267 réponses à ce sujet

[Scalabrine]

Kroguard wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

We would have so many new races... the Refridgerators... the frigates.. Toaster ovens... and dont forget about Televisions.

Maybe somewhere in your mild criticism you forgot the proper spelling of refrigerator? 

Ahh shut up man lol... stop being such a grammar **** lmao

[Sisterofshane]

nategator wrote...

shadowreflexion wrote...

 The biggest question that bothers me about synthesis is when the Catalyst tells me I can add my energy to it. I start thinking, how the hell is that going to work? Am I running on a different power source due to my implants? Then I wouldn't need oxygen really since my implants may magically produce its own. Or was that an indirect way of asking for my soul? Is that beam going to dissect me on the molecular level and then do a huge copy and pasting of my genetic code in order to bring about this change? I can't defend something or give support if the issue leaves you in the dark without knowing what it is.

Be careful what you wish for.  Some fans wanted explanation of why some people are force sensitive and others are not.  They got midi-chlorians.

We also wanted to know why the Reapers culled galactic society every fifty thousand years.

[Abreu Road]

Destroy is not the best option. It's the less worst option.

Lot of things in the game kind of suggests that Synthesis was what Reapers were doing all along. Joker and EDI adam/eve thing feels more like a contradiction than a good thing.

The problem is that they kept the ending "high level" and by doing so, they created more plot holes in 5 minutes than the 3 games in 100 hours of gameplay.

[Archer610]

Kroguard wrote...

 On my first playthrough of Mass Effect 3, I chose what perhaps most players of all three games chose to do: destroy the reapers. When presented with the three options, I believed this to be a moral choice with the only downside being the destruction of the mass relay network. 

It was on my second playthrough where I chose synthesis. Many die-hard fans of the series see the synthesis ending as "immoral" and "disgusting" as it is akin to what Saren promoted. What makes destruction so much more moral? All of the advanced artificial intelligences throughout the galaxy (Geth, EDI, etc.) are wiped out, sacrificed to destroy the reapers. They were not given any choice in their destruction so what right does Shepard have to destroy them? With the reaper upgrades, individual Geth platforms were given all the capabilities and many features of their orgaic counterparts. 

Oh Synthesis... where to begin? What REALLY makes it so evil besides the nondescript rants of fans who label it so immoral? While it is a "forced" genetic rewrite of all organics in the galaxy is it not more acceptable than the only other real option which is destruction? No civilization (synthetic or organic) is entirely wiped out, organics and synthetics are merged together, which creates a "new DNA". This means that the reapers no longer have a reason to harvest advanced civilizations, AI like the Geth and EDI still get to exist, and no organic race is destroyed and (depending on EMS levels for individual players) earth is spared. 

What's to stop the synthetic/organic hybrids from creating new synthetics?  And aren't those new synthetics a threat to all life?  They would be pure synthetics, since robots don't need DNA.. I doubt the Quarians installed DNA when they built the Geth.

Synthesis does nothing to break 'the cycle'.  Since the reapers are still around, and likely unchanged by the green wave (since they are already synthetic/organic, and likely the prototype on which the 'new DNA' is based), they have every reason to start harvesting again, to prevent the galaxy from creating AIs that kill all the organic/synthetics life.

[nategator]

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

nategator wrote...

Well, to reference Ronald D Moore, it sounds like a large number of the fan base need some "technobabble" to accept whether Synthesis was a valid choice.

Which is, by the way, is a totally fair request and will hopefully be in the EC if BW decides to keep that ending option. It may also be impossible to provide enough explanation to even give the majority of the fan community the ability to suspend belief. 


Also, we should all keep in mind that BW's intent was for each of the three choices to still be a "correct" choice and provide material for interesting discussion and argument. Of course, that was a Mission Failure requiring BW to select the Retry option and some fans going with the Exit Game option.

Not technobabble.  There is a serious limit as to how much nonesense can be sprouted; you can only push something so far and synthesis pushed it off a cliff. For example, when writing 40k, the Black Library authors usually pull back from some of the more out there notions and have the advantage that the reader expects magical techno-sorcery every three seconds. But ME is not 40k and that just will not do. It really is beyond the scope of belief. Destruction and Control are okay.

If that was Biowares aim they manifestly failed. Most players felt they were being forced to do synthesis as the starchild was portrayed as the narrator. As a result most people have not distinguished Bioware definition of its own verse on the inevitable org/syn conflict and  just the starchild. Which was stupid and difficult because we had been told repeatedly to depsie and mistrust the reapers; as well as other episodes establishing that he was wrong.

I'm not familiar with 40k but I'll again turn to BSG if that's alright.  How is Synthesis any more screwed up then the idea during the first and second seasons that a human being and an android (as the Cylons were portrayed to be) could mate and produce offspring?  That Resurrection was even possible?  But the fans seemed to go with these huge jumps in common sense and logic.  They even went with the idea of God and Angels in a science fiction show.  Is Synthesis really that bigger of a jump? 

Or to turn to Star Trek, I'm being asked to believe that almost all advanced civilization is bipedial.  Everything I learned about how we think evolution works says that this is a stupid idea.  But I go with it, in part because I accept that production demands and storytelling needs required that nonsense (and still do).

And in ME you were continuously being asked to buy into nonsense.  Like aliens tend to be bipedal.  They can all speak the same language.  Aliens share common beliefs.  Aliens beliefs happen to be similar to historical or present day beliefs.  Biotics.  Mass Relay drives. Sound in space.  Explosions in space.  Guns working in different environments.  Having the desire to mate with other species.  Diseases that can infect multiple alien species but, coincidentially enough, not humans. etc, etc, etc.

All of that, no problem.  But the Synthetic choice is so crazy as to question why others could suspend disbelief and just go with it and is where the line must be drawn?

You could spend all day showing why almost every video game and television science fiction program is complete and utter nonsense. 

And, by the way, why does fantasy even work as a genre?  Everything in those books is nonsense, all the time.  The "rules" are nonsense.  Why?  Because the author can make up loopholes or exceptions or whatever any time he wants as long as he doesn't screw up and put it right in the end.  Then it's deus ex machina.  (or Mass Effect 3's synthesis ending ;-D)

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

Modifié par nategator, 07 mai 2012 - 01:47 .

[SerraAdvocate]

nategator wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

nategator wrote...

Well, to reference Ronald D Moore, it sounds like a large number of the fan base need some "technobabble" to accept whether Synthesis was a valid choice.

Which is, by the way, is a totally fair request and will hopefully be in the EC if BW decides to keep that ending option. It may also be impossible to provide enough explanation to even give the majority of the fan community the ability to suspend belief. 


Also, we should all keep in mind that BW's intent was for each of the three choices to still be a "correct" choice and provide material for interesting discussion and argument. Of course, that was a Mission Failure requiring BW to select the Retry option and some fans going with the Exit Game option.

Not technobabble.  There is a serious limit as to how much nonesense can be sprouted; you can only push something so far and synthesis pushed it off a cliff. For example, when writing 40k, the Black Library authors usually pull back from some of the more out there notions and have the advantage that the reader expects magical techno-sorcery every three seconds. But ME is not 40k and that just will not do. It really is beyond the scope of belief. Destruction and Control are okay.

If that was Biowares aim they manifestly failed. Most players felt they were being forced to do synthesis as the starchild was portrayed as the narrator. As a result most people have not distinguished Bioware definition of its own verse on the inevitable org/syn conflict and  just the starchild. Which was stupid and difficult because we had been told repeatedly to depsie and mistrust the reapers; as well as other episodes establishing that he was wrong.

I'm not familiar with 40k but I'll again turn to BSG if that's alright.  How is Synthesis any more screwed up then the idea during the first and second seasons that a human being and an android (as the Cylons were portrayed to be) could mate and produce offspring?  That Resurrection was even possible?  But the fans seemed to go with these huge jumps in common sense and logic.  They even went with the idea of God and Angels in a science fiction show.  Is Synthesis really that bigger of a jump? 

Or to turn to Star Trek, I'm being asked to believe that almost all advanced civilization is bipedial.  Everything I learned about how we think evolution works says that this is a stupid idea.  But I go with it, in part because I accept that production demands and storytelling needs required that nonsense (and still do).

And in ME you were continuously being asked to buy into nonsense.  Like aliens tend to be bipedal.  They can all speak the same language.  Aliens share common beliefs.  Aliens beliefs happen to be similar to historical or present day beliefs.  Biotics.  Mass Relay drives. Sound in space.  Explosions in space.  Guns working in different environments.  Having the desire to mate with other species.  Diseases that can infect multiple alien species but, coincidentially enough, not humans. etc, etc, etc.

All of that, no problem.  But the Synthetic choice is so crazy as to question why others could suspend disbelief and just go with it and is where the line must be drawn?

You could spend all day showing why almost every video game and television science fiction program is complete and utter nonsense. 

And, by the way, why does fantasy even work as a genre?  Everything in those books is nonsense, all the time.  The "rules" are nonsense.  Why?  Because the author can make up loopholes or exceptions or whatever any time he wants as long as he doesn't screw up and put it right in the end.  Then it's deus ex machina.  (or Mass Effect 3's synthesis ending ;-D)

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

They went with it in BSG because in BSG it made sense. The religious elements first started in the BSG miniseries, and they continued throughout. In BSG, you had every reason from the start to believe the divine/gods/god were real. 

[shadowreflexion]

nategator wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

nategator wrote...

Well, to reference Ronald D Moore, it sounds like a large number of the fan base need some "technobabble" to accept whether Synthesis was a valid choice.

Which is, by the way, is a totally fair request and will hopefully be in the EC if BW decides to keep that ending option. It may also be impossible to provide enough explanation to even give the majority of the fan community the ability to suspend belief. 


Also, we should all keep in mind that BW's intent was for each of the three choices to still be a "correct" choice and provide material for interesting discussion and argument. Of course, that was a Mission Failure requiring BW to select the Retry option and some fans going with the Exit Game option.

Not technobabble.  There is a serious limit as to how much nonesense can be sprouted; you can only push something so far and synthesis pushed it off a cliff. For example, when writing 40k, the Black Library authors usually pull back from some of the more out there notions and have the advantage that the reader expects magical techno-sorcery every three seconds. But ME is not 40k and that just will not do. It really is beyond the scope of belief. Destruction and Control are okay.

If that was Biowares aim they manifestly failed. Most players felt they were being forced to do synthesis as the starchild was portrayed as the narrator. As a result most people have not distinguished Bioware definition of its own verse on the inevitable org/syn conflict and  just the starchild. Which was stupid and difficult because we had been told repeatedly to depsie and mistrust the reapers; as well as other episodes establishing that he was wrong.

I'm not familiar with 40k but I'll again turn to BSG if that's alright.  How is Synthesis any more screwed up then the idea during the first and second seasons that a human being and an android (as the Cylons were portrayed to be) could mate and produce offspring?  That Resurrection was even possible?  But the fans seemed to go with these huge jumps in common sense and logic.  They even went with the idea of God and Angels in a science fiction show.  Is Synthesis really that bigger of a jump? 

Or to turn to Star Trek, I'm being asked to believe that almost all advanced civilization is bipedial.  Everything I learned about how we think evolution works says that this is a stupid idea.  But I go with it, in part because I accept that production demands and storytelling needs required that nonsense (and still do).

And in ME you were continuously being asked to buy into nonsense.  Like aliens tend to be bipedal.  They can all speak the same language.  Aliens share common beliefs.  Aliens beliefs happen to be similar to historical or present day beliefs.  Biotics.  Mass Relay drives. Sound in space.  Explosions in space.  Guns working in different environments.  Having the desire to mate with other species.  Diseases that can infect multiple alien species but, coincidentially enough, not humans. etc, etc, etc.

All of that, no problem.  But the Synthetic choice is so crazy as to question why others could suspend disbelief and just go with it and is where the line must be drawn?

You could spend all day showing why almost every video game and television science fiction program is complete and utter nonsense. 

And, by the way, why does fantasy even work as a genre?  Everything in those books is nonsense, all the time.  The "rules" are nonsense.  Why?  Because the author can make up loopholes or exceptions or whatever any time he wants as long as he doesn't screw up and put it right in the end.  Then it's deus ex machina.  (or Mass Effect 3's synthesis ending ;-D)

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

I've always wondered about what I placed in bold. Being the Sci-Fi enthusiast that I am, I always wondered why they never went the route of The Last Starfighter and gave you something like a bluetooth that translated the different dialects for you. Was that ever explained?

Modifié par shadowreflexion, 07 mai 2012 - 01:51 .

[ReXspec]

As the endings stand right now, they are all horrible. Each one has an aspect to them that makes them a forced catch 22.

Sure, let's force eugenics on the entire galaxy, control a race and without any certainty of whether they'll come back or not, or genocide one race (possibly two; Quarian cybernetics?).

Again, ALL the endings are horrible. For my Shepard, first off, he would fight the Catalysts logic tooth and nail, second, for him, it would be a matter of choosing between the lesser of three evils.

He HATES the notion of having to genocide a species to destroy the Reapers, but (as cold as it may sound) he would view it as a necessary sacrifice (again, this is assuming he can't, for some god-forsaken reason, fight the god-brats logic).

Modifié par ReXspec, 07 mai 2012 - 02:02 .

[paxbanana3915]

Abreu Road wrote...

Destroy is not the best option. It's the less worst option.

Lot of things in the game kind of suggests that Synthesis was what Reapers were doing all along. Joker and EDI adam/eve thing feels more like a contradiction than a good thing.

The problem is that they kept the ending "high level" and by doing so, they created more plot holes in 5 minutes than the 3 games in 100 hours of gameplay.

I agree: in this case "high level" = bad writing.

I watched a review that put it really well: Mass Effect in essence is about Shepard defeating the Reapers. The ending Bioware chose ignored that theme. Instead in the last 5 minutes of the game, they turned it into solving the metaphysical problem of organics vs synthetics. Synthesis is a prime example of the problem.

[matthewmi]

You do have translators it's in the codex and I think they talk about it in a book.

[nategator]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

Abreu Road wrote...

Destroy is not the best option. It's the less worst option.

Lot of things in the game kind of suggests that Synthesis was what Reapers were doing all along. Joker and EDI adam/eve thing feels more like a contradiction than a good thing.

The problem is that they kept the ending "high level" and by doing so, they created more plot holes in 5 minutes than the 3 games in 100 hours of gameplay.

I agree: in this case "high level" = bad writing.

I watched a review that put it really well: Mass Effect in essence is about Shepard defeating the Reapers. The ending Bioware chose ignored that theme. Instead in the last 5 minutes of the game, they turned it into solving the metaphysical problem of organics vs synthetics. Synthesis is a prime example of the problem.

If we go with that idea, then let me throw out this.  Would Bioware have been better off giving us no choice and instead a big battle, some slight variations in dialogue at the end (like with TIM) and a bodycount? Did Bioware screw up by giving us ending options? 

And as far as, well they promised us different endings, couldn't Bioware have said the entire ME3 game was one big ending, since you spent it closing up subplot lines that were dependent on the first two games as well as the player's choices.  So are people really complaining about have one too many choices?  Or is the complaint that we got to choose the thematic conclusion to the game? 

I don't know by the way, so the questions presented are not rhetorical questions. 

Modifié par nategator, 07 mai 2012 - 02:01 .

[Mass effect 2 forever]

nategator wrote...


At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

Without recourse to divinity or magic; no. Technology does have some limits. Everyone in the galaxy, machienand organic being morphed is just dumb and breaks your suspense of disbelief. I don't need somebody to explain a mass relay or a rail rifle gun and no further explanation is required. Usually I mentally switch off when they talk techno-speak. But the whole concept strays into whats normally left under divine beings than what sci-fi normally prescribes for tech. As an audience, there are certain themes, subjects, characters and events that are not going to be accepted hence why they are rarely done on screen. You aren't accepting the degree by which something can be done in a fantasy setting to make it unacceptable. This isn't a double standard, its just a commonly accepted fact. Some stuff just does not fly.

[nategator]

matthewmi wrote...

You do have translators it's in the codex and I think they talk about it in a book.

So does that technobabble help suspend disbelief?  If they added an entry in the codex with lots of garbage about dark energy transfer of the dark matter component inherent all DNA and synthetic core structure stuff make the Synthesis ending better?

[matthewmi]

The ending should have been the catalyst firing and destroying the reapers with collateral damage based off ems. The ending choices are all very negative and let's be honest most players were not expecting all three to be so dark or morally questionable. So one ending with no choices except for ems state determining how well the crucible fired would have probably satisfied many more players provided there was some epilogue.

[Mass effect 2 forever]

nategator wrote...


If we go with that idea, then let me throw out this.  Would Bioware have been better off giving us no choice and instead a big battle, some slight variations in dialogue at the end (like with TIM) and a bodycount? Did Bioware screw up by giving us ending options? 

I don't know by the way, so the questions presented are not rhetorical questions. 

Yes. A more guns blazing ending in which you make a moral stand against the reapers tyranny and barbarism. You've already done the rationalizing and philosohpsing. Now its time to take up grenades and let them do the talking. Also, if Bioware wanted to give you choice they wouldn't have had the starchild as a narrator TELL YOU unequivocally that you have to pick synthesis or else you're just an idiot; which really murders any sense of choice.

[soldo9149]

stysiaq wrote...

With the power of the Gray Skull, I summon The Angry One to this thread!

Sir if only you could do this more often.

[matthewmi]

nategator wrote...

matthewmi wrote...

You do have translators it's in the codex and I think they talk about it in a book.

So does that technobabble help suspend disbelief?  If they added an entry in the codex with lots of garbage about dark energy transfer of the dark matter component inherent all DNA and synthetic core structure stuff make the Synthesis ending better?

Technobabble can help but the morality of synthesis is so suspect that for me the other two choices are vastly lesser evils. I'd never pick synthesis even if it was the happy ending.

[paxbanana3915]

nategator wrote...

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

I'm not sure if you arguing synthesis is believable or not, but you're right about a good writer being able to make the unbeleivable believable. Bioware definitely failed in this case.

I tend to nitpick about correctness. I absolutely cannot watch medical dramas because it's all nonsense. Show me an evisceration in a movie and I'll laugh because if that was a real section of gut, it's obviously necrotic. I cringe when someone writes that a character snapped their "medial cruciate ligament". But I didn't bat an eyelash at anything in Mass Effect because it didn't go into enough detail to violate what I know to be truth in everyday life.

Synthesis goes into enough detail that it destroys my suspension of disbelief. The sad thing is that I would have been okay with synthesis (even with the whole "apex of evolution" silliness) except that everyone/everything gets an immediate systemic change to their DNA and doesn't die. Bioware went into too much detail trying to sound techy and threw it phrases like 'evolution' and 'DNA' and completely ignored how we know those things actually work.

[frylock23]

nategator wrote...

Mass effect 2 forever wrote...

nategator wrote...

Well, to reference Ronald D Moore, it sounds like a large number of the fan base need some "technobabble" to accept whether Synthesis was a valid choice.

Which is, by the way, is a totally fair request and will hopefully be in the EC if BW decides to keep that ending option. It may also be impossible to provide enough explanation to even give the majority of the fan community the ability to suspend belief. 


Also, we should all keep in mind that BW's intent was for each of the three choices to still be a "correct" choice and provide material for interesting discussion and argument. Of course, that was a Mission Failure requiring BW to select the Retry option and some fans going with the Exit Game option.

Not technobabble.  There is a serious limit as to how much nonesense can be sprouted; you can only push something so far and synthesis pushed it off a cliff. For example, when writing 40k, the Black Library authors usually pull back from some of the more out there notions and have the advantage that the reader expects magical techno-sorcery every three seconds. But ME is not 40k and that just will not do. It really is beyond the scope of belief. Destruction and Control are okay.

If that was Biowares aim they manifestly failed. Most players felt they were being forced to do synthesis as the starchild was portrayed as the narrator. As a result most people have not distinguished Bioware definition of its own verse on the inevitable org/syn conflict and  just the starchild. Which was stupid and difficult because we had been told repeatedly to depsie and mistrust the reapers; as well as other episodes establishing that he was wrong.

I'm not familiar with 40k but I'll again turn to BSG if that's alright.  How is Synthesis any more screwed up then the idea during the first and second seasons that a human being and an android (as the Cylons were portrayed to be) could mate and produce offspring?  That Resurrection was even possible?  But the fans seemed to go with these huge jumps in common sense and logic.  They even went with the idea of God and Angels in a science fiction show.  Is Synthesis really that bigger of a jump? 

Or to turn to Star Trek, I'm being asked to believe that almost all advanced civilization is bipedial.  Everything I learned about how we think evolution works says that this is a stupid idea.  But I go with it, in part because I accept that production demands and storytelling needs required that nonsense (and still do).

And in ME you were continuously being asked to buy into nonsense.  Like aliens tend to be bipedal.  They can all speak the same language.  Aliens share common beliefs.  Aliens beliefs happen to be similar to historical or present day beliefs.  Biotics.  Mass Relay drives. Sound in space.  Explosions in space.  Guns working in different environments.  Having the desire to mate with other species.  Diseases that can infect multiple alien species but, coincidentially enough, not humans. etc, etc, etc.

All of that, no problem.  But the Synthetic choice is so crazy as to question why others could suspend disbelief and just go with it and is where the line must be drawn?

You could spend all day showing why almost every video game and television science fiction program is complete and utter nonsense. 

And, by the way, why does fantasy even work as a genre?  Everything in those books is nonsense, all the time.  The "rules" are nonsense.  Why?  Because the author can make up loopholes or exceptions or whatever any time he wants as long as he doesn't screw up and put it right in the end.  Then it's deus ex machina.  (or Mass Effect 3's synthesis ending ;-D)

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

In every series, the author establishes the mythos or canon, the rules by which that world works for the readers or viewers, and it's for the author from then on to stay within their established boundaries, and if they go outside those boundaries, it's incumbent upon them to provide an adequate explanation that works within the established lore or canon as to why this new bit works.

The problem with the ME3 endings is they violated the established mythos or canon in too many ways, too blatantly, and without any attempt at any kind of explanation for the fans to accept. Not only that, but most of the worst violations were presented in the last 10 minutes of the game which also happened to be the very last 10 minutes of the entire trilogy.

[ediskrad327]

what do people eat in Synthesis? how does this affect animals? are there nano mechanical parts that are impossible to get out of the beef? or is it clear where to cut? does this affect flavor? and what about plants? is it safe to eat lettuce now? is the glowy thingy harmful to health? is everyone doomed to eat processed paste from tubes? and what about undeveloped races on other planets? are they doomed to go extinct because of starvation?

and that's just the food problems, societies would collapse!

Modifié par ediskrad327, 07 mai 2012 - 02:11 .

[frylock23]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

I'm not sure if you arguing synthesis is believable or not, but you're right about a good writer being able to make the unbeleivable believable. Bioware definitely failed in this case.

I tend to nitpick about correctness. I absolutely cannot watch medical dramas because it's all nonsense. Show me an evisceration in a movie and I'll laugh because if that was a real section of gut, it's obviously necrotic. I cringe when someone writes that a character snapped their "medial cruciate ligament". But I didn't bat an eyelash at anything in Mass Effect because it didn't go into enough detail to violate what I know to be truth in everyday life.

Synthesis goes into enough detail that it destroys my suspension of disbelief. The sad thing is that I would have been okay with synthesis (even with the whole "apex of evolution" silliness) except that everyone/everything gets an immediate systemic change to their DNA and doesn't die. Bioware went into too much detail trying to sound techy and threw it phrases like 'evolution' and 'DNA' and completely ignored how we know those things actually work.

Quite. It's like trying to watch plague movies with my husband the bio/microbiologist around. His career has been spent around disease pathogens, and watching any of those films with him is simply no fun because he can spot all the problems in all of them. The CDC episode of Walking Dead was pure torture. There was simply no way to enjoy it with him in the room.

[paxbanana3915]

nategator wrote...

If we go with that idea, then let me throw out this.  Would Bioware have been better off giving us no choice and instead a big battle, some slight variations in dialogue at the end (like with TIM) and a bodycount? Did Bioware screw up by giving us ending options? 

And as far as, well they promised us different endings, couldn't Bioware have said the entire ME3 game was one big ending, since you spent it closing up subplot lines that were dependent on the first two games as well as the player's choices.  So are people really complaining about have one too many choices?  Or is the complaint that we got to choose the thematic conclusion to the game? 

I don't know by the way, so the questions presented are not rhetorical questions. 

The ending of the game, in my opinion, should have delivered based upon the story theme. It should have been Shepard leading the unified galactic forces into destroying the Reapers in a conventional fight. Who lives/dies/wins would be based upon the choices made (and quests completed) along the way.

[mass perfection]

I'd like to see how Synthesis affects ME4 which is something EA wants because they don't want Mass Effect to end as a trilogy as it was originally planned.

[Kroguard]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

I'm not sure if you arguing synthesis is believable or not, but you're right about a good writer being able to make the unbeleivable believable. Bioware definitely failed in this case.

I tend to nitpick about correctness. I absolutely cannot watch medical dramas because it's all nonsense. Show me an evisceration in a movie and I'll laugh because if that was a real section of gut, it's obviously necrotic. I cringe when someone writes that a character snapped their "medial cruciate ligament". But I didn't bat an eyelash at anything in Mass Effect because it didn't go into enough detail to violate what I know to be truth in everyday life.

Synthesis goes into enough detail that it destroys my suspension of disbelief. The sad thing is that I would have been okay with synthesis (even with the whole "apex of evolution" silliness) except that everyone/everything gets an immediate systemic change to their DNA and doesn't die. Bioware went into too much detail trying to sound techy and threw it phrases like 'evolution' and 'DNA' and completely ignored how we know those things actually work.

So you had no problem with all the laws of physics broken throughout the series? This isn't a debate on the scientific veracity of the narrative, only the morality of the three endings presented so far. As a physicist, I can tell you I have NO problem going through the series, it is my favorite to date. I don't expect science from a science fiction series (not to say science fiction hasn't inspired many scientists, including myself). Thank you for your input though

Modifié par Kroguard, 07 mai 2012 - 03:22 .

[fr33stylez]

nicethugbert wrote...

Deepo78 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

WHY would a forced rewrite of all organic and synthetic 'DNA' result in peace? This is my first question.

Agreed, also why would Synthesis even matter for the Geth considering they exist primarily as software and perceive their physical bodies as mere platforms. Other than being pretty dumb, Synthesis seems pretty hollow to me.

No one who paid any attention to what The Catalyst said is claiming that there will be peace, only that it will end The Cycle which is peace between synthetics and organics, not peace among the Synthesized.

As for The Geth, it's either a new hardware platform with the proper interface routines or being non-existent or controled.

Well, you didn't address the question at all in how it related to this alleged 'war' between Synthetics and ORganics as the Starchild presents.


WHY would a forced rewrite of organic and synthetic 'DNA' result in peace between ORGANICS and SYNTHETICS?

When has it ever been argued in ME that organics and synthetics fight on the motive of their 'DNAs' being different? Are the Quarians fighting the Geth because their 'DNA' differs? Has any Synthetics gone to war with Organics based on this reason or vice versa?

When is this reason ever been presented in the ME trilogy as the basis for war?