155 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

yet you allow the cycle to continue.

by destroying you end it . rejecting the notion that synthetic will wipe out organics

control you agree and continue to use the reapers to prevent that from happening . most likely by wiping out anyone that gets uppity . same as before just with the possibility there would be no harvesting. who knows right

synthesis you agree and turn everyone into something new. making a perfect world without the flaws of the past . no organics pretty much so no conflict . well none between synthetic / organics. unless you know a race shows up that wasn't affected

[Steelcan]

ghost9191 wrote...

yet you allow the cycle to continue.

by destroying you end it . rejecting the notion that synthetic will wipe out organics

control you agree and continue to use the reapers to prevent that from happening . most likely by wiping out anyone that gets uppity . same as before just with the possibility there would be no harvesting. who knows right

synthesis you agree and turn everyone into something new. making a perfect world without the flaws of the past . no organics pretty much so no conflict . well none between synthetic / organics. unless you know a race shows up that wasn't affected

the way I see it.
Destroy= rejecting the Catalyst's assertions
Control= rejecting the necessity of the cycles, but still acknowledging the Catalyst's assertions
Synthesis= Compromise with the Reapers, no organics or synthetics, no organic/ynthesis conflict 

refuse= being dumb and too moral

[Reorte]

Ithurael wrote...

Wouldn't the refuse ending be the ultimate reject of the catalyst logic?

Destroy fits with 'synthetics and organics will always be in conflict'
Control does not support his logic but provides a buffer just in case synthetics come to destroy organics
Synthesis...I really hate this ending...

To me, it seems that refuse is the ultimate rejection of everything the catalyst is talking about, hell even to get this ending you can say "I Reject These Choices" or you can shoot him.

Refuse ending is the true way to break indoctrination as it wasn't even an option presented  by starkid you have to earn it.

Except that it's the only one that defnitely lets the Reapers carry on as they always have done so I don't really see how it's rejecting the Catalyst's logic.

[ghost9191]

Steelcan wrote...


the way I see it.
Destroy= rejecting the Catalyst's assertions
Control= rejecting the necessity of the cycles, but still acknowledging the Catalyst's assertions
Synthesis= Compromise with the Reapers, no organics or synthetics, no organic/ynthesis conflict 

refuse= being dumb and too moral

yeah nice , " i won't let fear compromise who i am " kinda sorta fits.


and on the picture of the full note , it says destroys life - creates life   which is where i got the synthesis thing

Modifié par ghost9191, 05 novembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Destroy is supporting Catalyst´s main issue and that´s the absurdity of co-existence betwen organics and synthetics, you are willing to sacrifice synthetics in order to defeat Reapers thru this choice you simply proving that synthetics have lesser value then organics in general, simply said you are proving Catalyst´s agenda - but only because it´s tailored in this way like Pyrrhic victory in OC.

As in Control I would say that Catalyst will be still alive but he took a dunno essence or whatever in order to finally understand what he should do long ago with his first programming, which is ironycal when he turned against own creators because he always failed in original programming.

And for synthesis, it´s far away from compromise - it´s desire of main antagonist - you simply rape both synthetics and organics under some weird assumption that they will stop killing each other, but why they would do that ? Or better questions is why we must pick this option when by Catalyst is it now inevitable ? IF synthesis is realy so called space magic without harm then this even wouldn´t harm relationship betwen all sides and you have still conflcits betwen all fractions, only thing which we can see is some green skined utopy galaxy with lot of hugs and love...

And well Refuse, it´s maybe moral victory but painful one...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[Purge the heathens]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

And well Refuse, it´s maybe moral victory but painful one...

Depending on the reasoning used, refusal means two things to me.

Either you believe a conventional victory is possible, in which case you are motivated by foolish hope, but perhaps admirable in some way. Or you would rather sacrifice all life in the galaxy than compromise your ideals. And that's terrible.

It might be even worse - the player deciding that everyone would be better off dead. You know, on "moral" grounds, not because the other endings are that bad.

[CrimsonNephilim]

I remember Casey or Mac posting something about the endings relating to the Matrix movies on their twitters some time before ME3 was launched.

[devSin]

Arcian wrote...

I don't think a note has ever made me as angry as this one does.

I wish we could get our hands on the original, roll it up, and smoke it.

We'd never come down.

[inko1nsiderate]

Could it be that it is actually referring to the end of the first matrix where Neo had to die in order to become the one?  You know, where he becomes one with the matrix and opens up a bunch of new possibilities (sort of like Synthesis).  At the end of Brave New World the plan is revealed and the characters are given a choice: integrate into society, or go to this place where all the creative types life but reject technology and the benefits of the brave new world.

So you have 'The Controller', the force Vendetta alluded to that shapes the pattern (Leviathan making it clear that the controller is itself a slave to this pattern), and then you also have the necessity of sacrifice of the hero to bring about the 'brave new world' along the lines of the choice given out by The Controller.

I mean, makes sense to me... plus it also means I assume they meant what they literally wrote and were actually talking about the first matrix and weren't confused as to which film they were talking about.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:38 .

[ghost9191]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Destroy is supporting Catalyst´s main issue and that´s the absurdity of co-existence betwen organics and synthetics, you are willing to sacrifice synthetics in order to defeat Reapers thru this choice you simply proving that synthetics have lesser value then organics in general, simply said you are proving Catalyst´s agenda - but only because it´s tailored in this way like Pyrrhic victory in OC.

As in Control I would say that Catalyst will be still alive but he took a dunno essence or whatever in order to finally understand what he should do long ago with his first programming, which is ironycal when he turned against own creators because he always failed in original programming.

And for synthesis, it´s far away from compromise - it´s desire of main antagonist - you simply rape both synthetics and organics under some weird assumption that they will stop killing each other, but why they would do that ? Or better questions is why we must pick this option when by Catalyst is it now inevitable ? IF synthesis is realy so called space magic without harm then this even wouldn´t harm relationship betwen all sides and you have still conflcits betwen all fractions, only thing which we can see is some green skined utopy galaxy with lot of hugs and love...

And well Refuse, it´s maybe moral victory but painful one...

wouldn't really say destroy devalues synthetic life, it is just the cost. easy way of destroying the reapers is to target synthetics , it wouldn't make much sense if say, it would cost the turians. it would lol why

control
that is maybe. but does favor synthetics. puts them on top any way you look at it.

synthesis is somewhat a compromise. changes both organics and synthetics to take away what makes them different. i doubt very much that would mean peace. just give different reasons to fight each other. and old

organics fought organics. even the geth turned against each other. doubt that problem can be solved by synthesis .

[spotlessvoid]

Synthesis is the obliteration of all organic life. Poof, nothing is truly organic anymore. Monsanto wins.

[DoomsdayDevice]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Synthesis is the obliteration of all organic life. Poof, nothing is truly organic anymore. Monsanto wins.

Agreed.

It's important to note how it doesn't physically affect synthetics. They will understand us because WE will get tech implants.  

"Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology. Synthetics, in turn, will finally have full understanding of organics"

We will be perfected, in other words: we were flawed. **** that.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 novembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[Obadiah]

Oh come on - we are flawed.

And we do seek to better (perfect) ourselves, though not (yet) with integrated technology.

However, "perfect" and "better" being relative terms, I don't trust the Catalyst to get that right.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 novembre 2012 - 01:09 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Well, IT was compelling before the EC, but as it stands now, it just requires way too many contrivances to be coherent. A few months ago, I also subscribed to IT. Now, not so much, unfortunately.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 06 novembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[spirosz]

I like this.

[Ithurael]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Well, IT was compelling before the EC, but as it stands now, it just requires way too many contrivances to be coherent. A few months ago, I also subscribed to IT. Now, not so much, unfortunately.

IT is an interpretation - not an intent.

You can believe in IT if you want, it ends in the same place as High EMS destroy.

[Davik Kang]

Obadiah wrote...

Oh come on - we are flawed.

And we do seek to better (perfect) ourselves, though not (yet) with integrated technology.

Yep.  We're flawed, and better off that way.

We strive for perfection but never reach it... Synthesis is really something that just screams impossible...

The Kid is trying to convince us that jumping into the Reaper-killing Crucible Death Ray will perfect all sentient existence... hmm....

[Obadiah]

Yeah, I'm guessing folks in Synthesis discover they are still flawed and go to war over resources.

Probably won't be so afraid of Synthetics anymore though. Glass half full.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 novembre 2012 - 01:34 .

[Oni Changas]

It greatly saddens me that Mass Effect was once a universe filled with the mystery, wonder, and intrigue of space and a techy future. Now it's just another uppity sci-fi romp about man v ancient machine. UGH.

[Nightwriter]

It is depressing that they thought an ending that fit the Matrix would fit Mass Effect. If that is indeed what I'm getting here. The notes say "end of first matrix," not the Architect ending.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 06 novembre 2012 - 01:57 .

[Davik Kang]

Nightwriter wrote...
It is depressing that they thought an ending that fit the Matrix would fit Mass Effect. If that is indeed what I'm getting here. The notes say "end of first matrix," not the Architect ending. 

Had a thought on why that might be...

Davik Kang wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
Was not expecting that thread to get necro-d - it was the first post I ever made on this forum [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]
Still, to my mind, it still holds water, and the solution to the problem is identical.

I posted a couple of weeks back my thoughts on how Synthesis basically represents the Matrix (the very bad thing in the film, not the film itself)... it got swallowed in posts, but certainly your thread has added a certain amount of (possibly misplaced) confidence to that idea...

Talking of which, I had a thought about the theme of "inevitablility"... Agent Smith famously uses the idea of inevitability to undermine Neo's efforts, and the Architect also uses a similar argument in the sequel... meanwhile in ME3, the Child alludes to the inevitability of Synthesis, as did Sovereign, Harbinger and Saren before him...

Maybe when Walters wrote "ending feels like... end of first Matrix" he meant that players would feel like Neo when they refused to accept the inevitability of the situation, and instead believe that they had the choice to reject the Child's logic and give hope a chance, by going right ahead and picking Destroy...

Maybe.  Works for me anyway.  Also I just remembered that Neo is called Mr. Anderson...

[BatmanTurian]

Arcian wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

http://imageshack.us...5/33611897.jpg/

I don't think a note has ever made me as angry as this one does.

you b*tch and moan the most about the writing. nobody cares.

[jkflipflopDAO]

I wanted a wide range of endings. That seemed the only way to properly end the series to me. I wanted a happy ending where Shep wins the day and gets his little blue kids. One where Shep tells humanity it's best if they throw down their weapons and join her in ascending into a Reaper. The current endings could have been fleshed out a little more into their own little walled paths.

[spirosz]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Arcian wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

http://imageshack.us...5/33611897.jpg/

I don't think a note has ever made me as angry as this one does.

you b*tch and moan the most about the writing. nobody cares.

It seems your statement is false, since I care.  Ouch.