella.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 10:37 .

[Farbautisonn]

Amioran wrote...
It was implied, or don't you even understand what you write?

-Oh.. so you know what I imply then. You're omniscient? Sorry then. I bow to your magnificience.

If you say "...only to have it shredded completely in the last 10 minutes by some inane pseudo-intellectual with aspirations for "Artistic Visions"™?" you imply that you would not like that to have happened.

-Thats not "implying" anything. Thats rhetorical sarcastic blunt force trauma. Im not "implying" anything. Im stating outright that the endings are inane and void of any kind of originality, the very basis for art. Add to that the use of poorly photoshopped images and you have a product where we arent in the realm of "art" but more in the realm of "plagerism" and "lazyness".

You on the other hand seem to read into my statement that I want to forbid "artistic aspirations" and that I am against freedom somehow. I cannot fanthom how you can make that leap, but Im sure its a part of your omniscience.

And since you don't put any motivations on the fault of this "artistic vision" it may seem like you pretend all things called as such are bullsh*t.

-Emn.. right. Thats logical. I have to speculate on who decided to call a product that caters to the widest possible commercial customer base, uses rehashed and illogical plots, and images shopped worse than what a 15 year old on /b/ can produce in 3 minutes, art. I dont really. If you read the press releases its pretty much everyone from Ray and down.

Farbautisonn wrote...
Because you wouldnt be sprouting inane bull****e and putting words in my mouth in some feebleminded attempt at pushing the "artistic vision" ™ of a game that claims to be "artsy" and yet has "streamlined" the game to cater to the masses to the point where its a "cinematic pew pew"? 

What this all have to do with the story or the game an even more to the talk here about the ending? Why people continue to mix completely different things togheter pretending they are the same just to have a point I don't really understand.

-I believe the latter part. I stated the I believed the endings didnt matter. That apparently offended you enough to sprout falsehoods in my direction and "implicitly" accuse me of wanting to forbid artistic aspirations and freedom.

You don't know how much.

-Oh... but I do. You apparenly... not so much.

[Peregrin25]

Amioran wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

I think the reason they pushed for Shepard to not survive the ordeal was so they could rush it into ending Shepard's story. 

If you want to rush a story you simplify it, not the contrary. If Bioware really wanted to push the ending they could have faulted by oversimplifying, not the contrary.

Probably if they really did do that now 90% of the people that are angry here would be perfectly happy not understanding at all what happened, because they had their "perfect happy ending" a la Cinderella.

I still think it was a last ditch effort due to the Time Constraints that EA gave the. I have read things from a few sources that I look into that said tha,t that is one of the more probable reasons for the ending we have. But who knows. No one really knows except those at BioWare.

I just hope BioWare isn't becoming a complete and utter Tool.

[Edrick1976]

Because Green is the collor of MONEY....

[Wulfram]

I think time constraints did play a role, but that was only because they really struggled to settle on an ending.

[Amioran]

Farbautisonn wrote...
-Oh.. so you know what I imply then. You're omniscient? Sorry then. I bow to your magnificience.

I replied to what you wrote. If this wasn't what you implied then you should check what you write. I certainly cannot know for sure what you imply in yourself but I reply to what you write and if what you write implies something then this is what I have to use.

Farbautisonn wrote...
-Thats not "implying" anything. Thats rhetorical sarcastic blunt force trauma. Im not "implying" anything. Im stating outright that the endings are inane and void of any kind of originality, the very basis for art.

Maybe you can explain why you think this instead of stating it and that's all. You could have started from the green ending since this is the the discussion in the thread instead of spruting generalized nonsense around without either fully comprehending what you really wrote, isn't it? It is easy to say that a thing sucks without explaining why.

For now all you have done is using rethoric (as you yourself state clearly here) and mixing togheter completely different things just to try to have a point.
 

Farbautisonn wrote...
You on the other hand seem to read into my statement that I want to forbid "artistic aspirations" and that I am against freedom somehow. I cannot fanthom how you can make that leap, but Im sure its a part of your omniscience.

I already explained how I made that leap. Words cannot be changed and the way you use them it is important.

Farbautisonn wrote...
-Emn.. right. Thats logical. I have to speculate on who decided to call a product that caters to the widest possible commercial customer base, uses rehashed and illogical plots, and images shopped worse than what a 15 year old on /b/ can produce in 3 minutes, art. I dont really. If you read the press releases its pretty much everyone from Ray and down.

Again, what does this have to do with the rest? Stick to the point.

Farbautisonn wrote...
-I believe the latter part. I stated the I believed the endings didnt matter. That apparently offended you enough to sprout falsehoods in my direction and "implicitly" accuse me of wanting to forbid artistic aspirations and freedom.

I'm not offended at all and I just replied to what you wrote.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 10:53 .

[Sejborg]

Because it is the only one that stops the cycle I guess?

[Rubarack]

Sejborg wrote...

Because it is the only one that stops the cycle I guess?

Do you really buy this cycle nonsense? There is literally no supporting evidence for it and it makes absolutely zero logical sense. Yes synthetics could rebel against their creators and it has happened before but it relies on a staggering level of ineptitude on their creators part.

[windkayak]

DJBare wrote...

Because somebody at Bioware is trying to push the singularity theory?

Was thinking of that too,seeing some forum admin avatars over the time,i don't doubt that at all.

[Farbautisonn]

Amioran wrote...

I replied to what you wrote.

-No. Your replied to what you presumed I wrote. Namely that I wanted to forbid art and freedom. How the **** you can read that into my post I cannot fanthom.

-If this wasn't what you implied then you should check what you write.

-Ermn.. I dont see that both the choise of words or tone of the post leaves much to interpretation. But perhaps you are unaccustomed to reading what people actually write. That would certainly explain why your presumed that I somehow had a desire to forbid art and freedom.

I certainly cannot know for sure what you imply in yourself but I reply to what you write and if what you write implies something then this is what I have to use.

-Strange. Again. I didnt "imply" anything. By using sarcasm and confrontative wording I stated my opinion rather bluntly. That you feel its open for "interpretation" only makes your defense for the "art" of the endings all the more comprehensable.

Maybe you can explain why you think this instead of stating it and that's all. You could have started from the green ending since this is the the discussion in the thread instead of spruting generalized nonsense around without either fully comprehending what you really wrote, isn't it? It is easy to say that a thing sucks without explaining why.

-I just spelled out to you why I think the endings suck. All of them. They are not an expression of art or originalty. They are an expression of plagerism and lazyness. Of catering to the widest possible commercial denominator.

For now all you have done is using rethoric (as you yourself state clearly here) and mixing togheter completely different things just to try to have a point.

-Ermn.. So.. stating that the photoshopping, the catering to the widest possible commercial client base, the "streamlining" that robs the player of interaction,  the direct plagerism from other game endings, etc  is inane and not what most would consider "art" in any sense of the word, sends a "mixed message"? I thought I was being rather blunt.

I already explained how I made that leap. Words cannot be changed and the way you use them it is important.

-Yep. You pretty much drew that conclusion out of thin air.

Again, what does this have to do with the rest? Stick to the point.

-You asked? 

I'm not offended at all and I just replied to what you wrote.

-That... you did...

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 07 avril 2012 - 11:12 .

[Bocks]

Why are you discussing this? The writing is horrendous, that's all you need to know.

[BD Manchild]

The only reason I can think that Bioware push it as the "best" ending is "inhumanly awful writing".

Never forget that Synthesis is what Saren wanted to achieve; the compromise between organics and the Reapers that's basically subjugating to them. Javik himself says that the homogenised culture of the Protheans turned out to be a huge drawback during the last cycle, that diversity may be the only chance the galaxy had left... So why in the holy mother of Hell is taking that diversity away suddenly the best thing to do? I don't buy that at all.

Also, is it true that EDI can emerge from the ship, even if you choose the Destroy ending? If that's true, then coupled with the "Shepard Lives" ending, I think it's safe to say that the Starchild is a COMPLETE LIAR.

[Amioran]

Farbautisonn wrote...
-No. Your replied to what you presumed I wrote. Namely that I wanted to forbid art and freedom. How the **** you can read that into my post I cannot fanthom.

Ok, as you like. I already explained everything I had to explain. Run in circles if you like, I don't care.

Farbautisonn wrote...
I just spelled out to you why I think the endings suck. All of them. They are not an expression of art or originalty. They are an expression of plagerism and lazyness. Of catering to the widest possible commercial denominator.

You didn't explain anything at all and you continue to do so. Saying a thing sucks because it lacks originality but not going in the specific it's not an explanation at all. It is just a way to try to have a point lacking the ability to debate what the point really is.