387 réponses à ce sujet

[survivor_686]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

survivor_686 wrote...

Anyone else think Starchild is lying at this point? He really tries to sell you on the control or synthesis choices...which basically leave the Reapers as a major player on the galactic scene.

Destroy means his kind will be removed from the galaxy.

Whenever you start to think/say "Am I the only one who - ", remind yourself that no, you are not. There are whole threads for such thoughts. Lots of people on here - most people, in my experience - think Starchild is lying through his synthetic teeth. 

Imagine if that was the entire point of the ending. Seeing through Starchild's layers of crap and deceit.

[The Angry One]

Zolt51 wrote...

It's supposed to be one ending. Not necessarily a good one. It is one hell of a decision to make. Then again, the chance probably won't ever come again either.

If you don't like it, don't choose it. Problem solved.

It's presented as the best ending, the one you need the most EMS for bar the stupid Shepard breathing easter egg.
It's flat out said by spacebaby to be the best solution and while he's a lying psychopath, it seems that he wasn't intended to be a lying psychopath and only comes across that way to due bad writing, bad characterisation and hilariously bad setup.

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

[DJBare]

KingZayd wrote...

survivor_686 wrote...

Lemme check what happens when we forcibly convert an organic being to have synthetic components...Husks!

Also, Synthetics don't have DNA. Since we're now chock full of synthetic components, it would appear we can be hacked. Anyone else think the Quarians become our new overlords in the synthesis ending?

the geth are better hackers i believe.. or EDI. probably the geth.

As funny as that sounds, many seem to forget the phrase "ALL synthetic and organic life will be merged" with emphasis on "ALL"; reapers are both synthetic and organic, essentially synthesis is the reapers ultimate goal, I was not kidding when I said "assuming direct control"

[zarnk567]

The Angry One wrote...

Zolt51 wrote...

It's supposed to be one ending. Not necessarily a good one. It is one hell of a decision to make. Then again, the chance probably won't ever come again either.

If you don't like it, don't choose it. Problem solved.

It's presented as the best ending, the one you need the most EMS for bar the stupid Shepard breathing easter egg.
It's flat out said by spacebaby to be the best solution and while he's a lying psychopath, it seems that he wasn't intended to be a lying psychopath and only comes across that way to due bad writing, bad characterisation and hilariously bad setup.

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Yup, its the best ending according to Bioware...... which boggles the mind even more.

Modifié par zarnk567, 18 avril 2012 - 01:11 .

[lillitheris]

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

[KingZayd]

lillitheris wrote...

survivor_686 wrote...

Anyone else think Starchild is lying at this point? He really tries to sell you on the control or synthesis choices...which basically leave the Reapers as a major player on the galactic scene.

Destroy means his kind will be removed from the galaxy.

No, I don't think it's intended to be portrayed as lying, because Shepard isn't given a choice to refuse. The developers clearly intended these to be real, valid options (or they wrote Indoctrination after all).

Also, if it's lying, why do you think the Destroy option would work as advertised?

Synthesis is pretty much the worst option I can think of, but it's the option we're given, that's what you have to go by. Going to point at the ending thread in my signature again.

He doesn't tell you how to destroy at all.. unless those images you see are beamed into your head, which adds a couple more trust issues, and explanations for what you see at the end. What he says about destroy is basically that he knows you've thought about, and basically that it isn't a solution..

Added to the fact that it's probed your mind to select the image of the dead child that's been haunting your dreams. It's exploting your emotional vulnerabilities. Think about how different people would have chosen had it appeared as StarSovereign.. it's a manipulation.

Plus all the plotholes if you consider the catalyst to be honest.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Yes, it does sound pretty horrific - but that wasn't why I didn't like the synthesis option. In addition to being horrific, it is also a completely implausible ending.

What MECHANISM could plausibly cause the instantaneous "rewriting of DNA" and transformation of organics into half synthetics, and synthetics into half organics? For decent science fiction, you need at least some conceivable plausible mechanism for events to work.

The synthesis ending was pure magic! It belongs to a fantasy game, and is not something that could possibly happen in a scifi universe. This is what I find aggravating about the synthesis ending - it stretches credulity far, far beyond what the suspension of disbelief can be reasonably expected to cover.

It is a violation of the implicit internal rules of the mass effect universe, rules that the player has been given reason to expect throughout the series. They might as well have added "and the moon turned into cheese" to the ending, because it was already that level of absurd.

[KingZayd]

DJBare wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

survivor_686 wrote...

Lemme check what happens when we forcibly convert an organic being to have synthetic components...Husks!

Also, Synthetics don't have DNA. Since we're now chock full of synthetic components, it would appear we can be hacked. Anyone else think the Quarians become our new overlords in the synthesis ending?

the geth are better hackers i believe.. or EDI. probably the geth.

As funny as that sounds, many seem to forget the phrase "ALL synthetic and organic life will be merged" with emphasis on "ALL"; reapers are both synthetic and organic, essentially synthesis is the reapers ultimate goal, I was not kidding when I said "assuming direct control"

actually i forgot about the reapers. It's the reapers who would win. They've displayed their hacking abilities before. Saren had implants within his body, which Sovereign used to assume direct control. So now, we've basically made all non-reaper life into husks

Modifié par KingZayd, 18 avril 2012 - 01:13 .

[The Angry One]

lillitheris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

[lillitheris]

KingZayd wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

survivor_686 wrote...

Anyone else think Starchild is lying at this point? He really tries to sell you on the control or synthesis choices...which basically leave the Reapers as a major player on the galactic scene.

Destroy means his kind will be removed from the galaxy.

No, I don't think it's intended to be portrayed as lying, because Shepard isn't given a choice to refuse. The developers clearly intended these to be real, valid options (or they wrote Indoctrination after all).

Also, if it's lying, why do you think the Destroy option would work as advertised?

Synthesis is pretty much the worst option I can think of, but it's the option we're given, that's what you have to go by. Going to point at the ending thread in my signature again.

He doesn't tell you how to destroy at all.. unless those images you see are beamed into your head, which adds a couple more trust issues, and explanations for what you see at the end. What he says about destroy is basically that he knows you've thought about, and basically that it isn't a solution..

Quick transcript: What you came here to do. You want to destroy us. … You can wipe out all synthetic life. … Reapers will be destroyed? Yes.

So, yeah, it does.

Added to the fact that it's probed your mind to select the image of the dead child that's been haunting your dreams. It's exploting your emotional vulnerabilities. Think about how different people would have chosen had it appeared as StarSovereign.. it's a manipulation.

Plus all the plotholes if you consider the catalyst to be honest.

You have to separate the (very real) plot holes from the intent. You also have to separate the premises from the arguments (valid, not sound, argument).

[KingZayd]

The Angry One wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

do they? it seems to me that due to the fact he's obviously wrong, they've portayed the Starchild as... wrong.

How does destroy follow the  philosophy? it doesn't follow the one it gives us anyway.

[DJBare]

The Angry One wrote...

It's presented as the best ending, the one you need the most EMS for bar the stupid Shepard breathing easter egg.
It's flat out said by spacebaby to be the best solution and while he's a lying psychopath, it seems that he wasn't intended to be a lying psychopath and only comes across that way to due bad writing, bad characterisation and hilariously bad setup.

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

I see it another way, high EMS means you are a greater threat to the reapers, the starbrat created the synthesis option not the crucible(though he may have used the crucibles additional functions), if chosen he wins two things, the war and the achievement of their ultimate goal, merging.

[KingZayd]

The Angry One wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

The Starchild is obviously wrong. Interpretation: Bioware presented the Starchild as wrong.

How does destroy follow the Starchild's philosophy? It doesn't.. or  at least not the one that the Starchild gives us. It tells you it won't work.

[lillitheris]

The Angry One wrote...

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Whether it's wrong or not is irrelevant. Shepard, for some reason, is supposed to believe that these are the only possible options.

- We're not explained why, that does need to be rectified.
- There should also be an option to decline.

But, beyond that, the scene is written so that Shepard does believe that these options are real, and do what it says they do. Now, here is the important part:

The Catalyst has a specific order of preference for these three solutions. That order does not need to correspond to Shepard's order.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

Correct.

[The Angry One]

KingZayd wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

do they? it seems to me that due to the fact he's obviously wrong, they've portayed the Starchild as... wrong.

Due to hilariously bad writing. But if BioWare wanted to be wrong, why do they deny Shepard the ability to point out it's wrong?

How does destroy follow the  philosophy? it doesn't follow the one it gives us anyway.

Synthetics will always kill organics, therefore destroy ALL synthetics to "buy time" because the "current solution" no longer works (for arbitrary reasons).
It is the choice the Catalyst is least fond of, but it remains part of it's philosophy. Remember, the Crucible doesn't change that. It merely changes it's methods.

[Zolt51]

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

You again Angry One. Nope. It's the most difficult to achieve (although less so than having Shep survive the "destruction" ending.) That does not imply it's the best one in any way, these are two very different things.

It is the only ending that actually addresses the synthetic vs organics issue, so from the Catalyst's point of view it's the "best" but then again, people can rightly question the catalyst's logic.

[Roxy Lalonde]

KingZayd wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

do they? it seems to me that due to the fact he's obviously wrong, they've portayed the Starchild as... wrong.

How does destroy follow the  philosophy? it doesn't follow the one it gives us anyway.

Starchild is only proved to the player as being wrong after you've made your choice. In Destroy, you can live, unlike what he insinuated. You also die in Control while he hinted that you wouldn't.
Destroy's existence follows the philosophy in that there's still a degree of determinism to it - he's decided that you can have it as an option.

Modifié par Roxy Lalonde, 18 avril 2012 - 01:25 .

[lillitheris]

KingZayd wrote...
The Starchild is obviously wrong. Interpretation: Bioware presented the Starchild as wrong.

First, whether it's objectively correct or not is irrelevant.

Secondly, I disagree. There are two options for why we have no option to decline in the end:

1. BW wrote the Catalyst as being truthful about the options (regardless of whether they're good/bad/right/wrong) and just didn't bother actually showing that part in the game because…well, we know how badly done the ending was. Or maybe they intended that Destroy was implicitly the decline option. Either way, it's terrible writing.

2. BW wrote the Catalyst as lying, the scene likely being Indoctrination. This requires that they'd release an ending DLC. I don't know about you, but I think it's plenty obvious this wasn't planned.

So, Occam's Razor says that 1. is the likely reason.

How does destroy follow the Starchild's philosophy? It doesn't.. or  at least not the one that the Starchild gives us. It tells you it won't work.

It doesn't follow its philosophy. That's why it presents it as the worst option.

[Zolt51]

The Angry One wrote...

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Nope, they absolutely don't do that. That is you misinterpreting things gleefuly. He says he controls the reapers. That pretty clearly says he's the bad guy in here no?

Modifié par Zolt51, 18 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[nitefyre410]

KingZayd wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

do they? it seems to me that due to the fact he's obviously wrong, they've portayed the Starchild as... wrong.

How does destroy follow the  philosophy? it doesn't follow the one it gives us anyway.

 

Destory falls into the same circle of the Organics and Synthetics destroying each other  - so destroying  organics destorying all synthetics is equal to synthetics  destorying all organics. 

Synthesis misses the point entirely because its not a solution at all- because the core problem  has nothing to with DNA or make up.  It has to with how what is seen a life and  what is not.  That  ending is also a complete misrepresentation of the  Thesis, Ant-thesis, Synthessis  way of thining because you can achrive Synthesis when you bring the Quarians and the Geth together on Rannoch.   

Really the only true way to defeat that Catalyst was not accept any of his opitions but  Bioware did not see it that way... 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 18 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[Skirlasvoud]

I think how it's funny that nobody had the chance to agree to Sheppard's decision.


He perpetrates a galaxy wide rape: An invasive procedure on everyone's body, without their prior concent.

"Shepard has become a legend..."

Modifié par Skirlasvoud, 18 avril 2012 - 01:27 .

[ElSuperGecko]

I've posted my thoughts on Synthesis several times now, and I cannot in any way reconcile it as being a "good" option.

Synthesis is the Catalyst's proposed "new solution" to it's own logical conclusion of a technological singularity. It's previous solution was the systematic and repeated extermination of all sufficiently advanced and evolved organic life. That's abhorrent. We've spent three games witnessing just how abhorrent. The Catalyst's new solution - re-writing and re-engineering the building blocks of all organic and synthetic life - is no less abhorrent, because it would be done according to what the Catalyst itself determines to be correct.

The Catalyst offers no apologies for the cycle of extinction, it shows no remorse for it's actions - in fact,
it defends it's decision to annihilate civilisation after civilisation, to obliterate billions of innocent lives. So - basically, choose Synthesis and we'd be letting a machine with no sympathy, no compassion, no trace of oganic emotion and an established history of mass-murder tamper with organic life as it sees fit.

The Catalyst gives us less than a minute's worth of exposition about Synthesis. It offers no explanations, gives us no guarantees, doesn't tell us how it will work, what the effects will be, and gives us no time to consider the implications. But one minute of conversation is all it apparently takes to turn Shepard into an interstellar Dr. Frankenstein.

[KingZayd]

The Angry One wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Tl;dr it was clearly intended by BioWare to be the best ending.

Maybe, we don't know. What we do know is that the Catalyst thinks it's the best ending.

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Remember, even destroy follows the Catalyst's philosophy, and is only an option because the Catalyst has decided it can be.

do they? it seems to me that due to the fact he's obviously wrong, they've portayed the Starchild as... wrong.

Due to hilariously bad writing. But if BioWare wanted to be wrong, why do they deny Shepard the ability to point out it's wrong?

How does destroy follow the  philosophy? it doesn't follow the one it gives us anyway.

Synthetics will always kill organics, therefore destroy ALL synthetics to "buy time" because the "current solution" no longer works (for arbitrary reasons).
It is the choice the Catalyst is least fond of, but it remains part of it's philosophy. Remember, the Crucible doesn't change that. It merely changes it's methods.

Because Shepard's indoctrinated

As for destroy, the geth are collateral damage in that option (according to what the Starchild says),  and are presented as such. It's main focus is destroying the Reapers which is not part of the Starchild's position.

[lillitheris]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Starchild is only proved to the player as being wrong after you've made your choice. In Destroy, you can live, unlike what he insinuated.

It didn't. It just said that all synthetics will be gone, and invited Shepard to think whether life without them was possible. It is possible that it exaggerated, or misestimated.

My signature thread has much more info, but I've chosen to go with the argument that Destroy targets reaper code signatures (also hinted at by developers).

You also die in Control while he hinted that you wouldn't.

Not necessarily.  I interpreted the statement as Shepard becoming an AI of some kind. (Again, more info in sig.)

Destroy's existence follows the philosophy in that there's still a degree of determinism to it - he's decided that you can have it as an option.

Nondeterminism?

[The Angry One]

Synthesis is presented as the "best" ending in gameplay and narrative terms.

In gameplay terms, it is the one you need the most EMS for, therefore the one you must spend the most time in the game working for. It is the "reward".

In narrative terms. The Catalyst presents destroy as the first and most undesirable.
It then presents control as the "middle ground".
Lastly it presents synthesis as the "best solution."

Yes, this is the Catalyst's point of view. But it's a point of view you can't say is incorrect.

Zolt51 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

And BioWare presents the Catalyst as 100% right.
Never mind that he's 500% wrong, BioWare wants him to be right, because Shepard can't contradict him. Ever.

Nope, they absolutely don't do that. That is you misinterpreting things gleefuly. He says he controls the reapers. That pretty clearly says he's the bad guy in here no?

Then why can't we tell the bad guy he's wrong? Hm?
Again, this is a case of bad writing.