279 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

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.

I concur. For my more detailed view on things, see my Synthesis thread. As another example, Siduri's unofficial epilogues posit that people will have short-range networking after the Synthesis, similar to what the geth have. I find that plausible.

Another theme is artificial evolution - Synthesis realizes possibilities we would not have as pure organic lifeforms. As in one of my favorite quotes: "There are infinite possibilities, but not for Man" - (from "Neverness" by David Zindell). The symbolism of the Synthesis suggests that people might become more than human - transhuman, if you want -  and that this is a step forward.

Will this remove all conflict? Of course not. What it will remove is the inevitability of organics' extinction at the hand of synthetics. It was always the organics' problem to accept synthetics as "real life", and that would lead to the robot war and the eventual extinction of organics. Now both sides participate in each others' nature, so the thought of killing the other becomes akin to killing your own.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 avril 2012 - 02:20 .

[crazyrabbits]

Amioran wrote...

Bocks wrote...

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

Good. And who is the judge to the "bad writing". You? On which ground? Just your word?

Excuse me if I'm not impressed. At all.

I can bet how much you want that 90% of all the people here that say the end is "badly written" have no experience at all on determining what it constitues "bad writing" or not and yet you pretend you have.

This is wrong. There are many established elements that are objectively seen as "bad writing" by both the general audience and critics. These include:

Deus Ex Machina/McGuffin
Plot Hole
Dead Horse Genre(s)
Mary Sue

...to name just a few. I read your other posts talking about how you're some established writer, and the truth is that I don't really care. I've worked as an entertainment critic (albeit for a small publication) before, but you don't see me running around trying to justify my opinion by citing credentials.

The point is, I haven't seen anyone seriously defend all the points (in the myriad threads) without resorting to a bunch of excuses and deflections, like "You just didn't understand it!", "I know more than you because (cite diploma)" and "Sure, it had problems, but I loved it".

If you want to argue that people don't know anything about bad writing, you'll have to try much harder than that. You're not doing yourself any favors.

[Aleya]

metawanderer wrote...

beutelmarkus wrote...

metawanderer wrote...

I choosed Synthesis (green) ending because it was the most optimistic of three. My paragon Sheps were always against the Illusive Man's ideals about controlling the Reapers and my Sheps are not hypocrites. Red seems like a good ending but I could never exterminate the entire Geth race and EDI after they both showed their personality and for lack of a better word, their humanity towards other races. Even when Shep lives after the red ending I am remined what the Starchild said about it being a temporary peace, that does not sound like a good ending to me. Green seems like the best ending for my Sheps because they always strived towards peace for the galaxy even if they must sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Makes sense if taken at face-value, but if the IT is correct, the star child will attempt to manipulate you and have the blue and green options seem to be the better choices.

And that is a another issue altogether.  If the IT is correct, than my Sheps have damned the entire galaxy.  That is why I am hesitating on my next playthrough till after the extended cut comes out.  Still,it seems too harsh to destoroy all synthetics after the Geth proved the starchild wrong. 

If the IT is correct and the Starchild is deliberately trying to manipulate Shepard into completing his/her indoctrination, then it's lying about the result of the green/blue options. Who's to say it wasn't lying about the red choice too? Who says it destroys *all* synthetics? Or even destroys the Reapers? Or does anything at all? Assuming IT, you never actually reached the Citadel, and so the blue/green/red choice has no consequences outside of Shepard's mind.

Modifié par Aleya, 07 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[xAmilli0n]

jedi.flow wrote...

beutelmarkus wrote...

On a side note, what's really interesting about these endings when taken at face value, is that almost everyone has a completely different perspective on just what they mean.  

In other words, the ending means exactly what you want it to mean. There is no canon.

And if you look from this perspective, Bioware pretty much succeeded in their goal (except on certain issues like the Normandy at the end).

As for the green ending, its supposed to be the most "definitive" choice.  That is, there will definitely be peace, but you must sacrafice what makes that various forms of life unique in order to achieve it.

The other choices do not guarantee peace, but you get other positives.  Blue = No life sacraficed, Citadel not destroyed.  Red = Reapers definitely dead, Shep can live.

Modifié par xAmilli0n, 07 avril 2012 - 02:24 .

[Amioran]

Tirigon wrote...
I dont always use internet memes but if I do....
Pics or didnt happen.
Your posts dont make you look like a writer but rather like an illliterate on an attention-wh*ring trip.

Pics of what, of what the hell are you talking about? Apart the fact that I have nothing to demonstrate to you (especially because I don't care about your poor opinon at all) then what a pic of a book will accomplish?

As for my posts if you would glady specify where they are wrong in your opinion maybe we can debate about it, want you, instead of (as always) declaring things without backing them up with anything at all and expecting me to be worried or impressed about them.

For all your saying that I look as an illiterate or attention wh*re it is not me that insulted you or said something without explaining my motivations to do such.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[Babli]

Because it was cool in Deus Ex.

[Wolf]

Amioran wrote...
Usually noirs, but I've also written some fantasy stuff (well, not really, it was still a mix of comedy/fantasy/noir).

Can you give us a pseudonym or something?

Also I think this is what Ferb was trying to tell you through retoric.

Link:

[blaidfiste]

Han Shot First wrote...

One thing that strikes me as bizarre is how the Green Ending is supposed to be the best possible ending. This option only opens up when you have a high EMS score, which suggests that Bioware intended it to be the ending with the best outcome.

Shepard's mission through three games and five years has been to destroy the Reapers, so why does that change in the last five minutes? Why does the best possible ending (from the writer's point of view) involve the Reapers surviving? And why is the merging of all organic life with synthetics considered the best outcome? In a single stroke of green space magic it annihilates anything that made us human and completely destroys galactic diversity. Were the Asari, Turians, or Krogan your favorite species? All gone now --- everyone is a cyborg.

With an even higher EMS, Shep can complete his mission (destroy the reapers) and live.  No one really knows what Bioware was intending.  I hope it's all over with this summer.

[metawanderer]

Alex_SM wrote...

metawanderer wrote...

I choosed Synthesis (green) ending because it was the most optimistic of three. My paragon Sheps were always against the Illusive Man's ideals about controlling the Reapers and my Sheps are not hypocrites. Red seems like a good ending but I could never exterminate the entire Geth race and EDI after they both showed their personality and for lack of a better word, their humanity towards other races. Even when Shep lives after the red ending I am remined what the Starchild said about it being a temporary peace, that does not sound like a good ending to me. Green seems like the best ending for my Sheps because they always strived towards peace for the galaxy even if they must sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Free will and stuff. Seems to not matter anymore... 

The green ending is not the only ending that ignores free will. Even if you choose the red option there is still no free will.  The Geth & EdI did not choose to be exterminated.  

[xAmilli0n]

slyguy200 wrote...

It is clearly BW's intended choice.
I blame that artistic integrity BS

I really haven't been keeping up with what Bioware's stance is.  Have they said anything suggesting Synthesis is their canon ending?

[Mims]

All I know is I refuse to believe synthesis is an option, as it hurts my head and fills me with raaage.

[Although I think people who like it are within their right. It just drives me crazy.]

[Filurija]

Ieldra2 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.

I concur. For my more detailed view on things, see my Synthesis thread. As another example, Siduri's unofficial epilogues posit that people will have short-range networking after the Synthesis, similar to what the geth have. I find that plausible.

Another theme is artificial evolution - Synthesis realizes possibilities we would not have as pure organic lifeforms. As in one of my favorite quotes: "There are infinite possibilities, but not for Man" - (from "Neverness" by David Zindell). The symbolism of the Synthesis suggests that people might become more than human - transhuman, if you want -  and that this is a step forward.

Will this remove all conflict? Of course not. What it will remove is the inevitability of organics' extinction at the hand of synthetics. It was always the organics' problem to accept synthetics as "real life", and that would lead to the robot war and the eventual extinction of organics. Now both sides participate in each others' nature, so the thought of killing the other becomes akin to killing your own.

But what about other life in the galaxy who doesn't want to join the rest, lets say the Yagh make contact in the future, and they are againts what the other Races have done with the whole synthesis stuff, isn't it possible that at some point the Council races will force the Yagh to join them? like the Proteans did in there time it isn't a crazy idea that maybe at some point the Council Races believe this to be the only path in life and it would be better for the rest. You have Cerberus who is pro Human, you have Ardak-Yakshi who belive there the genetic destiny, maybe later the rest will have the same idea. Sorry if explaided it in a weird way or its a bit confusing my english is not the best

[Taritu]

I took destroy, but control can be seen as the "best" ending. The Geth and EDI live, the Reapers are gone, organics survive.

But I didn't choose it because I wasn't sure the Reapers would be gone permanently, so I chose destroy. Didn't like it (I like the Geth and EDI) but making sure the Reapers were gone seemed important.

As others have said making everyone into a cyborg against their will seemed even more wrong than destroying the Geth.

[Tirigon]

beutelmarkus wrote...

One thing I only noticed recently was that when TIM causes Shepard to shoot Anderson, you hear both Anderson and Shepard groan, (which would make sense if you believe that Anderson is a representation in his mind that's actively fighting the indoctrination attempt).

It also makes sense if you consider that Shepard is so hurt the force of a weapon would probably be painful.

[Aleya]

slyguy200 wrote...

It is clearly BW's intended choice.
I blame that artistic integrity BS

No, it's *Starchild's* intended choice. Starchild's order of preference is pretty clearly synthesis>control>>>>>destroy. But whether you buy the IT or not, Starchild doesn't speak for Bioware, it speaks for the Reapers.

Modifié par Aleya, 07 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[AkiKishi]

Taritu wrote...

I took destroy, but control can be seen as the "best" ending. The Geth and EDI live, the Reapers are gone, organics survive.

But I didn't choose it because I wasn't sure the Reapers would be gone permanently, so I chose destroy. Didn't like it (I like the Geth and EDI) but making sure the Reapers were gone seemed important.

As others have said making everyone into a cyborg against their will seemed even more wrong than destroying the Geth.

Control is the best one for continuation. You can turn Shepard into the next bad guy same as Diablo did.
Notning is really going to be as interesting as the Reapers after all the setting up..

Modifié par BobSmith101, 07 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[Taritu]

Aleya wrote...

slyguy200 wrote...

It is clearly BW's intended choice.
I blame that artistic integrity BS

No, it's *Starchild's* intended choice. Starchild's order of preference is pretty clearly synthesis>control>>>>>destroy. Whether you buy the IT or not, Starchild doesn't speak for Bioware, it speaks for the Reapers.

Bioware said that more EMS equaled better endings.  Of course, Shep surviving takes the highest, so maybe's that's best, except that they refuse to take down the post that says you can get the best w/o multiplayer/apps and it is impossible to get Shep to survive without more than 50% readiness.

[metawanderer]

The ending choices in this game remind me of the The Witcher series of games. You have to choose which path you think is the lesser evil.

[Alpr]

...because Bulbasaur is the best starter pokemon

[Amioran]

Gaiden96 wrote...

Amioran wrote...
Usually noirs, but I've also written some fantasy stuff (well, not really, it was still a mix of comedy/fantasy/noir).

Can you give us a pseudonym or something?

Also I think this is what Ferb was trying to tell you through retoric.

Link:

I don't write by pseudonym, I use my real name that I have no intention of divulgating here.

I've watched that youtube video but it doesn't make any sense at all.

A) The Socratic exercise doesn't require a logic supposition on which to base your debate to work (and this is the primary fault of what is being said there). On the contrary the most profound socratic exercise is based on impossibility or contradiction (being one of the fundamental aspect of the theory that every sentence contains a contradiction in itself).

Even if it was not so it is not said that you have to require a full logic cycle (from beginning to end) when you perform a choice, that would make things easy where they are not. In real life many times this doesn't happen. You cannot know what the consequences will be of your actions, you can just act in conformity with the data you have at the moment, however little it can be.

C) An author can write some choices just with the intent of making them difficult and apparently without exit and have bad consequences in all cases. In this case having a full explanation of what is to happen will render the choice all another thing. Uncertainity it's a powerful way to create momentum during a lapse (for a story to continue).

D) As for plausibility: it can be important in the case we are sure the saga will not continue, but in this case we don't know it yet. Hell, we don't know either if this ending is a true ending or not. So all of this talking about "plot-holes" or "space magic" is supremely premature and can be either counterproductive as I've explained elsewhere.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 02:49 .

[Alex_SM]

metawanderer wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

metawanderer wrote...

I choosed Synthesis (green) ending because it was the most optimistic of three. My paragon Sheps were always against the Illusive Man's ideals about controlling the Reapers and my Sheps are not hypocrites. Red seems like a good ending but I could never exterminate the entire Geth race and EDI after they both showed their personality and for lack of a better word, their humanity towards other races. Even when Shep lives after the red ending I am remined what the Starchild said about it being a temporary peace, that does not sound like a good ending to me. Green seems like the best ending for my Sheps because they always strived towards peace for the galaxy even if they must sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Free will and stuff. Seems to not matter anymore... 

The green ending is not the only ending that ignores free will. Even if you choose the red option there is still no free will.  The Geth & EdI did not choose to be exterminated.  

Well, that's because the whole ending concept is just wrong, the whole starchild thing is wrong, its logic is wrong and... everything sorrounding it is wrong. 

The Geth and Edi don't choose to be exterminated, but they accept the chance to happen as consequence of the war against the reaper (the same as everyone accepts the chance to die when goes to a war). It's bad, but not as bad as ignoring the free will of every living being in the whole galaxy and force them to become semi-synthethics. 

It's like they were trying to say that self-determinism and evolution are wrong, and intelligent design is right. 

[Kaidan Fan]

I didn't believe the crap flowing from star brats mouth. And as destroying the reapers has always been my Shepards goal, that's what I did. And since I lived (even though I was part synthetic and the brat said I would die) it's obvious it was lying.   Therefore I believe the Geth and EDI are ok.

Modifié par Kaidan Fan, 07 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[Amioran]

Alex_SM wrote...
The Geth and Edi don't choose to be exterminated, but they accept the chance to happen as consequence of the war against the reaper (the same as everyone accepts the chance to die when goes to a war). It's bad, but not as bad as ignoring the free will of every living being in the whole galaxy and force them to become semi-synthethics. 

People??

The fact that you have to make a choice it doesn't mean that you adhere totally to that choice in its morality. Sometimes you have no other way around and you must go for what you think it's the lesser evil.

The fact that Shepard, for example, can choose the red ending to exterminate the Reapers it doesn't necessarily mean that s/he agree with exterminating the synthetics. It is just that s/he probably think it the best solution where there are none labeled "only white" (as it usually happens).

Same goes for an author. The fact that an author can write some choices to be in a certain way it doesn't mean necessarily that these are the things the author "believes" in.

I am sometimes amused by the connections made here.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 02:54 .

[AkiKishi]

Alex_SM wrote...

It's like they were trying to say that self-determinism and evolution are wrong, and intelligent design is right. 

It worked much better in Deus Ex.