387 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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

It isn't, but that's also irrelevant It's the option we get.

[Gulaman]

Synthesis is utterly stupid and illogical. I don't for the life of me see how this is the "good" option. For me it is the absolute worst. I'd happily destroy all synthetics or control the reapers than turn every race in the galaxy a mish-mash of organic and synthetic. That to me is a nightmare scenario.

[KingZayd]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

Yes, I can. Because it comes from the same source that said "The citadel is a part of me" and also "I control the reapers"

well then: 
Why does the Catalyst (of whom the Citadel is part of) need a reaper that it controls to stay behind and tell  it when the Harvest is ready [the organic races are on the Citadel (part of the Catalyst)], so that it can send a signal to the Keepers so that they can open the Citadel relay (part of the Catalyst)? How do the Protheans sneak onto the Citadel (part of the Catalyst) and change it without alerting the Catalyst? When the Citadel receives Sovereign's signal, and the keepers aren't activated, why doesn't it let Sovereign know what's going on? Why does Sovereign have to spend thousands of years figuring out by himself, and eventually using Saren to discover the truth. Why does the Citadel (part of the catalyst) have a master control console that organics can use? Why hasn't the Catalyst made the other reapers it controls who can enter the Milky Way using FTL drives, do so in all that time? 

Modifié par KingZayd, 18 avril 2012 - 01:35 .

[Kaidan Fan]

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.

I've been saying this since I saw the end.  Everything out of that little buggers mouth is a big, fat lie.  I destroyed them which had been my goal for all 3 games up until that point.  His spewing wasn't about to deter me.

Edit:  Also, I couldn't force synthesis on everyone.  I thought it was an awful choice.  I felt like synthesis and control were reapers win mode.

Modifié par Kaidan Fan, 18 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[CrazyRah]

I've always thought of Synthesis as an abomination and just by reading this thread i've seen so many more reasons to keep thinking that it is one. So many horrific things that will/can happen by picking that decision

[billida]

synthesis is i think the dumbest idea in the whole game. Earlier, Tali talks about symbiosis (geth uploading themselves in quarian suits) and it sounded much much more interesting, it means active cooperation, without anyone loosing his own identity.

[CroGamer002]

How is this the best ending, again?

[lillitheris]

The Angry One wrote...

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".

It's also by far the most complex (realistically, it's actually impossible, but let's ignore that). Therefore the highest EMS is needed to ensure that 1. the Crucible is constructed as well as possible and 2. that it's kept out of harm's way, because even tiny hits could cause problems.

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.

No. You're conflating two things here. The Catalyst does in fact have this preference. And I've already noted that the player should be able to decline.

However, working with those options does not mean that Shepard thinks that they're ‘right’. It means that Shepard thinks they're the only options.

(Plus decline, but that's a problem of implementation – poorly written sequence – not intent. Imagine that you have that fourth option, and you see the scenario is exactly the same.)

[The Angry One]

Sigh. Of course it's incorrect. But you [Shepard] can't ever point this out.
At best Shepard makes a meek assertion that killing organics is wrong then shuts up about it.

When Saren pontificated about synthesis, Shepard told him he was wrong.
When TIM ranted about control, Shepard told him he was wrong.
The Catalyst? Nothing.

[KingZayd]

Kaidan Fan 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.

I've been saying this since I saw the end.  Everything out of that little buggers mouth is a big, fat lie.  I destroyed them which had been my goal for all 3 games up until that point.  His spewing wasn't about to deter me.

and there's no reason to pick the image of the child other than to exploit your emotional vulnerabilities.  the whole thing stinks of manipulation.

[KingZayd]

The Angry One wrote...

Sigh. Of course it's incorrect. But you [Shepard] can't ever point this out.
At best Shepard makes a meek assertion that killing organics is wrong then shuts up about it.

When Saren pontificated about synthesis, Shepard told him he was wrong.
When TIM ranted about control, Shepard told him he was wrong.
The Catalyst? Nothing.

indoctrination.

[Bigdoser]

Mesina2 wrote...

How is this the best ending, again?

I dunno bioware must think its artsy so it must be good right? The only way I could put up a middle finger to the catalyst is to pick destory. 

Modifié par Bigdoser, 18 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Mesina2 wrote...

How is this the best ending, again?

Because Bioware wrote a  crappy ending.

[lillitheris]

I have to say here as an aside that I'm absolutely flabbergasted that people can't make a distinction between:

- Something that the Catalyst thinks is the best option; and
- Something that is actually, objectively, the best option.

[die-yng]

Preach three games long about the power of diversity and then present turning everyone into a generic mishmash as the best solution.

That's BW's way of thinking? Sorry, not for me, I'd rather kill all Geths and Edi than destroy the uniqueness of each race.

[SP2219]

I agree with the thread.  I personally find the idea of synthesis disgusting.

What it basically is saying is that in order for people to stop killing each other they have to become biologically identical.  I find that repulsive.  We have to honour each other despite our differences.  That was the main theme of Mass Effect, and it's one of the sole ideals we as humans are supposed to live by.

Maybe that wasn't the message Bioware was trying to communicate, but that is exactly my point.  The ending either communicates the wrong message or it fails to communicate the right one.  Either way the entire Catalyst scene must be taken out or altered in such a way that we can actively say no to the Catalyst.  We must be able to tell the Catalyst that we find his arguments disgusting, because they are.  Instead we are forced to watch Shepard accept these arguments as if they were so obviously correct all along.  How is that acceptable?  I was so angry when this happened I wanted to scream.

I chose the destroy option, but that didn't make me feel any better.  The fact that Bioware even saw fit to suggest the synthesis outcome to me left me feeling sick, to be completely honest.

I think I'm fine with it being an option, but if they were promoting it as the "good" ending they were wrong to do so, for the reasons I've just described.  It encourages people to be racist.  A world where everyone is biologically the same was something Hitler dreamed of, and we all know how that turned out.

You might argue I'm looking into it too much, but again, that is exactly my point.  If we are supposed to poke deeper into the meaning of each ending, like Casey Hudson says we should, then the message I take away from the synthesis ending is that "diversity is bad."

And that could be interpreted as being racist.  This is something the entire Mass Effect trilogy has always tried to discourage, at almost every turn, and that was one of the reasons why I loved it.  I was given the power to stand up to racists and tell them they were wrong.  And if they didn't budge, I got to shoot them.  I got to foster an intimate relationship with an alien.  That communicated a message that "diversity is good; racism is wrong." That was a very good thing.

Now I'm not so sure.  The endings and the ideas put forward by the Catalyst left me reeling with disgust, and now Bioware is defending those endings.  Do they realise what they're doing when they say that?  Do they truly believe in the messages those endings convey?  I cannot believe they do.  I think they have made a huge mistake.  Throwing extra cut scenes onto those endings is not going to solve the problem.  The endings will still communicate all the wrong messages regardless.  The only way this can be solved is to rewrite the ending from the ground up, one that is consistent with the messages put forward by the rest of the franchise.

Bioware, you MUST communicate these messages in the ending DLC:

Racism is wrong

Diversity is good

Freedom and self determinism are worth dying for

Because right now, you are failing to communicate those messages.  In fact you are arguably communicating the opposite of those messages.  That is extremely worrying.  No wonder people are so angry.  They have every right to be.

[nitefyre410]

Lizardviking wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

How is this the best ending, again?

Because Bioware wrote a  crappy ending.

 

^ this 

[The Angry One]

lillitheris wrote...

No. You're conflating two things here. The Catalyst does in fact have this preference. And I've already noted that the player should be able to decline.

However, working with those options does not mean that Shepard thinks that they're ‘right’. It means that Shepard thinks they're the only options.

(Plus decline, but that's a problem of implementation – poorly written sequence – not intent. Imagine that you have that fourth option, and you see the scenario is exactly the same.)

I'm not even talking about what Shepard thinks at this point, I'm speaking of BioWare's intentions.
To me it's clear that BioWare, or rather Mac Walters, intended the Catalyst to be right and for synthesis to be the best option.
It's presented as the best solution to the galaxy's major problem (setting aside that this only became the galaxy's major problem literally 1 minute ago), it WILL work. It WILL end the cycle. It IS the best solution. It even gets it's own cutscene variant at the end, Joker and EDI will be together as one species. HOORAY.

Modifié par The Angry One, 18 avril 2012 - 01:40 .

[Zolt51]

For the billionth time.
THERE.
IS.
NO.
"GOOD".
OPTION.

Else what would be the point of giving you a choice if one was clearly and objectively preferable to all the others?

[The Angry One]

lillitheris wrote...

I have to say here as an aside that I'm absolutely flabbergasted that people can't make a distinction between:

- Something that the Catalyst thinks is the best option; and
- Something that is actually, objectively, the best option.

The problem is that Mac Walters presented the Catalyst as objectively right.

[lillitheris]

The Angry One wrote...

Sigh. Of course it's incorrect. But you [Shepard] can't ever point this out.
At best Shepard makes a meek assertion that killing organics is wrong then shuts up about it.

You should have the option to decline. So, you have these three:

1. Synthesis
2. Control
3. Destroy
4. Decline

Having the option to decline doesn't change the reality of the situation (as written). It – while an absolutely necessary addition – doesn't really do anything. Most likely you'd just end up wandering around the place or going for the Destroy after all.

My point here is that the ability to decline doesn't affect the other three at all. Therefore, while we stipulate that the player should have that option, we can examine the other three just as if it did exist.

[The Angry One]

I'm arguing BioWare's intent here. Since they didn't give us the option to decline, then clearly they thought following the Catalyst's will was the only possible and right outcome.
We can't argue as if there was a choice, because there isn't, and given what they said about the EC there never will be.

Modifié par The Angry One, 18 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[Shaigunjoe]

I'm not sure why so many people dislike synthesis. It seems to me that the framework of organic DNA is changed to make some sort of 'affinity gene' (Thats a reference to the Nights Dawn Trilogy to help people get my meaning).

The synthetic/organic merging would permit people to alter there own genome (whether by altering your own genes in real time, or only being able to do it to your offspring).

If people are so up in arms about saren being wrong, maybe they should start protesting the actual research in real life that is trying to make this sort of thing happen.

[lillitheris]

The Angry One wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I have to say here as an aside that I'm absolutely flabbergasted that people can't make a distinction between:

- Something that the Catalyst thinks is the best option; and
- Something that is actually, objectively, the best option.

The problem is that Mac Walters presented the Catalyst as objectively right.

No, not right as in morally correct. It's presented to be right in that these are the only three options that Shepard can choose from (plus decline). The Crucible doesn't do anything else.

You're given three options and, for some reason, Shepard is convinced that these truly are the only ones. What the Catalyst thinks about their relative merits becomes irrelevant at this point. It believes Synthesis is the best option? OK.

This is where the moral choice, and the  ‘right’ comes to play. Shepard probably doesn't agree about Synthesis, and therefore won't choose it. Or does, that's up to Shepard.

You have three more or less undesirable choices, but those are the ones you get.

Modifié par lillitheris, 18 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[Bigdoser]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I'm not sure why so many people dislike synthesis. It seems to me that the framework of organic DNA is changed to make some sort of 'affinity gene' (Thats a reference to the Nights Dawn Trilogy to help people get my meaning).

The synthetic/organic merging would permit people to alter there own genome (whether by altering your own genes in real time, or only being able to do it to your offspring).

If people are so up in arms about saren being wrong, maybe they should start protesting the actual research in real life that is trying to make this sort of thing happen.

Well one of the main problems with synthesis is that you are changing everyone on a genetic level without their consent. Plus it eliminates diversity of species and through out the trilogy in my opinion its because of diversity that the galaxy is united in facing the reapers. 

Oh and the reapers are still around and since they are pretty much hybrids I doubt their personalities changed all that much. 

Modifié par Bigdoser, 18 avril 2012 - 01:49 .