9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ieldra2, So basically the catalyst has a control chip inside every reaper, which molds their thoughts into what the catalyst wants?
That would explain a lot of things, like why the control signal needs to reach every reaper rather than just replace the catalyst at the citadel, or why just blowing up the citadel won't work. Also, maybe this is why the catalyst couldn't open the arms itself, because in itself it is nothing, the reapers are its hands and bodies?

Also, I was thinking what the catalyst meant by organics not being ready and synthesis being something which cannot be forced. Maybe, because we ourselves built and finished the crucible, and we ourselves chose the option; without reaper interference in any of it (disregarding IT). So it is not forced (yea I know.. I just mean here that it is not forced by the reapers, we built the source of synthesis ourselves and chose the option ourselves). And we are ready (we finally finished the crucible).

[Hannah Montana]

BrookerT wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Hannah Montana wrote...

You made the wrong choice, your shepard now belongs to the Reapers.

You lost the game.

Funny, this is the _exact_ opposite of everything Bioware has ever said about the ending. Now who do I think is more accurate... hmmmm....

The company that said there was 16 different endings.
The company that said the saving/destroying Rachni would have big consequences.

Maybe you were been sarcastic. 

They never said there would be sixteen endings, some retakers made it up

They said the prescene of the Rachni would have consequences, and it does. You fight them for half the game, add to your EMS or lower it, cause the death of an old friend, and in the EC they move into Tuchanka if you lie to Wrex/Wreav about curing the Genophage. Seems like a consequence to me.

The prescene of the Rachni is absolute, you fight them every time.
They can cause the death of a friend, the Rachni moving into Tuchanka is post quote and it is pointless.

"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."

It's in square brackets, your point is invalid.
Plus the latter sentence was not true and it is wrote in a way that it optional.
[/i]

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...
Ieldra2, So basically the catalyst has a control chip inside every reaper, which molds their thoughts into what the catalyst wants?
That would explain a lot of things, like why the control signal needs to reach every reaper rather than just replace the catalyst at the citadel, or why just blowing up the citadel won't work. Also, maybe this is why the catalyst couldn't open the arms itself, because in itself it is nothing, the reapers are its hands and bodies?

Not exactly a control chip. The Catalyst has a distributed consciousness, and parts of the hardware it resides in function as a control chip. They may be connected to the central unit in the Citadel by FTL links, similar to the way the geth are linked to their consensus.

Also, I was thinking what the catalyst meant by organics not being ready and synthesis being something which cannot be forced. Maybe, because we ourselves built and finished the crucible, and we ourselves chose the option; without reaper interference in any of it (disregarding IT). So it is not forced (yea I know.. I just mean here that it is not forced by the reapers, we built the source of synthesis ourselves and chose the option ourselves). And we are ready (we finally finished the crucible).

Hmm I think "It can't be forced" refers to organics working with the new way of integrating technology. Synthesis gives them the means, but if they refuse to do anything with it then nothing has been gained. Synthetics will still surpass them which will result in conflict. Of course that raises the question of why the Catalyst knows they're ready this time. Maybe your point comes in there.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Maybe I didn't put it correctly (yet again!) I meant there must be some piece of hardware inside the reapers that must belong to the catalyst's "whole" ?

[Taboo]

I look at a lot like a more literal explanation of what the toked up guy on an LA street corner says when he's high.

It really does "expand" your mind. It's a crude analogy and I apologize. The difference is is that the change is permanent. There is no need to do much of anything else.

And of course, behavior is not inhibited.

But that still makes me nervous, as I feel people should have the choice to feel that way.

[Ieldra]

Well, no. I don't think Synthesis as such "expands your mind", even less in the way you suggest. It makes it easy for you to expand your mind by integrating technology.

@pirate1802:
Yeah, that's what I meant as well.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 août 2012 - 09:22 .

[Enthalpy]

 On a completely unrelated note, candy.

Modifié par Enthalpy, 19 août 2012 - 02:43 .

[JamieCOTC]

Recently replayed my canon Shepard. It was an insanity run, so I didn't go into the game w/ any specific ending in mind. Just wanted to do it. I ultimately chose synthesis, but not for what happens in the game, but what it represents. Shepard gives her life to save the entire galaxy. I know that Mack and Casey wanted a high level concept for the end, but I'm not sure ME really needed it. Sometimes simple is better and it is that simple concept that I take from this ending. Everything else is just fluff and nonsense.

[Ieldra]

"What it represents", that's the "high-level concept". I have no problem with it. It needs to be grounded in in-world logic though, and they didn't do that well. I like the outcome and the symbolism, but how it comes about leaves something to be desired.

[Taboo]

It reminds me a lot of Asimov. It's a great concept but it's rather sterile in the emotions department. Asimov had that problem.

It's mechanical.

Asimov didn't even have sex in his stories until someone pointed it out to him. And don't get me started on his female characters.

[JamieCOTC]

Ieldra2 wrote...

"What it represents", that's the "high-level concept". I have no problem with it. It needs to be grounded in in-world logic though, and they didn't do that well. I like the outcome and the symbolism, but how it comes about leaves something to be desired.

For me, the core principle is simply the sacrifice itself. Nothing else enters into it, synthesis least of all.

[Ieldra]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

"What it represents", that's the "high-level concept". I have no problem with it. It needs to be grounded in in-world logic though, and they didn't do that well. I like the outcome and the symbolism, but how it comes about leaves something to be desired.

For me, the core principle is simply the sacrifice itself. Nothing else enters into it, synthesis least of all.

So, it doesn't matter what is achieved through that sacrifice?

[DirtyPhoenix]

On symbolism, why is it that Shepard is in pain (obviously) in control but she just gently jogs and jumps the beam on synthesis she even has a smile on her face as she disintegrates.

@JaieCOTC, doesn't control achieve the same thing? Sacrifice to save the galaxy? It doesn't even have the side effects of synthesis.

[DirtyPhoenix]

double post

Modifié par pirate1802, 20 août 2012 - 04:22 .

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...
On symbolism, why is it that Shepard is in pain (obviously) in control but she just gently jogs and jumps the beam on synthesis she even has a smile on her face as she disintegrates.

Synthesis is intended to symbolize peace. Control is intended to be the Renegade choice where Shepard sets himself up as the ruler of the galaxy. Of course, things aren't that simple.

[saracen16]

Jassu1979 wrote...

JedTed wrote...

In ME2:  My Shepard destroyed the Collector base because he felt using it would be an insult to all the human colonists that were "processed" there. 

What about all the countless races that were "processed" to create the Reapers?
In one potential dialogue on Rannoch, Shepard even tells the dying destroyer that the people who were used to create it died a long time ago, and will now be finally able to rest in peace.

Personally, I see this as a HUGE stumbling block when it comes to synthesis, because some part of the beings that were "processed" by force still exists within the Reapers. In short, embracing the Reapers after all that they did strikes me as an insult to every sapient being that went through this:

Emotional blackmail doesn't tend to make a strong argument. Latin America's dictators during the Cold War have committed unspeakable atrocities, yet that didn't stop the U.S. or CIA from supporting them. Consider: the Reapers are not life like they were before. The corporeal form has left and has become "transcended flesh". It mirrors the oceans-and-afterlife analogy that Thane spoke of in ME2: it is not life as we know it.

It's not about revenge, not really. It's more about ending the suffering of those whose minds are trapped inside Reaper form, all of whom were forced to repeat the crimes that had been committed against them throughout the ages.

How do you know that they are suffering? The suffering was already inflicted: the bodies have been reduced into genetic paste. As far as I know, that's not life, but death. The genetic paste reconstituted into the Reaper, into these different organic minds, recreated or resynthesized. Merging with synthetic technology does not betray them. The Reapers rebuild the civilizations of the galaxy, meaning that they have reverted to their true selves.

[JamieCOTC]

pirate1802 wrote...

On symbolism, why is it that Shepard is in pain (obviously) in control but she just gently jogs and jumps the beam on synthesis she even has a smile on her face as she disintegrates.

@JaieCOTC, doesn't control achieve the same thing? Sacrifice to save the galaxy? It doesn't even have the side effects of synthesis.

It does, but only synthesis saves the entire galaxy, Reapers included.  And what happens after Shep dies would matter if they hadn't botched the ending so horribly.  Viewing it as a sacrifice on Shepard's part, in other words a point of action instead of the Catalyst letting her win, makes it go down a little easier. 

[Ieldra]

JamieCOTC wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

On symbolism, why is it that Shepard is in pain (obviously) in control but she just gently jogs and jumps the beam on synthesis she even has a smile on her face as she disintegrates.

@JaieCOTC, doesn't control achieve the same thing? Sacrifice to save the galaxy? It doesn't even have the side effects of synthesis.

It does, but only synthesis saves the entire galaxy, Reapers included.  And what happens after Shep dies would matter if they hadn't botched the ending so horribly.  Viewing it as a sacrifice on Shepard's part, in other words a point of action instead of the Catalyst letting her win, makes it go down a little easier. 

The Catalyst "letting her win" isn't a big problem for me. You see, the Catalyst doesn't think in terms of winning or losing, not as humans would. It thinks in a totally detached way and in terms of objectives met, otherwise it wouldn't suggest solutions that include its own destruction. As little regard as it has for individual organic lives, as little it has for its own continued existence, as long as its objectives as it understands them - to prevent organics from being destroyed by organics - are completed.

Anyway, it's a sacrifice on Shepard's part anyway. In Destroy, Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect, in Control he sacrifices his organic aspect, and in Synthesis he sacrifices all of himself. I just wish Destroy's and Synthesis' sacrifices were rooted in in-world logic better.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 août 2012 - 07:21 .

[Ieldra]

Someone in another thread posted that in spite of the "space-magicky-ness" of Synthesis, it gave them the future of the galaxy they'd wanted. It was the same for me. How do other thinks about it?

[RiouHotaru]

I'm a Destroy fan, through and through, but I definitely have no issue with people picking Synthesis if that's what they believe. I find the meaningless hysteria and endless criticism of it to be utterly ridiculous, with almost zero foundation in anything resembling logic or fact (Read: most of TAO's complaints).

The point is that all 3 endings present a hopeful future that the galaxy can eventually achieve through whatever choice Shepard makes. That one ending seems -more- hopeful than the others doesn't negate the other two (no, I don't consider Refuse a choice) nor diminish the sense of hope they give.

Synthesis just requires that Shepard believe in taking a leap of faith in bridging the gap between organics and synthetics. You can already advise EDI about that leap of faith with regards to Joker. I see no reason Shepard can't believe in his/her own advice.

[Versus Omnibus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Someone in another thread posted that in spite of the "space-magicky-ness" of Synthesis, it gave them the future of the galaxy they'd wanted. It was the same for me. How do other thinks about it?

The way Synthesis was displayed was poorly done. It literally came out of nowhere and how it vaguely describes what it does shows that the developers literally just pulled it out of a hat and said "Hey we got our third choice!" I have a hard time believing that Synthesis was intended at any point in ME3's development or that it's the best choice just based on Bioware presents it.

So why did I pick it?

Simple.

I chose it because it would allow me to save as many lives as I could. I refused to commit genocide, recreate a new Catalyst, or let trillions die because I didn't get what I want.

If that makes me a heartless monster as Hannah Montana or TOA claim me to be then fine. At least I'll die knowing that they're alive and free to even make those accusations.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Sahport.

[Taboo]

I'd be more open to it if I could believe it. Space magic aside I can't get through the epilogue without laughing. It's like...not camp but something else. It's strange.

Like The Man Who Fell to Earth strange. Some of the things in there have no business in being there. Except I'm not laughing at TMWFTE.

I really think it's in the wrong story.

[Hannah Montana]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Sahport.

You can't run forever.

[Enthalpy]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Someone in another thread posted that in spite of the "space-magicky-ness" of Synthesis, it gave them the future of the galaxy they'd wanted. It was the same for me. How do other thinks about it?

The way Synthesis was displayed was poorly done. It literally came out of nowhere and how it vaguely describes what it does shows that the developers literally just pulled it out of a hat and said "Hey we got our third choice!" I have a hard time believing that Synthesis was intended at any point in ME3's development or that it's the best choice just based on Bioware presents it.

So why did I pick it?

Simple.

I chose it because it would allow me to save as many lives as I could. I refused to commit genocide, recreate a new Catalyst, or let trillions die because I didn't get what I want.

If that makes me a heartless monster as Hannah Montana or TOA claim me to be then fine. At least I'll die knowing that they're alive and free to even make those accusations.

All of this. Besides, I find Javik's strange abilities slightly more immersion-breaking.