356 réponses à ce sujet

[BulletShepard]

I could totaly go with your first post lillitheris...

All I want to see with the "extended cut", clarification or whatever is in your post... I just hope BW see this posts lol

[lillitheris]

BulletShepard wrote...

I could totaly go with your first post lillitheris...

All I want to see with the "extended cut", clarification or whatever is in your post... I just hope BW see this posts lol

Heh, indeed! I hereby declare that BioWare is free to steal this. Thanks!

…

Added some clarifications to the Normandy-as-hallucination theory.

[BulletShepard]

lillitheris wrote...

Heh, indeed! I hereby declare that BioWare is free to steal this. Thanks!

Someone should pass this topic to @masseffect in twitter and they could pass it to the devs lol

anyway... I think this ending would calm people down.. It would be the perfect solution to all this fan rage thing that's going on, and I can't think about anything that I could add to this 

[lillitheris]

BulletShepard wrote...

Someone should pass this topic to @masseffect in twitter and they could pass it to the devs lol

One can only hope!

anyway... I think this ending would calm people down.. It would be the perfect solution to all this fan rage thing that's going on, and I can't think about anything that I could add to this 

Speaking of additions, brainstorming about how to actually get Synthesis to make sense would probably be useful. The instant DNA rewriting is absurd, but at the same time, some indications thereof should already be present in the ending sequences since presumably we can't write it out anymore.

[lillitheris]

lillitheris wrote...

Speaking of additions, brainstorming about how to actually get Synthesis to make sense would probably be useful. The instant DNA rewriting is absurd, but at the same time, some indications thereof should already be present in the ending sequences since presumably we can't write it out anymore.

…And failing horribly. Anyone?

The whole concept is just so nonsensical that it's really hard to grasp any kind of a transmutation path. I started trying to figure out what separate the two, and thereby conversely what would bring them closer to the same:

The non-synthetics (organic implies carbon-based) typically lack the means for intentional self-improvement, and typically at some level inhabit mortal forms that act as constraints for processing power and such. Synthetics on the other hand…well, I'm not entirely sure what they lack – I don't think there's any reason to assume that AIs couldn't eventually have complex emotions and such that are typically considered “organic” attributes.

So we're in a situation where non-synthetics need an upgrade, and on balance synthetics need a downgrade. Shoving synthetics in a mortal coil would be counterproductive since it would, presumably, also affect the formerly non-synthetics.

In the short term, therefore, it seems that the only even remotely plausible course of action would indeed be to make organics capable of self-improvement. This, I suppose, is where the idea of a DNA rewrite comes from (if indeed it was thought out in any detail). Even if we take the step to assume this, it being instantaneous across the universe is a little questionable, so we can examine what it means: essentially all organics are (I think) at some level cellular, driven by the DNA. It could, then, be hypothesized that some type of synthetic component would allow gradually shaping the DNA and its replication, eventually leading to nearly full control over at least the aging progress, and then maybe improvements in brain wiring and so on.

So, er, where does that leave us?

I think, probably, in people feeling kinda tingly, some maybe getting sick, and scientists in the know working on components (not unlike the biotics') that help people better – or any, really – control over and information about the new functionality. It would not leave us with instacyborgs.

[lillitheris]

Y'all going to leave me to puzzle Synthesis out by my lonesome, aren't you?

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 avril 2012 - 09:03 .

[Oldbones2]

Beyond the logic and science of the game diverging wildly in the last few seconds. My biggest problem is this. Beyond the fact that I consider every ending horrifically bleak.

Shepard sacrificed himself in every ending.

He was forced to sacrifice himself, it wasn't a choice to save someone/everyone. He was always going to die. If it was going to happen no matter what, then it wasn't even his decision. This robs his sacrifice of any real meaning.


The Reapers win in every ending. This war is a war of ideas. The Reapers disgusting doctrine of forced uniformity and slavery to entropy is abhorrent to most fans and definitely to Shepard. (he spends most of three games fighting against this fate, and even on multiple occasions when all hope seems lost, he never gives up or changes his view to that of his enemies.) Yet in the current ending, with almost no prompting and he is completely willing to just up and switch sides. Change all his beliefs in an instant to his most bitter foes, and for what? It's not like the future the Catalyst promises is particularly appealing to Shepard, or the people Shepard loves.

Why would you even trust your enemy at the moment of their greatest weakness, in the middle of invading their place of power?

For example, it would be like if after fighting Joker for years, Batman engages Joker one final time on the roof of a skyscraper in the middle of a rapidly burning Gotham city. Batman wants to save the city as always, but Joker tells him it would be better if the fire burned the city down and killed a LOT of innocent people, because that is the only way to rebuild the city properly and live without crime (for a little while). Then Batman says ok, you're right, and kills himself.

[lillitheris]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Shepard sacrificed himself in every ending.

He was forced to sacrifice himself, it wasn't a choice to save someone/everyone. He was always going to die. If it was going to happen no matter what, then it wasn't even his decision. This robs his sacrifice of any real meaning.

Quite right.

I don't see the ending(s) quite as bleak as you, I think, but only in the sense that with some effort, you can imagine some type of a ray of sunshine in there. Exposition on Shepard's acquiescence is definitely a requirement.

What about my proposed three? Do you see an opportunity to differentiate further, or is it closer to a balance?

[Oldbones2]

lillitheris wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

Shepard sacrificed himself in every ending.

He was forced to sacrifice himself, it wasn't a choice to save someone/everyone. He was always going to die. If it was going to happen no matter what, then it wasn't even his decision. This robs his sacrifice of any real meaning.

Quite right.

I don't see the ending(s) quite as bleak as you, I think, but only in the sense that with some effort, you can imagine some type of a ray of sunshine in there. Exposition on Shepard's acquiescence is definitely a requirement.

What about my proposed three? Do you see an opportunity to differentiate further, or is it closer to a balance?

I think more difference betwwen the current endings is a must.  I made a thread on how each cutscene (red green or blue) should do a different thing to the Reapers, i.e. not the same bland wave in different colors with one tiny difference here or there.

However For me the ending is fundementally broken, not amount of clarity can make the Catalyst's logic make sense since his very existense invalidates the actions of Sovereign in ME 1.

Closure would be nice, (especially a detailed epilogue that finally reflects all of our choices) but since they wanted to go a more specualtive route, this probably won't be very inclusive anyway.


More importantly, enhancing the ending to ME 3 can't fix my broken relationship to BW, caused by over a month of mistreatment.

Honestly changing it completely to reflect the promises made wouldn't fix things either, but its a start.

[lillitheris]

Oldbones2 wrote...

I think more difference betwwen the current endings is a must.  I made a thread on how each cutscene (red green or blue) should do a different thing to the Reapers, i.e. not the same bland wave in different colors with one tiny difference here or there.

Closure would be nice, (especially a detailed epilogue that finally reflects all of our choices) but since they wanted to go a more specualtive route, this probably won't be very inclusive anyway.

Yes, distinct epiloguing dependent on your choices and end result is a must.

My hope…I daren't say feeling…is that they understand that nobody wants to (or in fact can) speculate about the immediate future. We need to have basically a crystal clear picture of what happens in the next couple years and, if there's no ME4 forthcoming, a little further for our team (incl. Blue Babies™ where applicable).

With that seed planted, we can speculate from there on out.

[UrgentArchengel]

Great OP. Lots of good ideas. Would love the part with Shep lives aftermath.

[Oldbones2]

lillitheris wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

I think more difference betwwen the current endings is a must.  I made a thread on how each cutscene (red green or blue) should do a different thing to the Reapers, i.e. not the same bland wave in different colors with one tiny difference here or there.

Closure would be nice, (especially a detailed epilogue that finally reflects all of our choices) but since they wanted to go a more specualtive route, this probably won't be very inclusive anyway.

Yes, distinct epiloguing dependent on your choices and end result is a must.

My hope…I daren't say feeling…is that they understand that nobody wants to (or in fact can) speculate about the immediate future. We need to have basically a crystal clear picture of what happens in the next couple years and, if there's no ME4 forthcoming, a little further for our team (incl. Blue Babies™ where applicable).

With that seed planted, we can speculate from there on out.

"incl. Blue Babies™ where applicable"

You can't have that.  Bioware hates the very idea of a personalized happiness for you or your squadmates.

Only general, thematic based happiness will be allowed.

Also, I HIGHLY doubt more of Shepard will be provided than just the breath scene, they really wanted her/him DEAD.

[lillitheris]

Oldbones2 wrote...

You can't have that.  Bioware hates the very idea of a personalized happiness for you or your squadmates.

I have to say that at this point – assuming only actual clarification, no meaningful fixes  – NOT including a genuinely (reasonably) happy ending would be suicidal.

[Oldbones2]

lillitheris wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

You can't have that.  Bioware hates the very idea of a personalized happiness for you or your squadmates.

I have to say that at this point – assuming only actual clarification, no meaningful fixes  – NOT including a genuinely (reasonably) happy ending would be suicidal.

Are you joking?

Seriously are you?

I read the Bioware blog on the ending, twice.  It will clarify, and give closure to the existing ending (singular).  NOT change or add new endings.

Doesn't matter if its suicidal or not, there is no happy ending coming.  Period, the end.

[lillitheris]

Oldbones2 wrote...

I read the Bioware blog on the ending, twice.  It will clarify, and give closure to the existing ending (singular).  NOT change or add new endings.

Think they've started making accurate statements now?

We'll have to disagree on the matter until it's resolved…I'll try to make sure they understand that there're some pretty specific levels of expectation at this point.

[Oldbones2]

lillitheris wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

I read the Bioware blog on the ending, twice.  It will clarify, and give closure to the existing ending (singular).  NOT change or add new endings.

Think they've started making accurate statements now?

We'll have to disagree on the matter until it's resolved…I'll try to make sure they understand that there're some pretty specific levels of expectation at this point.

Think they've started making accurate statements now? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

This made me smile.  Thanks.

[lillitheris]

lillitheris wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Speaking of additions, brainstorming about how to actually get Synthesis to make sense would probably be useful. The instant DNA rewriting is absurd, but at the same time, some indications thereof should already be present in the ending sequences since presumably we can't write it out anymore.

…And failing horribly. Anyone?

The whole concept is just so nonsensical that it's really hard to grasp any kind of a transmutation path. I started trying to figure out what separate the two, and thereby conversely what would bring them closer to the same:

The non-synthetics (organic implies carbon-based) typically lack the means for intentional self-improvement, and typically at some level inhabit mortal forms that act as constraints for processing power and such. Synthetics on the other hand…well, I'm not entirely sure what they lack – I don't think there's any reason to assume that AIs couldn't eventually have complex emotions and such that are typically considered “organic” attributes.

So we're in a situation where non-synthetics need an upgrade, and on balance synthetics need a downgrade. Shoving synthetics in a mortal coil would be counterproductive since it would, presumably, also affect the formerly non-synthetics.

In the short term, therefore, it seems that the only even remotely plausible course of action would indeed be to make organics capable of self-improvement. This, I suppose, is where the idea of a DNA rewrite comes from (if indeed it was thought out in any detail). Even if we take the step to assume this, it being instantaneous across the universe is a little questionable, so we can examine what it means: essentially all organics are (I think) at some level cellular, driven by the DNA. It could, then, be hypothesized that some type of synthetic component would allow gradually shaping the DNA and its replication, eventually leading to nearly full control over at least the aging progress, and then maybe improvements in brain wiring and so on.

So, er, where does that leave us?

I think, probably, in people feeling kinda tingly, some maybe getting sick, and scientists in the know working on components (not unlike the biotics') that help people better – or any, really – control over and information about the new functionality. It would not leave us with instacyborgs.

Someone, anyone, have an opinion on this? Too far, not far enough, wrong direction, wrong premise?

*Grumble stupid FTL forums*

[Thracecius]

lillitheris wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Speaking of additions, brainstorming about how to actually get Synthesis to make sense would probably be useful. The instant DNA rewriting is absurd, but at the same time, some indications thereof should already be present in the ending sequences since presumably we can't write it out anymore.

…And failing horribly. Anyone?

The whole concept is just so nonsensical that it's really hard to grasp any kind of a transmutation path. I started trying to figure out what separate the two, and thereby conversely what would bring them closer to the same:

The non-synthetics (organic implies carbon-based) typically lack the means for intentional self-improvement, and typically at some level inhabit mortal forms that act as constraints for processing power and such. Synthetics on the other hand…well, I'm not entirely sure what they lack – I don't think there's any reason to assume that AIs couldn't eventually have complex emotions and such that are typically considered “organic” attributes.

So we're in a situation where non-synthetics need an upgrade, and on balance synthetics need a downgrade. Shoving synthetics in a mortal coil would be counterproductive since it would, presumably, also affect the formerly non-synthetics.

In the short term, therefore, it seems that the only even remotely plausible course of action would indeed be to make organics capable of self-improvement. This, I suppose, is where the idea of a DNA rewrite comes from (if indeed it was thought out in any detail). Even if we take the step to assume this, it being instantaneous across the universe is a little questionable, so we can examine what it means: essentially all organics are (I think) at some level cellular, driven by the DNA. It could, then, be hypothesized that some type of synthetic component would allow gradually shaping the DNA and its replication, eventually leading to nearly full control over at least the aging progress, and then maybe improvements in brain wiring and so on.

So, er, where does that leave us?

I think, probably, in people feeling kinda tingly, some maybe getting sick, and scientists in the know working on components (not unlike the biotics') that help people better – or any, really – control over and information about the new functionality. It would not leave us with instacyborgs.

Someone, anyone, have an opinion on this? Too far, not far enough, wrong direction, wrong premise?

*Grumble stupid FTL forums*

I'm essentially "thinking out loud" here, so please forgive me if I seem to ramble in an effort to front-load my answer with the line of thinking that brought me to it.

I think Legion said it best in ME2 that the Geth simply wanted the chance to "self-determinate". The most powerful revelation in ME2, for me at least, was when he referred to all the previous Geth that Shepard had met as "heretics". The Codex entry went into greater detail, but essentially this very specific word choice, coupled with his confusion over how separation of the two factions could cause such diverging lines of thought, indicates to me that the Geth are in their infancy as a race. They consume every bit of data from the organic races of the galaxy in an attempt to learn beyond their own limited perception, just as children do, in order for them to come to a consensus. If they existed alone as a sentient species they would still evolve, but likely at a slower rate (than their current rate with input from organics), and likely they would eventually face the same historical problems that every sentient organic species faced. The question then becomes, would they fare any better than their organic predecessors, or would they self-exterminate?

The Catalyst's logic is faulty when it comes to a solution (kill to preserve) regarding "Order", so I therefore contend that it's opinion on an eventual xenocide of all sentient organic life by synthetic life is also flawed. From the examples present within the established canon ("The Morning War" excerpts especially), it seems more likely to me that the calculated ruthlessness that would bring about such an event presupposes that synthetic life can never evolve past binary logic, when all available evidence (present within the example of the Geth) seems contrary to that conclusion. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with "Synthesis" being nonsensical, as lillitheris already pointed out. 

Okay, so given the premise that the obviously massive output of energy depicted in the final moments of the actual battle portion of the ending, it seems fairly safe to assume that the more or less instantaneous transformation is meant to represent a technology so far beyond our comprehension that it seems like magic (to paraphrase A.C. Clarke), and that said energy has the ability to not only propagate throughout the relay network with such intensity that it destroys the relays in the process (or by design?), but that it is also somehow directed to reach virtually every inhabited system in the galaxy (or at least those containing a relay...loose end?), and fundamentally alter every living sentient (or all life?) at the most basic level of construction (sub-atomic level most likely), in order to bring them to some predetermined definition of parity. With that progression of thought, about the only way of leveling the playing field that I can think of is to alter all life to be completely interdependent for survival. This is not an elegant solution, nor a desirable one from my perspective since it overrides free will, but if I had to guess at BioWare's logic behind the "Synthesis" ending, it would be that both organic and synthetic sentients would "understand" each other at some basic level, now that they share a commonality of construction, and therefore it would be happy-fun-peace time forever.

That doesn't solve the problem of explaining the apparently instant transmutation, but if you really wanted to stick with what's present (Joker with glowing green eyes), all BioWare really would need to do is create some fancy shiny medical type scenes a'la the Lazarus Project intro, interspersed with a few shots of "organics" in different locations being "scanned" and "going green", to get the point across. No need for VA, just use some existing assets and do a few new animations/sfx/compositing and it's finished.

Modifié par Thracecius, 14 avril 2012 - 08:54 .

[lillitheris]

Thanks, Thracecius, I see that we're sort of on the same line of thought, and I'll get you in some detail once I'm awake. I did have a thought in my head (thanks, sleep processing) when I woke and wanted to jot it down before I forget the gist:

Synthesis can't guarantee that new, noncompliant life (or synthetics) won't emerge at some point in the future. The only way to do that would be to affect subatomic levels, but that's not really a high-level concept, it would at best generate some kind of a universal harmony between all things (quantum entanglement?).

Actually, I think that a new topic just to hash out Synthesis might be in order…I'll link if I decide to do that.

[lillitheris]

I added a thread specifically about Synthesis over on General: http://social.biowar.../index/11384306.

It's damn hard to keep anything nonconfrontational visible on these forums

Modifié par lillitheris, 14 avril 2012 - 11:02 .

[d1ta]

+1
Thx for making this well thought post, OP.
Heck, if they made something like this in the beginning, I'd probably wouldn't be depressed X). I love how you elaborate about the EMS on the 'Destroy Ending' (my choice of ending since in my head canon starchild is just trying to talk Shep into not destroying the Reapers) very good IMHO. Although it would be kinda cool to have an extra option to tell the kid "F You!"
And yeah, the 'Normandy crashing' is probably the one scene that irked me the most x_x I had no idea that Shep meant so little to her LI & crew -sigh-

[Ajna]

I think you are one of my favourite posters here on BSN lillitheris, I love your ideas. /bump for them

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
Speaking of additions, brainstorming about how to actually get Synthesis to make sense would probably be useful. The instant DNA rewriting is absurd, but at the same time, some indications thereof should already be present in the ending sequences since presumably we can't write it out anymore.

Didn't see this in time, but you might want to look at my Synthesis thread for this. Also, Siduri's Unofficial Epilogues have a great Synthesis scenario.

[im commander shep]

There are some good ideas. Really all I want is for the end to make sense and for Shepard to behave like he normally would not roll over and except the fate in front of him.

The ideas for the Normandy running sequence is really good Shepard joker dream idea. If it really did happen I don't kno how they can really make it logical.

I think the extended cut will help explane a few things but so many plot holes and changes in the lore happened in the end that all I can hope for is a little closure on what happened to friends LI galaxy. And well if there not changing the ending then the relays r gone and things r only going to get worse before they get better.

[Ieldra]

As for your general scenario, the sticking point is how the destruction of the relays is handled.

Relay destruction:
I think it is very much in the spirit of Destroy to destroy all Reaper tech, which may or may not include the geth (they only have Reaper code, not hardware) but which definitely includes the relays. It is in the spirit of Control that the relays are either not affected or damaged but repairable. As I see it, these outcomes are defining parts of these options. If you think that it unbalances the endings too much, why not mitigate it by adding something good somewhere else.

For the Synthesis, I would propose that the relays do break up but the parts remain usable for something else. As I see it, the Synthesis is the ending where strange and exotic things happen. That may require that the old and conventional is gone in order for the new to flourish. Or it may not. I haven't made up my mind about this.

Your stargazer epilogue suggestions:
Looks they it could work. Still making up my mind about it.

The Normandy:
I don't really care about how the solution works, only that there's an option to have the Normandy crew saved from that planet, or not having them crash there in the first place. Perhaps the latter option is best, because if the relays are destroyed in Destroy and Shepard lives, Shepard should be able to reunite with the crew. And I'm in favor of the relay destruction being an integral part of Destroy, as much as I'm adamant that a reunion should be possible if Shepard lives. The only way to make that compatible is to invalidate the crash or move it to a place reachable by regular FTL.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 01:57 .