897 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

nitefyre410 wrote...
Really whats most agrivating is that all the solutions  presented  are The Catalyst Solutions and  known of them are  Shepards or ours.  Anyone of three you pick - your  agreeing his  terrible flawed prepective.   Let someone wrote in a head canon ending...there was already an order a natural order.. . that  the Reapers disrupt. Their solution is not a soluiton because  none  learn anything.. no one learns, adapts and over comes.

To hell with that -  I would   rather my Shepard  go down fighting... let  his and her broken bones be the road that paves  the way for the next cycle to bring this maddness to an end.  It would have had more meaning than the drivel we got as an ending. 

At least with "Destroy" and "Control" you have some form of context.  Anderson, Hackett and all of your squad mates and allies talk about finding a way to destroy the Reapers and put an end to the cycle of extinction once and for all on multiple occasions.  The Illusive Man - barely five minutes prior to your (one-way) conversation with the Catalyst advocates Control, and also emphasises it's potential risks and dangers.

But Synthesis comes out of the blue, and straight from the mouth of the enemy.  I can absolutely guarantee that no player n their first playthrough and spoiler-free, as dodged Harbinger's blasts racing towards the conduit, was thinking "YAY!  I'm gonna make it to the Crucible, and find a way to fuse all organics and synthetics at a base level to prevent a potential future technological singularity!" 

Some, particularly those with a full-on renegade viewpoint might even have been thinking about Control.  The vast majority would have been thinking "I'm gonna blow this metallic
cuttlefish to kingdom come, whatever the cost!"  But less than a minute's worth of one-sided, sketchy conversation with a being that ADMITS being responsible for the Reapers in the first place apparently changes all that.  That's a nice brainwashing job done by Bioware.

But you're right - the biggest beef with the ending is not the three choices, but the lack of input the player has.  Shepard blindly accepts everything that's suggested, doesn't argue, doesn't object, doesn't try to force the issue, and doesn't fight back.  Shepard takes everything the Catalyst says at face value, no questions asked.  That's totally out of character, totally jarring, and absolutely ridiculous.

Where are the Paragon/Renegade interrupts?  Where is the option to ignore the Catalyst?  Where is the option to reject it's disingenuous assertations and cold, uncaring, ancient god-machine like logic completely?

[nicethugbert]

(can't quote on my smart phone)

Gill Kaiser, what does necessity have to do with synthesis? And, isn't everybody with cybernetic implants already on their way to synthesis if not there already? Does synthesis destroy free will? Were not the reapers already synthesizing the galaxy but at the expense of free will?

[Legion is Skynet]

Star Child says Synthesis is the "final" evolution of life, demonstrating that Star Child has a fundamental misunderstanding of basic biology.

Star Child says Shepard dies if he picks Destroy. We know that isn't necessarily true.

Even though he had countless "cycles" to think it over, process new data, and develop some kind of alternative, Star Child still believed that murdering everyone every 50,000 years was the optimal solution for his problem.

One of Star Child's proposed "new solutions" is to solve precisely nothing, but rather completely pass the buck and let some stranger gain absolute control over his creation.

Star Child isn't very smart for a billion-year-old AI.

[Ieldra]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Shaftell wrote...

Playing Mass Effect, I personally established that a KEY element thematically to the franchise was cultural diversity and our acceptance of them... i.e. Geth vs. Quarian and Krogan vs. Salarian... How do we cope with one another? The Synthesis ending is not only bad, but thematically appalling and contradictory.

This is where I think the execution of the ending does not match the intent of the ending. I truly believe that BioWare intended for "Synthesis" to mean different cultures/races putting their differences aside, and uniting with one another in love and harmony.  I do not believe they intended for "Synthesis" to be the literal homogonizing of all people into a single race, but rather a figurative joining together & dropping the hate, racism, putting an end to war, etc.

The problem is, this isn't effectively communicated in the ending, so it is entirely reasonable to assume the "anti-diversity" interpretation.

*sigh* Synthesis doesn't homogenize anything. All life on Earth is based on DNA - is all life on Earth the same?

But yes, they dropped the ball when they went from "We synthethics will become more like you, and organics will become more like us" (the leaked script, November 2011) to "a new DNA" and "the final evolution of life". That's the really annoying part - they had a reasonably good problem (the singularity) and a vague but plausible phrasing for the Synthesis ending. And then they went and changed it into something completely nonsensical.

It's incomprehensible.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I was a bit slower in my hatred of how ME3 ended. Maybe I'm not as smart as some or I was dazzled by the pretty lights, who knows? In any case, topics like this have helped me to grasp what I was feeling in having to choose a color. I didn't really like any choice deep down. TIM wanted the blue, I hated that SOB with a passion. Starbrat wanted me to pick green. Um, you're the leader of the Reapers, STFU. Anderson & Hackett were the only ones who didn't think Shepard delusional over his warnings of the Reapers and Anderson was every bit the mentor/friend/father to Shepard. He wanted me to kill those things. I did. If by some miracle, the EC is awesome and makes the ending not suck, I will continue to make that same choice. The Reapers can go to hell.

Exactly.  The mission has been to destroy the Reapers from the very beginning.  That's Shepard's primary objective throughout the series.  At the last minute, there would need to be a damn good argument made as to why Shepard should not proceed as planned.  Shephard hears no such argument.  Not even a remotely convincing one.  Destroy is a no-brainer.

[Kunari801]

Ode to ME3 Ending (as sung to "Here You Come Again")

Here you come again
Just when I'm about to get myself together
You waltz in from my dreams, just like you've done before
And wreck my heart upon your three endings

Here you come again
Just when I'm about to make it work without you
You look into my eyes and lie those Reaper lies
And pretty soon I'm wondering how I can win without you

All you gotta do is appear beside me
And there go all my defenses
Just leave it up you and in a little while
You're messing with my mind and indoctrinating my senses

Here you come again
Looking better than a Reaper has the right to
And shaking me up so, that all I really know
is here you come again and here I go

Here you come again
And here I go...

[Cobra's_back]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I was a bit slower in my hatred of how ME3 ended. Maybe I'm not as smart as some or I was dazzled by the pretty lights, who knows? In any case, topics like this have helped me to grasp what I was feeling in having to choose a color. I didn't really like any choice deep down. TIM wanted the blue, I hated that SOB with a passion. Starbrat wanted me to pick green. Um, you're the leader of the Reapers, STFU. Anderson & Hackett were the only ones who didn't think Shepard delusional over his warnings of the Reapers and Anderson was every bit the mentor/friend/father to Shepard. He wanted me to kill those things. I did. If by some miracle, the EC is awesome and makes the ending not suck, I will continue to make that same choice. The Reapers can go to hell.

Exactly.  The mission has been to destroy the Reapers from the very beginning.  That's Shepard's primary objective throughout the series.  At the last minute, there would need to be a damn good argument made as to why Shepard should not proceed as planned.  Shephard hears no such argument.  Not even a remotely convincing one.  Destroy is a no-brainer.

I agree. It would certainly make getting all those “war Asset” less tedious and more rewarding if I could BLAST the reapers to hell.

[Persephone]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

You're all wrong because... ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!

Seriously, that is never going away Bioware.

An Artist has responsibility to tell the truth.

Sorry but...NO.

Ever read anything by Shakespeare? He "lied" a whole lot about ACTUAL (Not fictional) people in his plays.

As did Friedrich von Schiller in his celebrated plays that were later adapted into world famous operas.

They turned raving, murdering nutcases (The Infante Don Carlos of Spain) into angelic heroes (Schiller) and committed character assassination ala Richard III. (Shakespeare)

I guess they had no artistic integrity....

Do the people who toss this around like an insult actually know what it means or are they just participating in another meme again?

[Ieldra]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
Exactly.  The mission has been to destroy the Reapers from the very beginning.  That's Shepard's primary objective throughout the series.  At the last minute, there would need to be a damn good argument made as to why Shepard should not proceed as planned.  Shephard hears no such argument.  Not even a remotely convincing one.  Destroy is a no-brainer.

No, destroying the Reapers has NOT been Shepard's goal from the beginning. It's been YOUR Shepard's goal. My Shepard's goal has been to stop the harvesting and meanwhile learn everything possible about the Reapers, their makeup, their technology etc..

This attempt to make Destroy a canonical goal is getting really annoying. Have people like you ever heard of roleplaying? My Shepard's motivations are my own, damn it, and it's perfectly possible to play Shepard in a way that Control or Synthesis become in-character options!

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[Taboo]

Persephone wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

You're all wrong because... ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!

Seriously, that is never going away Bioware.

An Artist has responsibility to tell the truth.

Sorry but...NO.

Ever read anything by Shakespeare? He "lied" a whole lot about ACTUAL (Not fictional) people in his plays.

As did Friedrich von Schiller in his celebrated plays that were later adapted into world famous operas.

They turned raving, murdering nutcases (The Infante Don Carlos of Spain) into angelic heroes (Schiller) and committed character assassination ala Richard III. (Shakespeare)

I guess they had no artistic integrity....

Do the people who toss this around like an insult actually know what it means or are they just participating in another meme again?

Hey..........yeah you didn't get the inference. The responsibility of the artist is to reflect truthfulyl their view of their world. Shakespeare did that. Edvard Munch did that. There are amounted to something because they never insulted the audience. Bioware has given people their view of the world and then presented them with contradictory evidence. This is untruthful and insults the audience. Mass Effect was grounded in verisimilitude. At the very last second they traded that for a schizoid mess. THAT is untruthful.

[Cypher_CS]

Stop saying Synthesis is not discussed before.

Maybe your wild and out of the blue assumptions of what Synthesis is (no free will, cyborg everyone, all that other crap) are out of the blue, but Synthesis - and yes, maybe Synergy is a better word - is talked about in several places throughout the games.
Alluded to by Saren, discussed as applications in other species (Asari reproduction with other species is sort of like Synthesis - without your wild assumptions), talked about throughout the trilogy basically every time you talk about various synthetic augmentations and implants (Biotics, for example), discussed extensively through the Geth and more so with the Peace if you strike it between Geth and Quarian.

So it is NOT out of the blue.

[nitefyre410]

ElSuperGecko wrote...


*snip*

Where are the Paragon/Renegade interrupts?  Where is the option to ignore the Catalyst?  Where is the option to reject it's disingenuous assertations and cold, uncaring, ancient god-machine like logic completely?

 

On the cutting room floor with the awesome Geth Prime Dialogue about Snyergy and the great conversation between Shepard and Ashley about life, death and what comes after... 

thats Artistic Integrity for ya...   

Modifié par nitefyre410, 27 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Stop saying Synthesis is not discussed before.

Maybe your wild and out of the blue assumptions of what Synthesis is (no free will, cyborg everyone, all that other crap) are out of the blue, but Synthesis - and yes, maybe Synergy is a better word - is talked about in several places throughout the games.
Alluded to by Saren, discussed as applications in other species (Asari reproduction with other species is sort of like Synthesis - without your wild assumptions), talked about throughout the trilogy basically every time you talk about various synthetic augmentations and implants (Biotics, for example), discussed extensively through the Geth and more so with the Peace if you strike it between Geth and Quarian.

So it is NOT out of the blue.

The assumption that it is the only solution for peace is out of the blue.

[I am Sovereign]

"Artistic Integrity."

[Cypher_CS]

Ieldra2 wrote...


No, destroying the Reapers has NOT been Shepard's goal from the beginning. It's been YOUR Shepard's goal. My Shepard's goal has been to stop the harvesting and meanwhile learn everything possible about the Reapers, their makeup, their technology etc..

This attempt to make Destroy a canonical goal is getting really annoying. Have people like you ever heard of roleplaying? My Shepard's motivations are my own, damn it, and it's perfectly possible to play Shepard in a way that Control or Synthesis become in-character options!

QFT and QFE

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

You're all wrong because... ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!

Seriously, that is never going away Bioware.

An Artist has responsibility to tell the truth.

Here's a quite from the West Wing episode Poet Laureate:
U.S. Poet Laureate Tabatha Fortis: An artist's job to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. If we stumble into truth, we got lucky. And I don't get to decide what truth is. 

Modifié par Cypher_CS, 27 avril 2012 - 04:35 .

[wright1978]

Given this is starbrat's chosen solution that will supposedly solve his belief that AI's will wipe out organic life, the only logical conclusion i can come to about synthesis is that it routes life down an evolutionary cul-de-sac into becoming drones with no higher thought processes. Certainly not what i would consider the best ending.

[ElSuperGecko]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...
Stop saying Synthesis is not discussed before.

Maybe your wild and out of the blue assumptions of what Synthesis is (no free will, cyborg everyone, all that other crap) are out of the blue, but Synthesis - and yes, maybe Synergy is a better word - is talked about in several places throughout the games.
Alluded to by Saren, discussed as applications in other species (Asari reproduction with other species is sort of like Synthesis - without your wild assumptions), talked about throughout the trilogy basically every time you talk about various synthetic augmentations and implants (Biotics, for example), discussed extensively through the Geth and more so with the Peace if you strike it between Geth and Quarian.

So it is NOT out of the blue.

The assumption that it is the only solution for peace is out of the blue.

The consideration of it as a viable method for stopping the cycle of extinction is out of the blue.

[Cobra's_back]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Stop saying Synthesis is not discussed before.

Maybe your wild and out of the blue assumptions of what Synthesis is (no free will, cyborg everyone, all that other crap) are out of the blue, but Synthesis - and yes, maybe Synergy is a better word - is talked about in several places throughout the games.
Alluded to by Saren, discussed as applications in other species (Asari reproduction with other species is sort of like Synthesis - without your wild assumptions), talked about throughout the trilogy basically every time you talk about various synthetic augmentations and implants (Biotics, for example), discussed extensively through the Geth and more so with the Peace if you strike it between Geth and Quarian.

So it is NOT out of the blue.

The assumption that it is the only solution for peace is out of the blue.

I remember Saren telling Shepard organic could survive if they make themselves useful to the reapers. Organics will be saved if they serve the reapers.
 
Legion’s name means one of many. Synergy they all work together for a common goal. They share memories and reach group consensus. They are hooked up to a network. It looks like a socialist society. Decisions are based on a group consensus.
Are there other parts of the story that explain more?

[Peranor]

For synthesis to work in the long run our ability to evolve has to be removed. But not just evolution in terms of genetics.
Our individuality has to be removed as well. Creativity, independent thinking and the ability to question things has to be removed. In essence everything that makes life beautiful has to be removed. We have to become husks.
If any of those things are allowed to remain synthesis is pointless as a "solution". It will just start over again.
The cycle will not be broken and all thats left is empty husks. Victory to the reapers.

[Gill Kaiser]

nicethugbert wrote...

(can't quote on my smart phone)

Gill Kaiser, what does necessity have to do with synthesis? And, isn't everybody with cybernetic implants already on their way to synthesis if not there already? Does synthesis destroy free will? Were not the reapers already synthesizing the galaxy but at the expense of free will?

People with cybernetic implants made the decision themselves. There's nothing wrong with transhumanism provided it isn't imposed. Synthesis not only imposes it, it implements it.

As for free will: Firstly, since synthesis prevents behaviour that is supposedly inevitable (organics vs synthetics), it by necessity must alter the perceptions and thought processes of those affected; whether physically or simply by the change in context, those entities' free will has been impinged upon. Secondly, their free will when it comes to choosing their own fate has been effectively stolen by the forced alteration Synthesis provides.

Yes, the Reapers were synthesising the galaxy at the expense of free will. That's why we opposed them! They were the antagonists! My point about necessity is exactly this! I reject the idea that the solutions proposed by the Reapers, harvesting and Synthesis both, were necessary! Synthesis is presented as a choice that Shepard must make. If you can't explain why it is necessary, what value does it have as a choice?

[Skull Bearer]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 @shaigainjoe.

I'll be honest. I believe Bioware wanted me to believe what I was watching was to be interpreted literally. This is the great failing of the ending on their part and one of the most insulting things I've even seen presented to a compotent audience. I've seen some dumb things at film festivals and heard even dumber things presented by artists but "Lots of Speculation for everyone." is the most disastrous option I've ever seen implemented from an artist. Is that REALLY the inference Mr Hudson and Mr Walters wanted thousands of people to take away from this?

I cannot provide concrete answers without concrete information. What Bioware has essentially asked me to do is extrapolate from data that isn't there. Ambiguity is a really cool story telling technique when done correctly but when it is done poorly it insults the audience. They failed and failed badly.

New topic in a moment. Something Mr. Priestly said yesterday rustled my jimmies...........

I get the feeling the 'Speculation is good' argument is a variation on 'I totally meant to do that'.

[Skull Bearer]

Persephone wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Lyrebon wrote...

You're all wrong because... ARTISTIC INTEGRITY!

Seriously, that is never going away Bioware.

An Artist has responsibility to tell the truth.

Sorry but...NO.

Ever read anything by Shakespeare? He "lied" a whole lot about ACTUAL (Not fictional) people in his plays.

As did Friedrich von Schiller in his celebrated plays that were later adapted into world famous operas.

They turned raving, murdering nutcases (The Infante Don Carlos of Spain) into angelic heroes (Schiller) and committed character assassination ala Richard III. (Shakespeare)

I guess they had no artistic integrity....

Do the people who toss this around like an insult actually know what it means or are they just participating in another meme again?

I don't think that's what the poster meant. Shakespeare didn't introduce Hamlet as having 'a feel-good ending in which everything turns out okay.' He'd have probably gotten into trouble if he had.

[Taboo]

Skull Bearer wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 @shaigainjoe.

I'll be honest. I believe Bioware wanted me to believe what I was watching was to be interpreted literally. This is the great failing of the ending on their part and one of the most insulting things I've even seen presented to a compotent audience. I've seen some dumb things at film festivals and heard even dumber things presented by artists but "Lots of Speculation for everyone." is the most disastrous option I've ever seen implemented from an artist. Is that REALLY the inference Mr Hudson and Mr Walters wanted thousands of people to take away from this?

I cannot provide concrete answers without concrete information. What Bioware has essentially asked me to do is extrapolate from data that isn't there. Ambiguity is a really cool story telling technique when done correctly but when it is done poorly it insults the audience. They failed and failed badly.

New topic in a moment. Something Mr. Priestly said yesterday rustled my jimmies...........

I get the feeling the 'Speculation is good' argument is a variation on 'I totally meant to do that'.

Or bad artistry. It's not speculation. It's not ambigious. With the information and data we have provided to us with the lore we can come to a somewhat general consensus.

The lack of cohesion in those last ten minutes.........appaling.

[Skull Bearer]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 @shaigainjoe.

I'll be honest. I believe Bioware wanted me to believe what I was watching was to be interpreted literally. This is the great failing of the ending on their part and one of the most insulting things I've even seen presented to a compotent audience. I've seen some dumb things at film festivals and heard even dumber things presented by artists but "Lots of Speculation for everyone." is the most disastrous option I've ever seen implemented from an artist. Is that REALLY the inference Mr Hudson and Mr Walters wanted thousands of people to take away from this?

I cannot provide concrete answers without concrete information. What Bioware has essentially asked me to do is extrapolate from data that isn't there. Ambiguity is a really cool story telling technique when done correctly but when it is done poorly it insults the audience. They failed and failed badly.

New topic in a moment. Something Mr. Priestly said yesterday rustled my jimmies...........

I get the feeling the 'Speculation is good' argument is a variation on 'I totally meant to do that'.

Or bad artistry. It's not speculation. It's not ambigious. With the information and data we have provided to us with the lore we can come to a somewhat general consensus.

The lack of cohesion in those last ten minutes.........appaling.

I meant more that they thought they'd given us a good ending, and when everyone turned up with a metric ton of wtf, their reaction was 'we totally meant to do that! Speculation is good!'