312 réponses à ce sujet

[pro5]

Richard 060 wrote...

Something to consider when assessing the morality behind choosing 'synthesis':

...

So, with that in mind, what is the moral justification of doing this to an unsuspecting galaxy? Aside from the fact that it's completely disregarding free will and freedom of choice for every living thing in existence, would life be able to handle the change at all, or would it simply doom all lifeforms unable to adjust to a radically different status quo?

Your question makes little sense in the context of this thread. One of the points of the video is that Synthesis is ... not a very good option to pick.

I suggest you watch the video, then give us your comments. 

Modifié par pro5, 05 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[Fapmaster5000]

 Bit long, but well done.  I agree with the points made, and I really hope this was intended by Bioware and not just writing failure.

The former is an amazing ending, poorly delivered (oh, well, we all screw up, and every writer has his/her "trunk novels"; it's just sad that Walters/Hudson's happened to be ME3).  The latter is just embarassing.

[Richard 060]

pro5 wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

Something to consider when assessing the morality behind choosing 'synthesis':

...

So, with that in mind, what is the moral justification of doing this to an unsuspecting galaxy? Aside from the fact that it's completely disregarding free will and freedom of choice for every living thing in existence, would life be able to handle the change at all, or would it simply doom all lifeforms unable to adjust to a radically different status quo?

Your question makes little sense in the context of this thread. One of the points of the video is that Synthesis is ... not a very good option to pick.

I suggest you watch the video, then give us your comments. 

First up, my point was a more of a 'general tangent' on the nature of 'synthesis' as presented in the game, in response to some of the ideas brought up by posts in the thread.

Food for thought, nothing more - and certainly not a mis-interpretation of the video (which yes, I have watched, and it does make a compelling case for why Destroy is the only viable option of the three)!   


The only problem with the video's interpretation that I can see, is that it's treating the 'Control' and 'Synthesis' options as 'fake-outs' or 'bluffs'. The idea being, that the player is supposed to do the 'math', and work out that 'Destroy' is the only option where you're not playing into the Reaper's hands.

Unfortunately, there's too much evidence from BioWare pointing to the contrary - that the three choices are 'genuine' options, not just a Reaper ploy. From Mike Gamble's rather worryingly narrow-minded idea (via Twitter) that 'synthesis is best, since it removes the barriers between organic and synthetic life, resulting in simply 'life'', to Matt Rhodes concept art for Joker and EDI on the 'Eden' planet, describing it as their 'chance for a happy ending', I really get the impression that the creative team actually see them as viable ending choices.


Thus, while the idea in the video is something I certainly agree with as an idea (although it doesn't alter the fact that arbitrarily wiping out EDI and the Geth adds a needlessly sour note to 'Destroy' as an outcome...), in the end it's just another way of making a 'silk purse out of a sow's ear'. Like the 'Indoctrination Theory', it's a pretty comprehensive and logical way to reinterpret the ending in a better light, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just another way to 'headcanon' one's way around bad writing, which frankly, isn't the audience's job...

[AlexXIV]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

 Bit long, but well done.  I agree with the points made, and I really hope this was intended by Bioware and not just writing failure.

The former is an amazing ending, poorly delivered (oh, well, we all screw up, and every writer has his/her "trunk novels"; it's just sad that Walters/Hudson's happened to be ME3).  The latter is just embarassing.

It would not be the first time in gaming history that fans could come up with a better ending than the developers ... for whatever reason. I guess one reason could be that we are more and another that we are not limited by ressources or caught in a development process that limits choices.

[Fapmaster5000]

AlexXIV wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

 Bit long, but well done.  I agree with the points made, and I really hope this was intended by Bioware and not just writing failure.

The former is an amazing ending, poorly delivered (oh, well, we all screw up, and every writer has his/her "trunk novels"; it's just sad that Walters/Hudson's happened to be ME3).  The latter is just embarassing.

It would not be the first time in gaming history that fans could come up with a better ending than the developers ... for whatever reason. I guess one reason could be that we are more and another that we are not limited by ressources or caught in a development process that limits choices.

Not the first time, but definately the most egregious.  This video is simply the latest in a conga-line of fans lining up to say, "this ending (synthesis in particular) violates the core of the franchise".  And then rumors come out that "synthesis is regarded as the best ending" (hope to God that was just 4chan being 4chan) and "destroy is the worst", and it goes from writing failure to deliberate writing suicide.

Hence, I hope it was simply poorly delivered, because there's really only one ending that works, and it's got arbitrary-hostage-taking in it.

[AlexXIV]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

 Bit long, but well done.  I agree with the points made, and I really hope this was intended by Bioware and not just writing failure.

The former is an amazing ending, poorly delivered (oh, well, we all screw up, and every writer has his/her "trunk novels"; it's just sad that Walters/Hudson's happened to be ME3).  The latter is just embarassing.

It would not be the first time in gaming history that fans could come up with a better ending than the developers ... for whatever reason. I guess one reason could be that we are more and another that we are not limited by ressources or caught in a development process that limits choices.

Not the first time, but definately the most egregious.  This video is simply the latest in a conga-line of fans lining up to say, "this ending (synthesis in particular) violates the core of the franchise".  And then rumors come out that "synthesis is regarded as the best ending" (hope to God that was just 4chan being 4chan) and "destroy is the worst", and it goes from writing failure to deliberate writing suicide.

Hence, I hope it was simply poorly delivered, because there's really only one ending that works, and it's got arbitrary-hostage-taking in it.

Well from a distance synthesis looks like a perfect ending with rainbows, unicorns and flying pigs or whatever. But only if you ignore the fact that you force it on everyone and that takes quite the arrogance for one person to make such a decision for the whole galaxy and then walking away and claiming you did the best for everyone. If life was about one person ... or being ... making a choice for everyone then surely it would have happened long ago. But actually life is about diversity and overcomming odds ... and differences. It is about the worst statement you can make and message you can send. Which suggests heavily that someone wasn't thinking too hard before they chose it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 05 mai 2012 - 07:16 .

[pro5]

Richard 060 wrote...

Unfortunately, there's too much evidence from BioWare pointing to the contrary - that the three choices are 'genuine' options, not just a Reaper ploy. From Mike Gamble's rather worryingly narrow-minded idea (via Twitter) that 'synthesis is best, since it removes the barriers between organic and synthetic life, resulting in simply 'life''.

I saw those tweets, yeah they were disturbing... but if they're messing with our minds in the game, why should they stop outside the game? He could be just luring more people into worshipping Reapers as the ultimate lifeform.

[AlexXIV]

pro5 wrote...

Richard 060 wrote...

Unfortunately, there's too much evidence from BioWare pointing to the contrary - that the three choices are 'genuine' options, not just a Reaper ploy. From Mike Gamble's rather worryingly narrow-minded idea (via Twitter) that 'synthesis is best, since it removes the barriers between organic and synthetic life, resulting in simply 'life''.

I saw those tweets, yeah they were disturbing... but if they're messing with our minds in the game, why should they stop outside the game? He could be just luring more people into worshipping Reapers as the ultimate lifeform.

Haha, you are an optimist after all.

[Xyos]

Watched the whole video, very well done! Good logical layout of everything, and how it all wraps up in the end is awesome.

[Kushan101]

Really good video, but I think you read way too much into Bioware's intentions in the last few minutes. Other than that - great job, i did indeed "get comfortable" for the video but it was over before I knew it.

[Wesagor]

You made a percefect video, I thouht the same way.

You pointed out the most important thing, Bioware should have made crystal clear the explenation is coming.
I thought it was briliant ending when I was watching explosions and being impatient to see if I was right and I saved everyone, if the star-kid was lying or I screawed up as Sheppard because the Reapers trap got me.

And there was nothing, no explantion. And I found here on forums only "Game with open ending for speculations". I was angry like a hell, that is no end when you speculace if you killed the galaxy or saved them.

They must make their statement crystal clear on this.

Modifié par Wesagor, 05 mai 2012 - 08:20 .

[TMcKfly]

Awesome video!

[Dawson14]

One problem with this, Synthesis has been described by the writers and producers as the perfect ending.

[RMP _]

Here's the problem with the theory presented in the video.

Bioware cannot be tricked by themselves. If they say control or synthesis work, then we can't argue it. They are the writers and have that control.

As far as Bioware trying to dupe their audience into choosing a 'wrong' ending (and not knowing it until they explain it months later), well, imagine them one day saying, "Hey, if you picked control or synthesis, we fooled you big time! Don't you feel stoooopid."  Can't really see that happening myself.

Second, it doesn't work with what they've shown us. If Bioware thought control was a bad ending, then the scene that followed should have had the two reapers on earth continuing their attack (after a brief pause) instead of flying away after getting hit by the blue wave.

And for synthesis, we should see the characters stepping off the Normandy looking like Star Trek Borg, or some ugly husk-like creatures. Instead, they portray them as individuals still with some elegant form of man and machine.

Or, forget the scenes for control and synthesis, those choices could have just ended with a mission failure screen. Instead of any of that, we got a scene that makes it look they they were good choices.

Modifié par RMP _, 06 mai 2012 - 12:52 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

Dawson14 wrote...

One problem with this, Synthesis has been described by the writers and producers as the perfect ending.

Which is quite disturbing, Forcing that kind of change upon every living sentient and non sentient species in the galaxy is revolting and a far bigger atrocity than anything the reapers ever did.

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Okay, let's look at it from a story telling perspective.  The Catalyst is telling the truth, but the author is literally telling us to go against everything we ever really understand about the story and it's themes?  Removing TIM and Saren from the narrative (or just removing the control/synthesis dialogue) would just make the entire ending confusing and convoluted.

Getting rid of negative foreshadowing does not suddenly make the ending make "sense".  It would, in fact, make the ending more confusing.

And, like the video describes, it is hard to divorce the two men from the beliefs when they were literally tools of the enemy (thank you indoctrination).  So , just as the video described, you have two options that are only endorsed by the Reapers (and their tools), and one option that has been offered up by every single other character, many of which we spent three games forming deep and personal connections with.

It may not have been Bioware's intention, but they pretty much wrote every ending but destroy into a hole.

The whole point of the Crucible is so that you can remove those two from Control and Synthesis. "The Crucible changed me - created new possibilities." In other words, the Control and Synthesis you see are explicitly not the Control and Synthesis that they saw. The Catalyst even tells you that TIM's version of Control was doomed to fail. 

Simply put - as the Reapers were, Destroy was indeed the only option. The Reapers were impossible to co-operate with or to control. But the super-device you spent the entire game building changed that.

Finally, the only ending you can even consider "endorsed" is Synthesis. The Catalyst is totally indifferent towards Control and Destroy ("eh, you can try these if you want, but I don't think they'll work long-term") and only slightly less indifferent toward Synthesis ("I think this will really end the cycle, but I won't stop you from picking the others.")

The whole point of the crucible is that it will hopefully kill the reapers.

[nategator]

RMP _ wrote...

Here's the problem with the theory presented in the video.

Bioware cannot be tricked by themselves. If they say control or synthesis work, then we can't argue it. They are the writers and have that control.

As far as Bioware trying to dupe their audience into choosing a 'wrong' ending (and not knowing it until they explain it months later), well, imagine them one day saying, "Hey, if you picked control or synthesis, we fooled you big time! Don't you feel stoooopid."  Can't really see that happening myself.

Second, it doesn't work with what they've shown us. If Bioware thought control was a bad ending, then the scene that followed should have had the two reapers on earth continuing their attack (after a brief pause) instead of flying away after getting hit by the blue wave.

And for synthesis, we should see the characters stepping off the Normandy looking like Star Trek Borg, or some ugly husk-like creatures. Instead, they portray them as individuals still with some elegant form of man and machine.

Or, forget the scenes for control and synthesis, those choices could have just ended with a mission failure screen. Instead of any of that, we got a scene that makes it look they they were good choices.

Yet the writers included an Easter Egg "hope" ending for only Destroy.  If they didn't want to telegraph Control and Synthesis as being "bad" choices then why include this?

My guess is that they wanted 1 ending without choice if the player was just rushing through, either control or destroy, which could be measured by the player's War Assets score and past choices telegraphed in Mass Effect 2.  If the player was investing more time then they would get all 3 endings, seemingly all with the same result.  Finally, if the player invested a lot of time (and more importantly was a new purchaser or paid the EA toll to access multiplayer) they could get the hopeful Easter Egg telegraphing what the writers really felt.  Thus, players get an illusion of control over the ending, are left to "discuss" and argue over philosophically which was the best choice, AND Bioware gets to make a single artistic statement.  

And then it all blew up in their faces. 

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 01:16 .

[RMP _]

Yet the writers included an Easter Egg "hope" ending for only Destroy.  If they didn't want to telegraph Control and Synthesis as being "bad" choices then why include this?
 

Well, Shepard's body is vaporized in the other endings, so I'm not sure if the breathing scene should be considered their way of saying destroy is the 'right' choice.

[nategator]

I'm sure that this has been asked-and-answered already but thought I would mention it to the community.

I tweeted @ehlien (Billy Buskell Associate Producer) the following:

@ehlien hi! loved ME except (TBD) the ending. Q is whether our discussions on IT and the "correct" choice expected or a surprise? Also...

AND

@ehlien would BW be willing to try Origin's idea and do a Q&A chat with the fans? Might be well received and increase patience of fans :-)

@ehlien responded:

@nategatorc all choices are correct, it's up to you :-) There have been some Q&A sessions, including PAX East. Not sure about more.

[pro5]

I wouldn't put much stock into Bioware tweets, if this theory is correct then they CAN'T tell us if it was real or not, even if they want to. Reason: the decision to keep silence until EC has been made by the higher-ups, and they have no choice but to follow it.

One thing that *is* a thing to consider from Bioware communication so far is how confident they seem. If you look through other tweets from the same @ehlien, he sounds pretty sure that EC will answer our questions and will be good. That is a thing to consider - they've seen a lot of good, constructive feedback at this point (including this video), but they do not appear to be concerned.

Seriously, let's just wait for the Extended Cut, people. And don't give up hope because of one inconclusive tweet. 

[pro5]

bump

[richard_rider]

Long video, but worth the watch...

[pro5]

One argument I've heard people make over and over again that I'd like to discuss... "So that means there's just ONE choice, how can that be a good thing? That makes those 2 other choices just masked game-over screens. That sucks!"

However, what those people don't seem to realize is that it's possible to have different kinds of "game over screen".

If it's just a message informing us we've lost, it sucks. Sure.

But imagine this for a second...

A 10-minute long compilation of cinematic scenes showing your Shepard becoming indoctrinated, and out of your (player) control. He goes on to talk to people, betray his friends, backstab his allies - and you cannot do anything to stop him, watching in horror. You've given up your control when you made that Choice and surrendered to the Reapers.

Then, at the end of those 10 minutes, you are finally standing in front of your LI, between her and the button that destroys the Reapers and saves the galaxy - the only true means to stop them (I'm assuming here the ending cinematics are a lie). He/she tries to reason with you, crying and begging you to stop.

And then, as "you" are about to kill her, if you have a high enough Reputation score, you get an opportunity to make that final Paragon or Renegade interrupt, fighting off the indoctrination for one final moment, to tell you LI you love him/her and use your weapon to blow your brains out. Saving the galaxy in one final push of willpower.


... Wouldn't THAT be awesome, people?

This ending has so much POTENTIAL, it makes me want to scream. I just hope Bioware doesn't waste it...

[pro5]

One of the comments on youtube made me chuckle...

Picking the right option - Destroy - Shepard literally has to take the right path.

Even little details of the ending is a mindgame.

Modifié par pro5, 06 mai 2012 - 12:50 .

[Peranor]

I watched the video and I like it.
But even if we disregard the right or wrong choice I still think that synthesis is ridiculous in the way it's supposed to work =)