356 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Hm, I actually approach this as being specifically a reaper code thing. The relays are reaper tech, sure, but they're not quite the same. They don't indoctrinate, the reapers obviously don't have full control over them (or they'd just shut them down whenever entering a system!), so I don't think there's necessarily an intrinsic link there. Of course that doesn't rule it out, either.

For simplicity, I figured the pulse would rather be looking for reaper-typical software signatures (explaining why the Catalyst thinks the geth are in danger), and the relay destruction would be more an artifact of the immense energies involved (explaining why they're also in danger in the other endings).

That said, I'm definitely not ruling out the galactic dark age – but I think it really does need to be a dark age, then. Or, well, I don't really see a point in declaring “the relays are gone but now we've functionally equivalent tech from salvaged reaper parts”, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt. It just seems a bit pointless.

Thanks for the link to your Synthesis thread. It's good and thorough (although leaves that persistence issue).

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.

I agree, in that if they can somehow make it work (and still keep a reunion possible), I don't have objections to it. I just think that it'll take a lot of resources to explain satisfactorily – all away from everything else – so the easy way out is preferable

[lillitheris]

GlassElephant wrote...
I don't think that destroy should kill all synthetic life too, unless it's somehow explained that the red light effectively destroys all reaper tech and doesn't specifically target synthetic life along with the reapers.  I understand the need for a moral balance- many of the players who were turned off by the idea of genocide against the geth would not have an issue with killing all the reapers.  It just felt like the writers tacked that on only to make destroy less desirable.

I agree, that's definitely the reason. I don't particularly oppose it, although I think my software approach is more sensible than hardware in that case. Either works, though.

Destroying just the reapers can be a sacrifice too.  The StarChild describes the reapers as the guardians of peace in the galaxy.  Without the reapers, Shepard could very well doom the galaxy to repeat itself without the reaper intervention.  Does Shepard think that the peace he established to unify the galaxy can stay or be repeated in the future?  Does Shepard value the free will of organics and synthetics and think that they don't need the reapers to protect them from their own destruction?  It could still be the "renegade" option without using the geth as collateral damage- Shepard symbolically kills a god figure that's "protected" organics in a way that we perceive as immoral (but could be acting for the greater good).

Who knows what lies beyond the dark space, anyway? But, yes, even in the short term there could be severe problems arising from the (temporary?) lack of access to resources, rebuilding, groups wanting to exploit power vacuums…krogans…and so on.

As for the Normandy scene, it was a horrible way to give closure to the squadmates that we've cared about for three games.

Yeah, as I surmised, I really think that Normandy is the crux of the problem for probably most of us. I do hope they'll have the quad to just declare it a dream sequence.

[lillitheris]

Halftime score: it's looking like it's really hard to come up with an explanation of Synthesis that would make it a permanent solution. In other words, eventually the same problems will arise again.

This is fine in itself. We can just declare that some nanotech is making people capable of self-improvement like machines and synthetics feel empathy (yeah, yeah, just go with it). That'll give us plenty of material to go forward with the epilogues.

However, this leaves me (us?) in a slightly awkward position: I have to re-evaluate the balance of the Synthesis option.

My impression has been that it's offered as a fundamental, permanent change to the situation. In that case Shepard's self-sacrifice and the morally quite grey area of making this decision for everyone is somewhat justifiable. Removing the most salient aspect and leaving us with an uncertain future alters that balance, even though, yes, the improvements of course will be generally beneficial.

So, how good an option is Synthesis, really?

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
Halftime score: it's looking like it's really hard to come up with an explanation of Synthesis that would make it a permanent solution. In other words, eventually the same problems will arise again.

This is fine in itself. We can just declare that some nanotech is making people capable of self-improvement like machines and synthetics feel empathy (yeah, yeah, just go with it). That'll give us plenty of material to go forward with the epilogues.

However, this leaves me (us?) in a slightly awkward position: I have to re-evaluate the balance of the Synthesis option.

My impression has been that it's offered as a fundamental, permanent change to the situation. In that case Shepard's self-sacrifice and the morally quite grey area of making this decision for everyone is somewhat justifiable. Removing the most salient aspect and leaving us with an uncertain future alters that balance, even though, yes, the improvements of course will be generally beneficial.

So, how good an option is Synthesis, really?

I *really* don't understand why you need absolute guarantees for the scenario. It is impossible to guarantee without limiting people's inventiveness. What has been designed and inserted into a  scenario can be removed by an intelligence determined and inventive enough. Just as "functional immortality" won't prevent you from getting killed, so the Synthesis, as ANY OTHER POSSIBLE scenario you might imagine. can only remove the reasons for the conflict and the motvations for undoing it. If people are determined enough to re-insert those reasons and inventive enough to do it, anything can be circumvented. You'd have to remove people's freedom to make choices to make that impossible, or make people stupid. Not desirable.

Suppose the Synthesis is a permanent solution in the way that it creates a balance, removes incentives to undo the solution and makes it incredibly difficult to undo. There is no possible setup that can go beyond that and not end in a stagnant civilization artificially limited to stay stupid.

And don't start with "eventually the problem will arise again". That's using double standards. If you start using that argument, I'll answer with "organics will eventually become extinct if you choose Destroy" and "Shepard will eventually become insane and reinstate the cycle" in Control.

Demaning absolute guarantees from ANY scenario undermines it as a solution.

As for your question: the Synthesis is a good solution because it does resolve the problem at its source AND lets people take a step forward in evolution. *Perhaps* it resolves it permenantly. The further we can reduce the probability of it appearing again the better it becomes as a solution. But we cannot reduce the probability to zero.

And no, this does NOT change the balance. Not if you don't use double standards for the evaluation of the different options.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 06:41 .

[Bill Casey]

Synthesis is doing the Reaper's job for them, and trying to Control all of the Reapers a minute after you shot Anderson against his will is just plain stupid...

It's like your character learned absolutely nothing from his encounters with TIM and Saren...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 14 avril 2012 - 06:36 .

[Ieldra]

I'll repost what I posted in the other thread since it also applies here:

lillitheris wrote...
I still want to see if we can come up with anything even remotely feasible for permanence, but I think the consensus is that nanotech is a feasible non-permanent option?

I recommend looking through the tech levels of the Orion's Arm Universe Project. Changes made on a higher level will be semi-permanent, meaning impossible to remove until civilization reaches that higher tech level and gains the capability of building technology based on it. To start with, changes within the ME universe would probably have to be done on a subatomic level, and the nanotech will use exotic matter. Once civilization reaches the capability to understand and build on that level, the solution could be undone, but by that point it's also likely the old organic/synthetic problem will not be a problem anymore but supplanted by different ones.

Like the solutions to the problem, the problems themselves can never be permanent in a changing universe.

Edit:
The problem is that the solution needs to use "sufficiently advanced technology" in order to be semi-permanent. But as we do not understand such technology, we cannot design such a solution based on concepts we know. we can speculate about technologies beyond 21st century conceptualization, but we won't be able to estimate their capabilities.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 07:21 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I *really* don't understand why you need absolute guarantees for the scenario.

Absolute endemic guarantees, and only because they're – I think – implied. In other words, the solution should be self-sustaining; external forces are another matter.

It is impossible to guarantee without limiting people's inventiveness.

Right.

Suppose the Synthesis is a permanent solution in the way that it creates a balance, removes incentives to undo the solution and makes it incredibly difficult to undo. There is no possible setup that can go beyond that and not end in a stagnant civilization artificially limited to stay stupid.

“Incredibly difficult to undo” sounds a lot like restricting free will

And don't start with "eventually the problem will arise again". That's using double standards. If you start using that argument, I'll answer with "organics will eventually become extinct if you choose Destroy" and "Shepard will eventually become insane and reinstate the cycle" in Control.

Those two aren't really equivalent problems.

As for your question: the Synthesis is a good solution because it does resolve the problem at its source AND lets people take a step forward in evolution. *Perhaps* it resolves it permenantly. The further we can reduce the probability of it appearing again the better it becomes as a solution. But we cannot reduce the probability to zero.

And what about the two downsides? One is on the intimate axis (Shepard dies), and the other deals with the galactic civilization (you're making a decision that a lot of beings will probably be really unhappy about).

And no, this does NOT change the balance. Not if you don't use double standards for the evaluation of the different options.

Well, that would be good since I wouldn't have to change anything in that case!

Also,

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I *really* don't understand why you need absolute guarantees for the scenario.

Absolute endemic guarantees, and only because they're – I think – implied. In other words, the solution should be self-sustaining; external forces are another matter.

OK, then we can start with that nanotech panspermia scenario I proposed and work from there. The nanotech would preferably have exotic compontents beyond the understanding of galactic civilization for some time to come. 

Suppose the Synthesis is a permanent solution in the way that it creates a balance, removes incentives to undo the solution and makes it incredibly difficult to undo. There is no possible setup that can go beyond that and not end in a stagnant civilization artificially limited to stay stupid.

“Incredibly difficult to undo” sounds a lot like restricting free will

No. People are free to try - if they even understand what's at work in the first place. It's just unlikely they'll succeed until they have reached a better understanding of the universe. And chances are that the universe will look sufficiently different then that other problems with have eclipsed this one.

As for your question: the Synthesis is a good solution because it does resolve the problem at its source AND lets people take a step forward in evolution. *Perhaps* it resolves it permenantly. The further we can reduce the probability of it appearing again the better it becomes as a solution. But we cannot reduce the probability to zero.

And what about the two downsides? One is on the intimate axis (Shepard dies), and the other deals with the galactic civilization (you're making a decision that a lot of beings will probably be really unhappy about).

What we have to guarantee is that the changes can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone. Then what ethical problem remains is the player's to judge. Personally, I feel I need not account for the preferences of the minority opposed to this as a matter of prejudice. If 95% of all people see a solution as desirable and the solution either affects all or none, then the 5% do not have the right to prevent its implementation.

Also, every player has to judge for themselves if the results are worth Shepard's life.

Phew. I have to leave for now. But I've subsribed to this interesting thread and will come back.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[M.Erik.Sal]

I'll applaud you on the work you've obviously put into this.

It's honestly heartening to see people working so thoughtfully and discussing the issue.

I only wish I could bring myself to even consider this an adequate ending. This obviously isn't the place for me to voice my grievances with the entirety of the ending (I'll just say the the Crucible itself presents problems for me from the very start), so I'll just sit on the sidelines an say what a great job everyone in here is doing.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

OK, then we can start with that nanotech panspermia scenario I proposed and work from there. The nanotech would preferably have exotic compontents beyond the understanding of galactic civilization for some time to come. 

Sure. It might be more detail than is necessary, really. Just being able to establish some type of timeline for effect would mostly be sufficient.

No. People are free to try - if they even understand what's at work in the first place. It's just unlikely they'll succeed until they have reached a better understanding of the universe. And chances are that the universe will look sufficiently different then that other problems with have eclipsed this one.

Maybe, although that flies in the face of the problem that it's – supposedly – solving. Created will always etc.

What we have to guarantee is that the changes can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone. Then what ethical problem remains is the player's to judge. Personally, I feel I need not account for the preferences of the minority opposed to this as a matter of prejudice. If 95% of all people see a solution as desirable and the solution either affects all or none, then the 5% do not have the right to prevent its implementation.

Sure, and we can mostly probably just assume that by and large the changes will be good. Likely, though, that a higher percentage will dislike it.

However, it can't be evaluated in a vacuum. The question – and I phrased it poorly – isn't just whether Synthesis is good enough to justify the moral grey of the decision – it's whether it's good enough compared to the alternatives.

My concern is that Control is a much more attractive alternative if the Synthesis future is less certain.

[Ieldra]

Still here.....can't sleep

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

OK, then we can start with that nanotech panspermia scenario I proposed and work from there. The nanotech would preferably have exotic compontents beyond the understanding of galactic civilization for some time to come. 

Sure. It might be more detail than is necessary, really. Just being able to establish some type of timeline for effect would mostly be sufficient.

A timeline in an absolute sense, counting in millennia etcs, would mean we'd need to predict the development of galactic civilization. Do we want to do that? Especially after the shackles of development have just been thrown off? Twenty cycles are a million years. Is that long enough? Hundred? I don't have the faintest idea. We just have to posit "With an extremely high probability, long enough".  

No. People are free to try - if they even understand what's at work in the first place. It's just unlikely they'll succeed until they have reached a better understanding of the universe. And chances are that the universe will look sufficiently different then that other problems with have eclipsed this one.

Maybe, although that flies in the face of the problem that it's – supposedly – solving. Created will always etc.

"Always", as limited by the understanding of the Catalyst. It might be godlike compared to humans now, but how does the picture look in ten million years? Would the people who live then be even recognizeable as people by humans living today? Would their priorities be comprehensible, would their problems be describable in concepts that exist today? Eventually, galactic civilization will surpass the Catalyst in its understanding of the universe, and after that the Catalyst's "always" will be put to the question.

What we have to guarantee is that the changes can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone. Then what ethical problem remains is the player's to judge. Personally, I feel I need not account for the preferences of the minority opposed to this as a matter of prejudice. If 95% of all people see a solution as desirable and the solution either affects all or none, then the 5% do not have the right to prevent its implementation.

Sure, and we can mostly probably just assume that by and large the changes will be good. Likely, though, that a higher percentage will dislike it.

However, it can't be evaluated in a vacuum. The question – and I phrased it poorly – isn't just whether Synthesis is good enough to justify the moral grey of the decision – it's whether it's good enough compared to the alternatives.

My concern is that Control is a much more attractive alternative if the Synthesis future is less certain.

Did you account for the Reapers and the collective minds of the Reaperized species? I don't know which standards you use for "better", but making peace with them instead of enslaving them has a huge weight on the moral scale as I see it. From a pragmatic viewpoint, Control appears to be a less risky option since you keep the tools to keep "the problem" in check should it resurface. But the persistence problem also affects Control: if Ascended-Shepard gives the civilizations more freedom to develop, then it becomes more likely they will become too powerful to contain. And if he doesn't, then what was gained by Shepard's ascension? And evidence suggests *that* problem appears on a much shorter timescale than any subversion of the Synthesis.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

A timeline in an absolute sense, counting in millennia etcs, would mean we'd need to predict the development of galactic civilization. Do we want to do that? Especially after the shackles of development have just been thrown off? Twenty cycles are a million years. Is that long enough? Hundred? I don't have the faintest idea. We just have to posit "With an extremely high probability, long enough". 

Timeline relevant to the epilogues is sufficient. Changes in a day, week, month, year, decade, century…maybe even millennium if we now have a bunch of immortals (which, incidentally, makes it kinda hard to explain why Shepard is mythological).

"Always", as limited by the understanding of the Catalyst. It might be godlike compared to humans now, but how does the picture look in ten million years? Would the people who live then be even recognizeable as people by humans living today? Would their priorities be comprehensible, would their problems be describable in concepts that exist today? Eventually, galactic civilization will surpass the Catalyst in its understanding of the universe, and after that the Catalyst's "always" will be put to the question.

I'm only looking for…internal consistency? We always have to afford the possibility that there are external factors, of course Is the Catalyst really proposing an ultimate solution that isn't ultimate?

Did you account for the Reapers and the collective minds of the Reaperized species? I don't know which standards you use for "better", but making peace with them instead of enslaving them has a huge weight on the moral scale as I see it.

Maybe. I want to separate two concepts just in case, though: each reaper is an individual, not a collective in the sense of multiple persons. It may have some kind of racial memory and the benefit of multiple viewpoints etc., but those original beings stopped existing at the point they were ground to paste. The reapers, then, form a collective amongst themselves, yes (and we still don't know the true extent of the Catalyst's control).

From a pragmatic viewpoint, Control appears to be a less risky option since you keep the tools to keep "the problem" in check should it resurface. But the persistence problem also affects Control: if Ascended-Shepard gives the civilizations more freedom to develop, then it becomes more likely they will become too powerful to contain.

This is true, and was one of the balancing factors of Control.

And if he doesn't, then what was gained by Shepard's ascension? And evidence suggests *that* problem appears on a much shorter timescale than any subversion of the Synthesis.

Maybe, I'm not sure we really have any evidence. Essentially, I think we can amortize it and treat the problem as binary: either the problem is solved, or it isn't (and will resurface at some point).

[lillitheris]

And, mind, I'm not arguing so much because I disagree, but because I want the remaining argument to be solid. Defending a dissertation, if you will

[lillitheris]

M.Erik.Sal wrote...

I'll applaud you on the work you've obviously put into this.

It's honestly heartening to see people working so thoughtfully and discussing the issue.

I only wish I could bring myself to even consider this an adequate ending. This obviously isn't the place for me to voice my grievances with the entirety of the ending (I'll just say the the Crucible itself presents problems for me from the very start), so I'll just sit on the sidelines an say what a great job everyone in here is doing.

Thank you! Even any critique you can provide is useful.

…

Any other takers to argue whether the benefit tradeoff of Synthesis needs to be reassessed? I'm leaning toward no.

[Turkeysock]

Poor poor Stanely Kubrick.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
Any other takers to argue whether the benefit tradeoff of Synthesis needs to be reassessed? I'm leaning toward no.

There's the huge impact of the relay destruction. I don't know how best to integrate that. With the relays destroyed the big picture looks less appealing than in Control, on the other hand there are the individual benefits. I think if the relays are destroyed, there needs to be an element that makes the rebuilding of galactic civilization easier than in Destroy. With the increased capabilities of organic/synthetic hybrids and perhaps the establishment of that noosphere Siduri writes about in her epilogues, I find it plausible to assume that some new technology for long-range FTL will materialize soon after the Synthesis.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

There's the huge impact of the relay destruction. I don't know how best to integrate that. With the relays destroyed the big picture looks less appealing than in Control, on the other hand there are the individual benefits.

I find it rather odd that the relays are destroyed in Synthesis at all, anyway, but I suppose that's feasible.

I think if the relays are destroyed, there needs to be an element that makes the rebuilding of galactic civilization easier than in Destroy. With the increased capabilities of organic/synthetic hybrids and perhaps the establishment of that noosphere Siduri writes about in her epilogues, I find it plausible to assume that some new technology for long-range FTL will materialize soon after the Synthesis.

That's probably the case. I personally feel that it's a little bit of a cop-out to just come up with a new tech 'cause what's the point of the destruction then, really? Especially if we imagine from the point of a hypothetical game, it'd be more interesting to have no relays than just having the Totally Not Relays Technology That Works Exactly The Same


Edit: To maybe phrase better, I think that dramatically just being able to fix them works as well or better than coming up with some new magic tech (unless we're talking more about decades than years to get a new network established). Of course the end result is the same, so it doesn't really matter.

It'd really help if they gave an idea on their future plans. They obviously started with “ME3 will be the last ever”, but at times I've felt like they had ME4 (or equivalent, near future) planned and just forgot to tell everybody.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 avril 2012 - 11:01 .

[JasonShepard]

 Hm...
Okay, yes, I like it. Mostly.
My problem is that this has made me fully realise something that I've been worrying about for a little while now: too much 'expansion' or 'clarification' can be a bad thing.

Why?
Because the original version of the ending left enough blank space to fit in my own head canon of what Shepard would do once he took control of the Reapers. Your suggested ending... doesn't. Instead, it makes that decision for me.

Don't get me wrong: I like your write up and I agree with most of the points but my Shepard took control of the Reapers, used them to repair the Mass Relays, then left the galaxy to dismantle the Reaper Fleet and find some way to preserve the collected memories of all the cycles that had gone before. And then he died/switched-off/whatever. I imagine that controlling the Reapers entails a kind of mental strain, so by this point he was mentally exhausted.

So now I'm genuinely concerned that the Extended Ending could over-write my own head canon. Sure it wouldn't be too bad: I'd only need to ignore the aspects of it that contradicted my story. However, I'd much prefer it if the ending focused on the immediate events following the battle for Earth, allowing the rest of us to decide what direction the future took. ESPECIALLY what choices a Shepard controlling the Reapers made.

And that's my ten cents. 

[lillitheris]

JasonShepard wrote...

 Hm...
Okay, yes, I like it. Mostly.
My problem is that this has made me fully realise something that I've been worrying about for a little while now: too much 'expansion' or 'clarification' can be a bad thing.

Why?
Because the original version of the ending left enough blank space to fit in my own head canon of what Shepard would do once he took control of the Reapers. Your suggested ending... doesn't. Instead, it makes that decision for me.

That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, thank you for bringing it up. The better I can make it generic enough while still providing closure, the better…

And, that said, I'll argue my view. Not that yours is ‘incorrect’, but let's see if we can find some common ground.

I like your write up and I agree with most of the points but my Shepard took control of the Reapers, used them to repair the Mass Relays, then left the galaxy to dismantle the Reaper Fleet and find some way to preserve the collected memories of all the cycles that had gone before. And then he died/switched-off/whatever. I imagine that controlling the Reapers entails a kind of mental strain, so by this point he was mentally exhausted.

The way I went about it had a few factors affecting it, trying to factor realism (sorely lacking from the current ending). One is the Stargazer. I think “The Shepherd” needs to tie into that, and it illustrates a at some point prominent but now less active entity. The second is that there indeed had to be some kind of a consciousness transfer or copy – that is, there was an AI Shepard either real or simulated, not just a bunch of simple routines. The third is that AIs are A. They don't get exhausted

I think on the last point we're mostly on the same page, though: I used the concept of losing humanity, the persona fading into the background (motivated by the absence of the people (s)he cared for in life). Those can probably be expressed in a combined concept.

However, I'd much prefer it if the ending focused on the immediate events following the battle for Earth, allowing the rest of us to decide what direction the future took. ESPECIALLY what choices a Shepard controlling the Reapers made.

This is true, although of course also depends on what BW has planned for ME. The problem I have with a completely open-ended thing is the Stargazer. Unless we can somehow get rid of that part, I think there needs to be enough to explain how we get there, wherever and whenever it is.

I think that also an indication that Shepard can communicate with those left behind, on some level at least, is necessary. Whether (s)he does to any significant degree is another matter – assuming we don't get actual gameplay to decide.

The final factor is that I think a part of the tradeoff of Control is that Shepard can't just decide to take off. It's essentially a responsibility to stick around (somewhere), for all time, looking after the galaxy until (s)he is needed again. I won't say that's a hard requirement, but I think that would be a good balancing factor.

One thing left to resolve about Control is the Citadel, I guess. It doesn't seem particularly nice to just fly off with however many people there are still alive – we can guess at maybe at least a million or two even at the lowest.

But, yes, good points, thank you…let's see if we can clean that up a little.

[lillitheris]

^ Got some plans to vagueize the Control specification a bit more…anyone have input on that, or the Synthesis vs. Control balance?

[Spectre Impersonator]

I'd like it Clarification meant accepting the Indoc theory or something similar that invalidates star child's existence. I liked the Illusive man's scene though,so keep that.

[Ieldra]

Just saying I'm still here. I don't have a lot of time for forum activity today, but I may have some vague idea about balancing the effects of the relay destruction. I'm still weighing it though.

[lillitheris]

JohnShepard12 wrote...

I'd like it Clarification meant accepting the Indoc theory or something similar that invalidates star child's existence. I liked the Illusive man's scene though,so keep that.

Heh, well, we can hope, but I think the Indoc boat's pretty much sailed. I certainly won't object.

[lillitheris]

Expanded the Control section a little to make it more generic (probably not quite finished yet). Thanks for the input, JacobShepard.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 avril 2012 - 12:03 .

[lillitheris]

Reviewed and rephrased most paragraphs for clarity. Still need to add a few bits about Synthesis.

Any lingering issues with the current revision? JacobShepard mentioned the Control seemed a little too narrated, and I tried to open it up a little bit. What about the other options?

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 avril 2012 - 12:05 .