196 réponses à ce sujet

[Vox Draco]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
But I grant you that if you want to minimize risk, you'd be better off with one of the other options.

My main point why I am a so-called destroy-fanatic...if we are stuck with these choices, than at least the less risky one. Thats my Shepard's point of view.

Then you killed the Rachni queen and let the Council die in ME1? You destroyed the geth Heretics and the genophage cure?

I'm not exactly criticizing your viewpoint - I have done all these things with some of my Shepards and probably will choose Destroy with one of them - but there may be a double standard at work here. Particularly the cured krogan have the potential to be a huge threat to the post-Reaper civilizations. Why take THAT risk?

Also I take the endings as intended: Commander Shepard ends the Reaper threat. I agree that we need more than a simple metagame assurance to explain why, particularly for the Synthesis ending, but until we have one, I take it in the spririt it was inteded and make up my own explanation. Also I have no problem believing that in Control, ascended-Shepard will continue to control the Reapers and find a different solution to the organic/synthetic problem before the time comes when it is needed.

The rachni...well...I never had the feeling they might turn into a threat at teh scale of the Reapers, though my renegades usually did not take this risk.

And the genophage? The Krogan? Well...mostly I justify THIS by one thing: I learned a lot about the Krogan, their culture, their past, and I had multiple talks with Wrex, whom I trust a little more than the catalyst...and Eve. This is why my paragon-Shep took the risk of the Krogan rebellions. But neither the catalyst or the Reapers themselves have done anything to earn this kind of trust...

And yet again, if you like the way Bioware took the game in the last five minutes, and want to see the positive outlook on the galaxy...Good for you. And you should be glad, as we ending-abolishers and fanatics, as it seems by now, won't have much of an impat on the endings anyway...

In fact, I'd prefer the endings, if they are not totally removed, to stay this kind of "interpretation-friendly", as it would allow me to easier "rectify" it in my mind's head-canon. I'll probalby stick with IT and end the game simply before making the decision, thinking happy thoughts and imagining a more conventional (and for me: better) ending to this great series...

[Ieldra]

Vox Draco wrote...
And yet again, if you like the way Bioware took the game in the last five minutes...

In a very limited sense, I do like it: I'm fine with the final choice and its primary effects. And I'm very, very, glad that they subverted the cosmic horror story. It's one of the three things I wanted from day one. But that's about it. I want my Shepard to not be out of character when they meet the Catalyst, I want more exposition, some basis I can speculate from, and I don't want to be forced to destroy galactic civilization. And I want my pre-ending choices to visibly matter, and not to be caught in a luddite's dream on that Garden Eden world, and a few other things.

That's why I think the Extended Cut can save the ending.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 mai 2012 - 07:19 .

[AcidwireX]

incinerator950 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

*sigh* I'm getting *so* sick of you pro-Destroy fundamentalists.

Because you got fond of Reaper Gospel. They tell you for 3 games that they are the harbinger of perfection, your genetic destiny, and suddenly you believe it. Sorry, but you are a victim, not more and not less.

I assumed you were older than that. Why don't you stop trying to be funny by posting pictures? Use words if you can.

Don't need to lower myself to your position. 

Just from witnessing this arguement it's clear to me that your position is quite lower. You're posting photoshops of Dr. Seuss.

[Vox Draco]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...
And yet again, if you like the way Bioware took the game in the last five minutes...

In a very limited sense, I do like it: I'm fine with the final choice and its primary effects. And I'm very, very, glad that they subverted the cosmic horror story. It's one of the three things I wanted from day one. But that's about it. I want my Shepard to not be out of character when they meet the Catalyst, I want more exposition, some basis I can speculate from, and I don't want to be forced to destroy galactic civilization. And I want my pre-ending choices to visibly matter, and not to be caught in a luddite's dream on that Garden Eden world, and a few other things.

That's why I think the Extended Cut can save the ending.

Except for the first part: I really want the same things as you do. I personally think the "horror"-story is way better and more fitting with the first parts of the series...and the choices are too pseudo-philosophical for my taste.

But as the things are now...it is mostly damage control for me. If they, somehow, can make these choices appeailing to me and offer me something I and my Shepard can build our hopes on...I'll be fine...maybe...

[PsyrenY]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In a very limited sense, I do like it: I'm fine with the final choice and its primary effects. And I'm very, very, glad that they subverted the cosmic horror story. It's one of the three things I wanted from day one. But that's about it. I want my Shepard to not be out of character when they meet the Catalyst, I want more exposition, some basis I can speculate from, and I don't want to be forced to destroy galactic civilization. And I want my pre-ending choices to visibly matter, and not to be caught in a luddite's dream on that Garden Eden world, and a few other things.

That's why I think the Extended Cut can save the ending.

This. Though I don't think galactic civilization was destroyed. Set back certainly, but we're going to have a lot of new toys to play with momentarily.

[lillitheris]

Vox Draco wrote...

Except for the first part: I really want the same things as you do. I personally think the "horror"-story is way better and more fitting with the first parts of the series...and the choices are too pseudo-philosophical for my taste.

Once again proving that they couldn’t even do SPECULATION!! right.

If you want people to speculate, wouldn’t it have been better to leave the Reapers a mystery? Then some people could just go with the Cthulhu thing, others invent philosophies…

[Silpheed58]

No to this thread, just no.

[Vox Draco]

lillitheris wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

Except for the first part: I really want the same things as you do. I personally think the "horror"-story is way better and more fitting with the first parts of the series...and the choices are too pseudo-philosophical for my taste.

Once again proving that they couldn’t even do SPECULATION!! right.

If you want people to speculate, wouldn’t it have been better to leave the Reapers a mystery? Then some people could just go with the Cthulhu thing, others invent philosophies…

Well...now we invent all kinds theories to make some sense to the ending, or fight each other which option is the morally less appalling, or try to justify why our Shepard did do the right thing by choosing red/blue/green...

And I participate in all of this...but what I don't do is...playing the game...I am sad now...

[AlexXIV]

Vox Draco wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...

Except for the first part: I really want the same things as you do. I personally think the "horror"-story is way better and more fitting with the first parts of the series...and the choices are too pseudo-philosophical for my taste.

Once again proving that they couldn’t even do SPECULATION!! right.

If you want people to speculate, wouldn’t it have been better to leave the Reapers a mystery? Then some people could just go with the Cthulhu thing, others invent philosophies…

Well...now we invent all kinds theories to make some sense to the ending, or fight each other which option is the morally less appalling, or try to justify why our Shepard did do the right thing by choosing red/blue/green...

And I participate in all of this...but what I don't do is...playing the game...I am sad now...

Well talking about alternate endings or at least bashing the current endings is more satisfying than playing the game, sad but true.

[Ieldra]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

In a very limited sense, I do like it: I'm fine with the final choice and its primary effects. And I'm very, very, glad that they subverted the cosmic horror story. It's one of the three things I wanted from day one. But that's about it. I want my Shepard to not be out of character when they meet the Catalyst, I want more exposition, some basis I can speculate from, and I don't want to be forced to destroy galactic civilization. And I want my pre-ending choices to visibly matter, and not to be caught in a luddite's dream on that Garden Eden world, and a few other things.

That's why I think the Extended Cut can save the ending.

This. Though I don't think galactic civilization was destroyed. Set back certainly, but we're going to have a lot of new toys to play with momentarily.

Fragmented, at least in Destroy. Set back by how much, that's the question. I really hate dark age endings. Avoiding one and saving galactic civilization was my secondary goal after stopping the Reapers from day one, so to be forced into one was the worst thing ME3 could to do me.

I can imagine things improve smoothly in Control, and we'll likely have a lot of new toys - as you put it - in Synthesis. I even invented a new mass effect-based method of long-range FTL travel for it because I thought something new would be most in the spirit of that ending. But that's one of the things I want the EC to clear up: no thrice-damned dark age in Control and Synthesis.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
If you want people to speculate, wouldn’t it have been better to leave the Reapers a mystery? Then some people could just go with the Cthulhu thing, others invent philosophies…

And make the endings even less defined than they already are? That would've worked if we had more information about what the choices already do. Maybe. The Synthesis option requires that the Reapers are de-mystified, because it uses themes brought into the story by reflections on the Reapers' nature. Even as it is, people commit that pervasive association fallacy, thinking "because these themes were brought into the story by the Reapers, they must be evil", disregarding that "ascension" and "[artificial] evolution" are usually positive terms within the context of the story. See the asari's "Destiny Ascension" and the salarian equivalent of transhumanism EDI quotes Mordin about.

[RMP _]

d-boy15 wrote...

I didn't think the reaper is alive and when I kill reaper, I call it a mercy kill but it's just my opinion.
for me, something are beyond saving and one of that is the reaper. 

but that doesn't mean synthasis is evil choice... although, doesn't mean it the best choice like bioware
try to make players think. still prefer all choice to be equal becasue right now, it's not.

What have you read to suggest that Synthesis is Bioware's preferred choice?

[ediskrad327]

yeah....i don't like the idea of dooming everyone to become paste eating freaks

[balance5050]

RMP _ wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...

I didn't think the reaper is alive and when I kill reaper, I call it a mercy kill but it's just my opinion.
for me, something are beyond saving and one of that is the reaper. 

but that doesn't mean synthasis is evil choice... although, doesn't mean it the best choice like bioware
try to make players think. still prefer all choice to be equal becasue right now, it's not.

What have you read to suggest that Synthesis is Bioware's preferred choice?

It was a tweet from michel gamble I believe.

[Ieldra]

balance5050 wrote...

RMP _ wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...
I didn't think the reaper is alive and when I kill reaper, I call it a mercy kill but it's just my opinion.
for me, something are beyond saving and one of that is the reaper. 

but that doesn't mean synthasis is evil choice... although, doesn't mean it the best choice like bioware
try to make players think. still prefer all choice to be equal becasue right now, it's not.

What have you read to suggest that Synthesis is Bioware's preferred choice?

It was a tweet from michel gamble I believe.

Gamble only said that he doesn't think Destroy is the best choice. He didn't express any preference for Synthesis. The reason why it's usually perceived as Bioware's choice for the best is that It requires more EMS than Destroy and Control, with results otherwise the same (Earth OK, Shepard gone). There's also the sacrifice theme: Shepard sacrifices (a) his synthetic aspect in Destroy, ( his organic aspect in Control, © all that he is in Synthesis. Implicit in our thinking is the association "higher sacrifice = better results".

[d-boy15]

since it's the choice that need highest ems to unlock, many peoples assume it's the best ending.
although bioware told that players can archieve perfect ending without play MP... and shepard
alive ending (best destroy) can't unlock without playing MP.

so, it's can point that synthesis is their best(perfect) ending.

Modifié par d-boy15, 05 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[Ieldra]

Well, one more reason to try to fill it with something that's actually good, right? Instead of the horror visions some people appear determined to see in it.

[111987]

Interesting argument. To clarify; why do the Reapers, such as Harbinger and Sovereign, have distinctive personalities if they are being mind-controlled? Are you saying it is because they don't realize they are being controlled?

[d-boy15]

111987 wrote...

Interesting argument. To clarify; why do the Reapers, such as Harbinger and Sovereign, have distinctive personalities if they are being mind-controlled? Are you saying it is because they don't realize they are being controlled?

indoctrinated person still has their personality. look at saren and TIM, they just belive in what reaper want.
that's why if you are indoctrinated you don't know.

but the real reason behind this is they actually didn't decide to go with synthetic & oraganic plot until ME3

BTW, more reason for me to put them out of their misary...

Modifié par d-boy15, 05 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[111987]

d-boy15 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Interesting argument. To clarify; why do the Reapers, such as Harbinger and Sovereign, have distinctive personalities if they are being mind-controlled? Are you saying it is because they don't realize they are being controlled?

indoctrinated person still has their personality. look at saren and TIM, they just belive in what reaper want.
that's why if you are indoctrinated you don't know.

but the real reason behind this is they actually didn't decide to go with synthetic & oraganic plot until ME3

BTW, more reason for me to put them out of their misary...

Wait, so you are saying the Catalyst had indoctrinated the Reapers?

[d-boy15]

111987 wrote...

d-boy15 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Interesting argument. To clarify; why do the Reapers, such as Harbinger and Sovereign, have distinctive personalities if they are being mind-controlled? Are you saying it is because they don't realize they are being controlled?

indoctrinated person still has their personality. look at saren and TIM, they just belive in what reaper want.
that's why if you are indoctrinated you don't know.

but the real reason behind this is they actually didn't decide to go with synthetic & oraganic plot until ME3

BTW, more reason for me to put them out of their misary...

Wait, so you are saying the Catalyst had indoctrinated the Reapers?

ah, sorry

it's just my speculation... but since the every reaper we encounter talk all the same sh_t, it can assume that
they are mind controlled (indoctrinated) to think the same way starchild think. well, that kid say he is the one
who control them, right? and his logic is "created always rebel against the creator", so, based on the stupid
logic if he didn't mind control them, they will rebel against him.

also, if reapers really have free will, how didn't anyone of them are thinking different like "F_ck that kid, we want
no part in this madness"

Modifié par d-boy15, 05 mai 2012 - 09:01 .

[Ieldra]

111987 wrote...
Interesting argument. To clarify; why do the Reapers, such as Harbinger and Sovereign, have distinctive personalities if they are being mind-controlled? Are you saying it is because they don't realize they are being controlled?

It is exactly because their will is subverted in ONE specific aspect only: the cycle is necessary and inevitable. Nothing else is needed, and doing more would be detrimental to the Catalyst's purpose because it wants to preserve the "old life" even as it uses it at its tools. It's a little akin to indoctrination, or brainwashing, or ultra-effective propaganda. People still have their origina personalities, except that they now believe in the Reapers' purpose. Or in this case, the Reapers believe in the Catalyst's purpose.

@d-boy:
Exactly: it is very implausible that if the Reapers had free will, all of them would serve the cycle. Especially since the minds contained in the Reapers are those of the Reaperized species. That would be like "OK, we see what's been done to us, now let's do it to others". A few would probably go that way, but all of them? Never.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 mai 2012 - 09:18 .

[Flextt]

Maybe we all get Synthesis wrong and try to bring synthetic life into the equation.
Let's look at it from a diferent angle: What is the key advantage synthetics have over organic life? They can think and communicate at the speed of light. So what if, the giant space magic device just enables us to do exactly that? All other advantages then just become advances through science like longevity, resilience against external environmental factors and so on... scratch the part that synthesis become more organic though. That's simply bull.

I am no advocate for Synthesis, rather Destroy, but this would be a compromise I would be willing to fit my headcanon into.

I do realize, that evolution does not allow us to evolve in the course of one generation, hence a synthetic outrunning us interlectually is still a threat. Let's just assume though, intelligence post-synthesis can be expanded similar to synthetics.

Modifié par Flextt, 05 mai 2012 - 09:33 .

[ArchDuck]

Synthesis makes perfect sense as long as you aren't looking for it to make sense.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 05 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[Ieldra]

Flextt wrote...
Maybe we all get Synthesis wrong and try to bring synthetic life into the equation.
Let's look at it from a diferent angle: What is the key advantage synthetics have over organic life? They can think and communicate at the speed of light. So what if, the giant space magic device just enables us to do exactly that? All other advantages then just become advances through science like longevity, resilience against external environmental factors and so on... scratch the part that synthesis become more organic though. That's simply bull.

I am no advocate for Synthesis, rather Destroy, but this would be a compromise I would be willing to fit my headcanon into.

As I see it, the problem is that synthetics can self-improve at a faster rate than organics, which will eventually lead to them surpassing organics. After a certain point, when the power difference has become too great, it only takes a single hostile synthetic to destroy all organics. The probability of that happening approaches certainty over time.

So, if Synthesis is to solve that problem it has to give organics tools for self-improvement akin to what synthetics have. I have proposed synthetic symbionts in the form of clusters of nano-machines for that. It would be possible to cast them out on an individual basis if you really don't care for the advantages they bring you, but that's ok since some individuals dropping out of the scheme won't make the whole invalid. As a "domain of consciousness", organics with synthetic symbionts would be on par with "pure" synthetics. There could still be war between them, but because there isn't such an inherent power difference any more, the extinction scenario becomes as unlikely as galactic extinctions of organics is at present in the ME universe.

This interpretation would also solve the "forced change" problem. It would still be forced, but it is reversible. No idea why anyone would want a reversal, though.

I agree that synthetics becoming more organic makes no sense. Even if they could acquire some "software" traits like empathy, that would be easy to reverse as well, and since I don't see any particular advantage in a synthetic having empathy for an organic, why would that not be reversed? Or is there such an advantage. I'm open for ideas.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 mai 2012 - 09:44 .