9088 réponses à ce sujet

[Uncle Jo]

Veneke wrote...


Well, the impression given is that they won't think we're bacteria again - probably because we wouldn't be at that stage, we'd be half-machine, half-organic (huge oversimplification for purposes of avoid explanatory paragraph). I think I'll break out my favourite word in this thread again - relevance?
 
The short answer is no one knows, which I suspect is why no one replied to you. There's absolutely nothing to base an answer on ingame other than to say that they won't continue the existing war. At a guess, they'd probably do the same thing that the Geth had planned on doing after they built their Dyson sphere: they'd have to come up with new goals.

Thanks for your answer.

Relevance? Well, every choice has its consequences and the OP presented Synthesis as viable choice. Please understand that I don't argue just for the sake of arguing (I admit that my way to write is a little provokative and might let you think so, but it's really not the case). I just want to understand why people chose Synthesis.

I'll let aside the other considerations (like moral, ethics, new DNA...) this time.

You agree with me that by choosing Synthesis, you're letting the Reapers go away. So wether we like it or not,  they'll be a part of our universe. You also agree with me, that if they want to start a war again (and they could, nothing, as you said, can prove the contrary) for whatever reason we can't comprehend, they'll do it.
And this would make the Rachni war and the Krogan Rebellions look like a kids brawl in a schoolyard...

BTW I find the comparison with the Geth flawed because:

1. The Geth are completely synthetic, the Reapers only partly (see harvest).
2. The Geth are essentialy pacifists (maybe the most pacific race in the Galaxy). Their rampage in ME1 was caused by the Reapers (as well as the Rachni who were indoctrinated). They attack only if threatened.
3. The Geth are the proof that a technological singularity is not always going to end bad for the organics. For me it's enough to dismiss the whole c**p of the Catalyst.
4. The Reapers are capable of indoctrination, the Geth not.

The most people say that the Reapers were under the influence/control/trolling of the Brat. Problem is to what extent ? Where they just tools created by the Brat ? Or where they working with him ?

I know no one has the correct answer. But most of the people here don't have any problem to bet the fate of the Galaxy on it.

I'd like to correct also something :  NOWHERE it is confirmed/proved that the Catalyst is an AI (this is only an assumption, it could be also something completely different...)

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 24 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[Xellith]

Heeden wrote...

Xellith wrote...

If it really did happen - then having all life everywhere down to the smallest cell would mean they could dominate ALL life.  Not just advanced organics.  And I dont think its really much to do with technological advancement of the species.  At least not majorly.  I expect that the reapers want species to be able to use the relay technology so they can spread out more.  If they spread out more they get more resources.  More resources means more population.  More population means a better harvest. 

I think the reapers just want to ensure their own survival and the propagation of their kind at this point.  Its a lot easier for them to bait the trap with cheese than it is for them to systematically check every single planet in the galaxy and monitor its evolutionary course.

Synthesis would give them complete domination over all life in the galaxy.

You're still not giving a purpose for them wanting control. I can understand why an AI might want to eliminate all organics - we're horrible, dangerous things to have around. I can understand why an AI might want to preserve us - for all our faults we do tend to be quite interesting. But why control us? There's nothing we can do for them that they can't do infinitely easier for themselves. All you're doing is inventing new motivations out of some notion they must be evil when the series so far has gone to some lengths denying the existence of an objective evil.

The crucible shows that their existance can be threatened.  And as far as im aware - since when did a race ever need a reason to want to try and defend itself.  Its entirely reasonable for a species to want to control everything around it in order to make sure that its continued survival and species propagation is continued.  In the case of the reapers - its entirely plausable that the reapers want to control all life because they are an unstable element.  Controling that element would ensure their species survival under the end of time.

And I never said that they are evil. Even Javik talks about this very thing.  Basically he says "does the rabit think you are evil because you want to eat it?  No.  Its survival".

Do the humans think that the reapers are inherently evil because they want to ensure their own survival?  No.  At least I dont.

Not if what the catalyst is saying is true - which I dont believe it entirely is.

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

*snip*

The high-EMS endings are all meant to be "We win" endings. So except for the consequences explicitly told us like the destruction of the relays, adding so much bad stuff that an ending loses that quality is not in their spirit. This means that I have every right to reject dystopian scenarios others try to force on me, just because they wouldn't mean "we win" to me, in the same way I'd reject the ending interpretation "all relays go supernova and everyone is dead", which is one plausible outcome but rather obviously Not What Happens. 

*snip*

Just a question. Why do we need the highest EMS to see Shep survive? Thanks in advance for the answer.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 24 mai 2012 - 06:09 .

[Ieldra]

Uncle Jo wrote...
Just a question. Why do we need the highest EMS to see Shep survive? Thanks in advance for the answer.

That was obvious to me from day one: because Shepard really isn't meant to survive. The story the writers wanted to tell ends with Shepard's death. You might notice that you need MP to get the survival variant. I don't think that's an accident. They put that in as an extra reward for ultra-dedicated fans and to stave off accusations of a forced death with no choice etc.. For the same reason it's just a two-second scene. The scenario where Shepard survives is an afterthought.

(BTW that you need MP to get the survival variant is also the strongest argument against IT having been intended)   

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mai 2012 - 06:29 .

[Vlta]

God I'm amazed this argument is still going, but I guess really it's just like any religious/political argument both sides firmly believe their ideology is correct and neither side is going to budge.

[Taboo]

Vlta wrote...

God I'm amazed this argument is still going, but I guess really it's just like any religious/political argument both sides firmly believe their ideology is correct and neither side is going to budge.

The OP has doubts too.

This is just speculation.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...
Just a question. Why do we need the highest EMS to see Shep survive? Thanks in advance for the answer.

That was obvious to me from day one: because Shepard really isn't meant to survive. The story the writers wanted to tell ends with Shepard's death. You might notice that you need MP to get the survival variant. I don't think that's an accident. They put that in as an extra reward for ultra-dedicated fans and to stave off accusations of a forced death with no choice etc.. For the same reason it's just a two-second scene. The scenario where Shepard survives is an afterthought.

(BTW that you need MP to get the survival variant is also the strongest argument against IT having been intended)   

Nope...Not the awnser. Why is it destory only then?

[Taboo]

In a game about choice, I find the idea of having Shepard die in every outcome rather disingenuous. This is part of the reason they have the issue they have now. That's why we have the pre-rendered scene in the rubble. It's there to calm people down.

People raised issues with it though, and now Bioware has to clarify it.

That being said, I still wouldn't choose Synthesis even if it allowed me to survive.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[Vox Draco]

Vlta wrote...

God I'm amazed this argument is still going, but I guess really it's just like any religious/political argument both sides firmly believe their ideology is correct and neither side is going to budge.

As I see it, this kind of discussion at least keeps people occupied, so they don't rage on the streets and threaten innocent grandmas or putting the government buildings on fire. Yet the funyn thing is: Some synthesis-supporters have become quite like those supporters of the "Theory-thou-shalt-not-name-in-this-thread", fanatical and rather aggressive towards other points of view, seeing things that are clearly not there or don't have any basis in the game's reality. Grasping straws to justify your preferred choice, I'd call it (I am doing the same though, but at least I am right! )

I can't wait till EC, than hopefully it will be over one way or the other...*sigh*

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...
Just a question. Why do we need the highest EMS to see Shep survive? Thanks in advance for the answer.

That was obvious to me from day one: because Shepard really isn't meant to survive. The story the writers wanted to tell ends with Shepard's death. You might notice that you need MP to get the survival variant. I don't think that's an accident. They put that in as an extra reward for ultra-dedicated fans and to stave off accusations of a forced death with no choice etc.. For the same reason it's just a two-second scene. The scenario where Shepard survives is an afterthought.

(BTW that you need MP to get the survival variant is also the strongest argument against IT having been intended)   

Thanks for your answer OP (note that I never told that IT is true or brought it as argument. Since your thread take the ending(s) at face value, I'm strictly considering it from this point of view). I personally don't mind if Shepard dies and, as you said, it was predictable that such an option would come anyway. But that's not the point.

If you want to reward the gamers who played multi, you'll give them new weapons, new armors, maybe new side missions, not the best ending.

Even then, you don't explain how/why Shep can survive. Or BW really just added it to say "People you must play MP to see Shep live, but it doesn't mean anything at the end. It was just...a joke/easter egg" ? That's your last word?

Edit: Why did they make Destroy the only option where Shep can survive?

Edit 2: You can a be a ME fan without wanting to play MP and vice versa.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 24 mai 2012 - 07:08 .

[Taboo]

The best result we can all hope for is this. One were everyone gets "their" ending choice cleared up.

The Synthesis people will have whatever they want
The Control people what they want
The Destroy people what they want

Clarify that and give people an epilogue and people will shut up.

Watch.

[Ieldra]

Vlta wrote...
God I'm amazed this argument is still going, but I guess really it's just like any religious/political argument both sides firmly believe their ideology is correct and neither side is going to budge.

Actually, I didn't set out to justify Synthesis from a moral angle. IMO that's something every player has to decide for themselves. It's a consequentialist choice which is always problematic and debates about that are usually useless. I just wanted to make it make sense and create a halfway plausible scenario presenting Synthesis as a viable ending. I also wanted to set a counterpoint to the hate threads. All in all, things didn't go that badly. There were some interesting exchanges and new ideas among the expected barrage from the ... less coherent opposition, and the mood was all in all less rude than elsewhere, though you wouldn't think that if you read the first page..

[Taboo]

I always appear pissy, that's who I am. I'm very pleased to have threads like this.

I wouldn't post in this thread if I didn't like the conversations.

This thread is a godsend against the endless hate threads.

I don't think we can ever justify the endings from a moral angle though...and that's a good point the OP raises.

[Vox Draco]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The best result we can all hope for is this. One were everyone gets "their" ending choice cleared up.

The Synthesis people will have whatever they want
The Control people what they want
The Destroy people what they want

Clarify that and give people an epilogue and people will shut up.

Watch.

Would be nice to see, though hard to satisy everyone.

Especially if destroy would really be clarified in the way most people wish: Shep lives, Geth and EDI live, Relays easily rebuild using the tech of salvaged Reapers etc...destroy would become canon-ending, woohoo! No ill side-effects anymore! At least I would shut up for sure in that scenario...though I wonder why bother with the other choices then, but okay, I am generous

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The best result we can all hope for is this. One were everyone gets "their" ending choice cleared up.

The Synthesis people will have whatever they want
The Control people what they want
The Destroy people what they want

Clarify that and give people an epilogue and people will shut up.

Watch.

Absolutely, absolutely. Though I don't think there should be an ending without downsides. Also there are themes and balance. The deaths of the synthetics fits Destroy thematically as well as the destruction of the relays. Both don't fit Control. To balance that, Shepard can survive in Destroy - that needs to be more than an afterthought. It evens out somewhat. Now Synthesis has the relays destroyed *and* Shepard dead, so it should really be the best ending in some other aspect that those who choose this ending would appreciate.

I think the unofficial epilogues get the spirit of the endings right. Every option has a lot to go for it. I think Bioware could do worse than let themselves be inspired by them.

[Ieldra]

Uncle Jo wrote...
Edit: Why did they make Destroy the only option where Shep can survive?

I think you'll have to see that in the light of development history. In the leaked script, just a few months before release, Destroy was the only ending where the relays were destroyed. They had it set up for a stepped sacrifice scenario:

Destroy: Shepard can live, civilization is set back
Control: Shepard's gone but somehow still there, civilization stays as it is.
Synthesis: Shepard's irrevocably dead, civilization is advanced.

I thought that was good. I have no idea why they scrapped that neat balance. Just as I have no idea why they scrapped the other stuff that made the ending make sense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mai 2012 - 07:25 .

[Uncle Jo]

To put it very simply :

There are 3 choices:

For Shepard, 2 out of this 3 choices mean certain death.

For the Reapers 2 out of 3 choices mean escape/survive (surprisingly the same where Shepard is sure to die).

The ONLY choice where the Reapers die is (with high EMS)... where Shepard survives.

[Taboo]

I really don't think Bioware intends for us to have a best ending, at least anymore. I think that's key here. You should decide what you think is best.

Take Synthesis for example, it isn't for me but I can certainly see them making improvements for the people who like it. Clarify that people don't turn into mass blobs of flesh and machine.

Or Destroy, Shepard will survive, but at the cost of the Geth and EDI. The galaxy can be shown rebuilding or some such.

Control can have......well whatever happens with that (No one has a great thread about this yet.)

Those unofficial epilogue scenes WILL be my canon though, if by some off chance the EC fails to deliver.

No ending should be "perfect". To do so would invalidate the others.

[clennon8]

I'm less interested in balancing the choices and more interested in keeping thematic balance. Synthesis in no way fits with established themes of the game. And, I'm sorry, but I'm going to keep repeating this: Until someone adequately addresses the issue of consent (you can't) I'm not interested in any speculation about what Synthesis does. It doesn't matter. No matter what it does, it's WRONG.

Modifié par clennon8, 24 mai 2012 - 07:38 .

[PsyrenY]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nope...Not the awnser. Why is it destory only then?

That's obvious - the other endings need Shepard as a template to function. Control needs Shepard's mind, and Synthesis needs Shepard's... well, everything.

It's also symbolic. Destroy is literally nothing special - anybody can pull a trigger, anybody can kill indiscriminately. Shepard can survive it simply because s/he is not a necessary component of such a banal process. But Control and especially Synthesis only work for Shepard - the former because few other people could withstand/overcome indoctrination like Shepard has, and the latter because nobody has had Shepard's unique rebirth/reconstruction.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 24 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[antares_sublight]

2 out of 3 choices are choice-by-guilt, and I resent the way BioWare did it.

The whole series has been pushing Shepard toward destroying the reapers. When you finally get to that point, they randomly throw in negative consequences that force you to consider the other options, one of which (Control) is something Shepard's allies call folly and his enemies call their goal and the other (Synthesis) is indefensible, unexplained nonsense (as it is in the game) and seems to be the preferred goal of the most evil force in the galaxy.

If the EC will make sense of the three endings (it won't) then good. Who cares who chooses what. But as it stands now (and most likely will continue to stand) a players choice can only be based off of their own headcanon and fanfiction, totally disregarding the rest of the series.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Control can have......well whatever happens with that (No one has a great thread about this yet.)

Does it need one though? Once you clarify details like length and depth of control, as well as what form Shepard takes after losing his/her body, you can quickly evaluate it relative to the others.

The only real sticking point for Control speculation is why the Citadel/Relays survive under it, and what that means for the rebuilding Galaxy. (And I have an answer for this one - just like controlling the Collector Base or rewriting the Heretics, Control represents using the paths of others rather than forging a path of one's own. It leaves the Relays and Citadel intact so that they can still be used by the races of the Galaxy. And as EDI proved, using another's path/tech can be a good thing.)

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...
Destroy is literally nothing special - anybody can pull a trigger, anybody can kill indiscriminately. Shepard can survive it simply because s/he is not a necessary component of such a banal process.

As the Catalyst says, Shepard is the first organic to make it to that point of pulling the trigger. Hardly "literally nothing special" or "banal".

[antares_sublight]

Modifié par antares_sublight, 24 mai 2012 - 07:39 .

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

As the Catalyst says, Shepard is the first organic to make it to that point of pulling the trigger. Hardly "literally nothing special" or "banal".

Irrelevant - anybody who got up there could shoot that pipe, including Anderson or a remorseful TIM. Not everyone can control Reapers (requires overcoming/resisting indoctrination) and only Shepard can synthesize (requires being synthetic-organic oneself.)

And again, it requires no personal sacrifice of any part of you, just the ability to fire a gun.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 24 mai 2012 - 07:41 .