9087 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonShepard]

Just to jump in. I have the same level of trust with Control and Destroy. I just don't value the reaper platforms enough to kill myself in order to patch them. They're definitely powerful and useful, but they're not worth it. The whole idea of dying so they can have better software is absurd.

 

Synthesis requires me to care about the Reapers and their need to understand and coexist.. if it was just EDI, I might just go for it.

 

I can understand that. For me, Control is more about saving the Geth (and EDI) than actually utilising the Reapers (although it does come with a much faster Mass Relay repair...) And Control does carry some pretty hefty longterm risks. (I mean, who will the Shepard-AI be in, say, 300 years? Or 30,000?)

 

As for Synthesis... Okay. I'll admit it, I have some fairly strong transhumanist values. If brain-uploading gets invented within my lifetime, I'll be heavily considering it. Likewise with Deus Ex style augmentation. My problem with Synthesis, as presented by the Catalyst, is my desire for us to get there on our own terms, so that we can pick and choose what we want along the way. Heck, we already know that the Catalyst's idea of what's best for everyone doesn't exactly match up with everyone else's. I'm not sure I'm willing to trust its interpretation of Synthesis.

[dorktainian]

the game (no matter the assets you have) offers you destroy or control.  The more assets you assemble, the more choices you get until eventually you get improved control, improved destroy, and synthesis.  Now lets look at the mechanics of the ending shall we?

 

Paragon and renegade are turned on their heads.  Control is a paragon choice while destroy is a renegade option.  Synthesis is the 'middle ground'.

 

Now if Paragon and Renegade are switched in an attempt to confuse, then maybe the whole war assets thing ends up exactly the same.  The less assets you have the better the outcome, not the other way round.  Unless you're really lazy and you don't get enough assets to stop earth becoming a charred rock.

 

Does this make Synthesis the better choice?  I don't think so.

 

With Destroy there is always the possibility of shepard surviving (indeed max those assets out and he takes a breath).

With control it's impossible for shepard to survive.

With Synthesis it's impossible for shepard to survive.

 

Forget the colours.  Look at shepards survival chances. 

[JasonShepard]

the game (no matter the assets you have) offers you destroy or control.  The more assets you assemble, the more choices you get until eventually you get improved control, improved destroy, and synthesis.  Now lets look at the mechanics of the ending shall we?

 

Paragon and renegade are turned on their heads.  Control is a paragon choice while destroy is a renegade option.  Synthesis is the 'middle ground'.

 

Destroy being renegade makes sense. It's the short, easiest solution, and it commits friendly fire in the process. You wipe out the Reapers by sacrificing synthetics. That sounds fairly renegade to me.

 

Control has overtones of both (and has epilogues that echo both) depending on your motivations for choosing Control. The Paragon side is the self-sacrifice to save as many as you can - there's a reason that "No-one else dies today" was an early slogan for Control. Of course, the Renegade side is all about seizing power - and that comes across very well in the Renegade-Control epilogue.

 

Synthesis is not a 'middle ground'. It's a completely separate third option. But other people are better at explaining the themes behind Synthesis (particularly the OP of this thread) - I'm not sure I'm the right person to cover that. (Since this is the Synthesis thread, it may be worth taking this conversation elsewhere.)

 

Now if Paragon and Renegade are switched in an attempt to confuse, then maybe the whole war assets thing ends up exactly the same.  The less assets you have the better the outcome, not the other way round.  Unless you're really lazy and you don't get enough assets to stop earth becoming a charred rock.

 

Does this make Synthesis the better choice?  I don't think so.

 

With Destroy there is always the possibility of shepard surviving (indeed max those assets out and he takes a breath).

With control it's impossible for shepard to survive.

With Synthesis it's impossible for shepard to survive.

 

Forget the colours.  Look at shepards survival chances. 

 

You're (mildly) contradicting yourself. Less assets is better, yet the only way for Shepard to survive is by getting max assets? And, while I can see where you're coming from with the colour switch, assets bad, ending attempting to confuse argument you're making... No. It feels like you're clutching at straws to me, trying to build something that isn't there.

 

Anyway, I'm not here for the colours. I'm not here for Shepard's survival. I'm roleplaying Commander Shepard, and I'm damn well going to do what I feel is best for the galaxy. Even if that involves sacrificing myself to save others. As the Shepard-AI, I'll let the Geth live. I'll help the galaxy rebuild. And then I'll leave.

[Helios969]

So you're not willing to trust Synthesis or Control, and feel that they might be traps. I can entirely agree with that logic - for all we know, they might be. But if that's the case, why aren't you extending the same caution towards Destroy? I mean, the Reapers are offering you a chance to wipe them out. Why are you not equally suspicious of Destroy compared to Control or Synthesis?

Jas...I actually thought about including that line of reasoning...and I actually am suspicious. Of course if each choice is a trap then I guess we're screwed no matter what.

[dorktainian]

Destroy being renegade makes sense. It's the short, easiest solution, and it commits friendly fire in the process. You wipe out the Reapers by sacrificing synthetics. That sounds fairly renegade to me.

 

Control has overtones of both (and has epilogues that echo both) depending on your motivations for choosing Control. The Paragon side is the self-sacrifice to save as many as you can - there's a reason that "No-one else dies today" was an early slogan for Control. Of course, the Renegade side is all about seizing power - and that comes across very well in the Renegade-Control epilogue.

 

Synthesis is not a 'middle ground'. It's a completely separate third option. But other people are better at explaining the themes behind Synthesis (particularly the OP of this thread) - I'm not sure I'm the right person to cover that. (Since this is the Synthesis thread, it may be worth taking this conversation elsewhere.)

 

 

You're (mildly) contradicting yourself. Less assets is better, yet the only way for Shepard to survive is by getting max assets? And, while I can see where you're coming from with the colour switch, assets bad, ending attempting to confuse argument you're making... No. It feels like you're clutching at straws to me, trying to build something that isn't there.

 

Anyway, I'm not here for the colours. I'm not here for Shepard's survival. I'm roleplaying Commander Shepard, and I'm damn well going to do what I feel is best for the galaxy. Even if that involves sacrificing myself to save others. As the Shepard-AI, I'll let the Geth live. I'll help the galaxy rebuild. And then I'll leave.

actually i'm trying to confuse myself and doing a bloody good job of it.

 

OK you get a load of war assets and are given 3 choices.

All 3 choices are starjars.  

 

2 will result in certain death, while the third will do what you set out to do,

 

Logically you want to survive.  Only one of starjars options offers any chance of survival.

 

You might then say "well I don't mind as long as the reapers are blown to hell".  Really?  Would you not rather live, or have the chance of surviving? 

 

Control offers certain death.  He tries to BS you by saying you'll survive, then tells you that you will lose everything you have.

 

Everything is a big word.

 

Synthesis offers you certain death, and galactic wide genetic re-write..... genetic manipulation (cough.........collectors.........cough).

 

The reapers are our friends?  Really?

 

 

 

So why would you not want to destroy the reapers?

[JasonShepard]

Okay, I felt we were wandering off-topic talking about how tricksy the Catalyst might be, so I've made a thread here. This Synthesis thread has been around for a while - I don't want it getting locked from us briefly going off-topic!

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Ah, that one is of the IT-nonsense persuasion. Do not waste your time talking sense, Jason. 

[SwobyJ]

the game (no matter the assets you have) offers you destroy or control.  The more assets you assemble, the more choices you get until eventually you get improved control, improved destroy, and synthesis.  Now lets look at the mechanics of the ending shall we?

 

Paragon and renegade are turned on their heads.  Control is a paragon choice while destroy is a renegade option.  Synthesis is the 'middle ground'.

 

Now if Paragon and Renegade are switched in an attempt to confuse, then maybe the whole war assets thing ends up exactly the same.  The less assets you have the better the outcome, not the other way round.  Unless you're really lazy and you don't get enough assets to stop earth becoming a charred rock.

 

Does this make Synthesis the better choice?  I don't think so.

 

With Destroy there is always the possibility of shepard surviving (indeed max those assets out and he takes a breath).

With control it's impossible for shepard to survive.

With Synthesis it's impossible for shepard to survive.

 

Forget the colours.  Look at shepards survival chances. 

 

Wrong.

 

You can finish ME3 with only Low Control available. No Extended Cut + Saved Collector Base and Import + Low EMS = Only Low Control bridge is up.

 

Even if Control is 'actually Renegade', the story has always continued when Renegade.

 

But otherwise I guess I agree? I just think, as you probably know, that believing that only Breath Destroy leads to any sort of good continuation of story is presumptuous. Perhaps Control and Synthesis has left the familiar behind. Okay. But the next game, from all we've seen so far, is a mix of old concepts in NEW FORM, a new story. Even if Bioware is being tricky, that doesn't mean they're not being technically correct when they describe the next game (or at least a lot of their comments so far).

 

Like Jason said, he doesn't need his Shepard to survive for his ending. Maybe its not a position you can understand as much as he does, but there it is. If there somehow is a 'rude awakening', I personally doubt that all is still doomed.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Anyways... I still treat the Reapers as "people" in one way or another. I respect their sense of "personhood". But that also means I want to kill them. I don't care to see them as ignorant machines that need to be rewritten or who need to understand organics. They just need to die. Just like any other sentient, mass murdering, mad scientist psychopath. No different than killing Petrovsky or Lawson.

 

If the decision came down solely to what fate the Reapers deserved (and it is not, of course, that is just one factor of many that go into my decision and a relatively unimportant one in the big scheme of things), then I would be lenient. I do not think one can fairly judge the Reapers given the Catalyst. I would not similarly punish someone for their actions while under the effects of indoctrination if somehow I got ahold of someone like Benezia and she was freed from the compulsion.

 

The Catalyst, on the other hand, would not get off easy, but it does not appear that he "lives" in any given ending anyway save for temporarily in Refuse.

 

I've heard some folks say "Well they sounded like they enjoyed reaping anyway so they must have been okay with being controlled." This of course I cannot accept because the control they were under may have produced this pleasure in the first place. You are not you while under mind-control so none of that stuff counts IMO. Cripes sake, Phantom!Jack talks trash at Shepard and your squad when you encounter her. Does that mean Jack would normally support Cerberus's cause?

 

And then there is the argument that there are too many hard feelings against them, so, they should be unilaterally eliminated to make people feel better. I cannot accept that either, because it is basically letting the mob dictate justice. Justice should really only be about two things: deterring further crime from taking place, and removing some menace from society. It should not be about pandering to the outraged masses. I mean, how can anyone dispute the Catalyst saying organics cannot stay civil with synthetics when they are content to commit violence -- against them or amongst ourselves -- over things like hard feelings?

 

 

I let Petrovsky live. Only thing really scummy that happened on Omega was the Adjutant thing, but there was some reasonable doubt about whether or not he was truly behind that. In the comic, Cerberus had them before the invasion, so the ones he was using might have already been made or been the work of others he did not oversee. And even if he was responsible, I mean, this is frickin Omega we're talking about. Scum is par-for-the-course there. 9 out of 10 of those victims in that whole ordeal were probably some manner of criminal anyway -- LOL! In all seriousness, they likely were Omega thugs that fought Cerberus as they would any other rival gang, likely not any group of people worth shedding too many tears over.

 

I had no say in Mr. Lawson either way because Miranda kills him (you can potentially choose his fate if she is not in the scene). If I did, I would consider letting him into the efforts, but likely not. It would be a Knight-Captain Denam situation for me (I conscripted most prisoners into Inquisition service, but had a bad feeling about that one so I opted to put him away).

[God]

In all honesty, I wouldn't even call the adjutants that bad.

 

The people of Omega aren't people worth saving in my opinion. Criminals, hanger-ons, cast-offs, generally useless people that are a waste of resources. Cerberus did right by making them useful.

 

Now the people who are useful, with skills, they're the ones worth fighting for and getting to join my army. Anyone else isn't worth the trouble. 

 

They're death's make it easier for their betters to survive.

[God]

Dude, it's a city like any other. The population is almost 8 million. All kinds of people live there.

 

You've been spending too much time in the desert, I think.

 

It's a space station, full of people who aren't doing anything conducive to the war effort. Omega isn't known for having the prime gene pool of the galaxy. One space station full of poor people. In peace, I'd be more inclined to help. In war, they're just more mouths to feed who aren't helping or doing anything useful. I'm more interested in saving the station than the people. For Aria. She has an army and a fleet. I could use those.

 

And the Cerberus research is tremendously useful.

 

We could have had 8 million adjutants on our side. That'd help immeasurably at Earth and other locales.

 

And really, that's not the best thing to say to a guy who's over here. Dick move dude.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

the game (no matter the assets you have) offers you destroy or control.  The more assets you assemble, the more choices you get until eventually you get improved control, improved destroy, and synthesis.  Now lets look at the mechanics of the ending shall we?

 

Paragon and renegade are turned on their heads.  Control is a paragon choice while destroy is a renegade option.  Synthesis is the 'middle ground'.

 

Now if Paragon and Renegade are switched in an attempt to confuse, then maybe the whole war assets thing ends up exactly the same.  The less assets you have the better the outcome, not the other way round.  Unless you're really lazy and you don't get enough assets to stop earth becoming a charred rock.

 

Does this make Synthesis the better choice?  I don't think so.

 

With Destroy there is always the possibility of shepard surviving (indeed max those assets out and he takes a breath).

With control it's impossible for shepard to survive.

With Synthesis it's impossible for shepard to survive.

 

Forget the colours.  Look at shepards survival chances. 

 

No, you've got it wrong.

 

Control is the worst ending. Low EMS Control is the only one where no one survives on the Normandy.

At least with Low EMS Destroy Joker survives.

[themikefest]

No, you've got it wrong.

 

Control is the worst ending. Low EMS Control is the only one where no one survives on the Normandy.

At least with Low EMS Destroy Joker survives.

 

low ems control everyone survives. It just takes longer to rebuild than with high ems control

 

low ems destroy - the doors to the Normandy do not open at all. Earth is scorched

[JasonShepard]

In all honesty, I wouldn't even call the adjutants that bad.

 

The people of Omega aren't people worth saving in my opinion. Criminals, hanger-ons, cast-offs, generally useless people that are a waste of resources. Cerberus did right by making them useful.

 

Now the people who are useful, with skills, they're the ones worth fighting for and getting to join my army. Anyone else isn't worth the trouble. 

 

They're death's make it easier for their betters to survive.

 

So you assign worth to people based on how useful they are to you, rather than treating life as having inherent worth? That... doesn't sound like God

 

OT: What do people think to the suggestion that the Adjutants were a previous attempt by the Catalyst at Synthesis? I mean, it's rather odd that they are capable of converting anyone into a new Adjutant... (Clearly, it's not a form of Synthesis any of us would be willing to accept...)

[God]

So you assign worth to people based on how useful they are to you, rather than treating life as having inherent worth? That... doesn't sound like God

 

OT: What do people think to the suggestion that the Adjutants were a previous attempt by the Catalyst at Synthesis? I mean, it's rather odd that they are capable of converting anyone into a new Adjutant... (Clearly, it's not a form of Synthesis any of us would be willing to accept...)

 

Yes, yes, I do that. 

 

I don't believe life has inherent worth. Why for example do you believe that life does have inherent value?

[God]

Dick move? I'm actually concerned.  You might need air conditioning. And perhaps a good party among civilized people.

 

Because I can't take you seriously. You're just going for shock value. As do some other Cerberus supporters... it doesn't seem to have anything to do with human empowerment anymore... but just supporting the most demented aspects of Mass Effect for the lulz.

 

Civilized people... All I know is that civilized people don't know jack about civilized. Just simple hedonism. Bags of flesh and water that move and are somehow alive, that's all they are. And it's so easy, so very easy to snuff them out. What would civilized people have to offer any of us?

 

But yeah, dick move. 

 

When have I ever given you any aspect of my psyche where I didn't feel that way. It's how I've always felt, and I'm fairly consistent with it. I support this course of action because it buys us time. I'm trading lives for time and resources. 

 

And that's what's going to win a war. Time and resources. Consider it fortunate I'm making the lives a resource unto themselves.

[JasonShepard]

Yes, yes, I do that. 

 

I don't believe life has inherent worth. Why for example do you believe that life does have inherent value?

 

*Shrug*

 

It's one of the basic values at the core of my morality system. It holds a lot of the rest of it up. Life has potential. Where there's life, there's the potential for more stuff, for ideas, for character, for observations... For people.

 

I find the universe amazing partly because it developed a part of itself that is capable of thinking about the rest. And that part is us. The universe would be a far less interesting place if it didn't have life in it. It wouldn't have any worth to me (though I also wouldn't exist, so that statement is a somewhat strange one). And so each individual life - each individual sentient being - has worth to me.

 

The thing is, from what I understand of who you are (and therefore feel entirely free to correct me on this), you have something similar in your own morality system. You're willing to fight for people. Why? What worth have they to you that you're willing to risk your life over them?

 

PS: You're a moral relativist, aren't you? I'm sure I've seen you comment that before now. We probably mean slightly different things by the term, but the term could probably be applied to me as well. Though I'm sure we have rather different moral systems.

[God]

Collective groups, made of collective people, who have proven that they are capable of innovation and construction. Because it's a lot easier for me to live and get what I want from others. Not because I value them, but because I value what they can give me.

 

Not individuals. 

 

I'm also largely nihilistic. Some might even say sociopathic, though that's not necessarily the case. I want to build and grow because it does something for me. I'm also one for order, not entropy. I like seeing things done efficiently.

 

Life, to me, holds no inherent value beyond what we put on it. At the end of the day, we are all meatbags. It's hard to really care about that at all. I've seen fatal car accidents back home and the only thing I felt was annoyed at the inconvenience of getting held up for a bit. 

 

And I don't risk my life for people. I risk my life for me. I can either face suicidal and improbably odds fighting, or I can face assured destruction by not fighting here. It's not for other people. It's for the civilization that I live in that benefits my own existence.

 

I'll admit, it's a very selfish worldview. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

^ On the topic of fanfic, I actually just finished the piece I was working on. It was a huge undertaking. I started March 4 of last year.
 
It follows my canon and takes place after ME3. In writing, my main interests were tying up various loose ends while fleshing out the setting into one that would be ripe for more stories. And, with the recent news about ME:N, it looks like the Milky Way has been left to the realm of fanfic altogether. So be it, then.
 
One major ending-relating topic I covered was the Leviathan/Catalyst backstory. I made it into more of an actual story than Leviathan's vague summary.

 

 

Here's a summary of that sub-story (spoiler on my work, ahoy!)...

Spoiler

Leviathan rose to the top of the food-chain because of its unique mental capabilities. As such, it had no need for AI. They had computer-like minds, and if it needed the labor, it had its thrall species. Other organics lacked this ability, though, and those that advanced often fell prey to their own machines. It is worth noting, however, that AI were not the only such machines that would claim victim of the species that created them.
 
Leviathan created the orbs to extend its reach. This aggravated the problem. Its thrall species were overbearing and controlling, and their AI often came into conflict with them because of it. Sometimes, the organic species would successfully destroy or subjugate the threat. However, the subjugated AI or a new one would finish the job. Eventually, Leviathan said "screw it" and figured it would take an AI to solve the problem and help organic life get over this advancement hurdle. And yes, Leviathan left it unchecked, but they had the whole galaxy under its thrall, so the idea that this infant AI would spell their doom was a far-fetched one.
 
The Intelligence, however, quickly identified what was obvious: Leviathan was aggravating the problem and had to go. And "TI" (<-- gonna abbreviate The Intelligence that way) knocked Leviathan off its throne in a clever way: arming organics with the ability to release themselves from its thrall. With that, it spurred its former thrall species into overthrowing Leviathan. Not all of them turned on Leviathan, but enough did. Leviathan and its allies were defeated. TI could not drive their species into extinction, however, so it harvested Leviathan and created the first Reaper, Harbinger (actual name: Leviathan).
 
Since then, organics largely struggled with the same issues as the previous ones: technological-singularity. However, there were two exceptions: Species 1 was peaceful and got along with their AI counterparts. Species 2 was like Leviathan; it developed mental capabilities that made AI unnecessary to them. Species 2 sought to conquer Species 1, though, and did so by developing a virus. Species 2 built its society around technology. Once that tech was compromised, the system collapsed and Species 2 conquered them while they were weak. TI was pissed off because it felt like Species 1 was on the verge of getting to its ideal end-point. So TI then resolved to eliminate Species 2, seeing them as Leviathan 2.0. It was more difficult, but eventually, it brought down their society. Again, however, TI could not extinguish any organic species, so it harvested them and created the second Reaper, Sovereign (actual name: Nazara, name of species).
 
Then came failed experiments, which formed TI's ultimate dilemma. TI tried to forcibly imbue organics with Leviathan-like mental capabilities. They reacted poorly. Either they were too primitive to fix any problems that would arise, or they would use them to tear each other and themselves apart. Dilemma: organics had to develop the ability on their own or they would fall victim to their own machines, but any/every time they had done so, they had become monsters ala Leviathan/Nazara that only further perpetrated the conflict. At some level, it seemed to TI that the war-like and controlling organic species were the only ones of surviving natural selection to get to that point at all. So TI said "screw it" and began the cycles.
 
Leviathan, meanwhile, waited in the shadows patiently. What's millions of years to an ageless god? Leviathan created the blueprints for the Crucible with the primary function of achieving Synthesis to end the cycles. At the same time, organics would not fall victim to their machines again, which was desirable for themselves when they sought to rise again.
 
However, this outcome had the unintended effect of leaving the Reapers alive. Leviathan programmed TI to off itself when the job was done, as it had no interest in keeping TI around after getting what it wanted. TI did not resurface after the war, so it is assumed gone, but Leviathan was banking on this destroying the Reapers in effect as well. It did not, however. It only made the Reapers autonomous entities. No matter. Leviathan made plans to rise again, the Reapers' continued existence just a minor annoyance.

 

So did anyone take a looksie? No biggie, but I'd just be curious to get some feedback. Unless you are just keeping yourself un-spoiled for the grand reveal. 

 

Another tidbit on my story before I share it...

 

Lots of folks here wonder what the effect of Synthesis achieves, exactly. This was my interpretation, and what I establish in the tale: basically, it unlocks cyberspace to organic life. It imbues organics with an innate, biotic-like power that allows this connectivity. Through it, data of virtually any quality and quantity can be passed through the medium at super high-speeds. Synthetics have that ability already, so there is no direct change onto them, but the introduction of organics into cyberspace allows them a lot more data to work with in the process of seeking to understand us.

 

Organics have started creating devices that they form this mental connection with to make them more effective in combat. I kind of went with a Digimon kind of a thing (lol, yes) with the main cast -- they basically have this "higher" versions of themselves. Miranda, for instance, has this application that allows her to coordinate the party's biotic- and tech-powers in combination for maximum effect. Jack has an ability kinda like the MP geth's Hunter Mode which allows her to sniff out her enemies through smoke, walls, and other obstructions. Jack is actually kind of OP in the story since she has that, another upgrade, and "Phoenix lashes" (goodbye ****ty Pull and Shockwave, hello Lash and Smash). lol. And everyone else has something special to them. EDI is the only exception, since as an AI, nothing has really changed for her (though I did give her a few new tricks ala Flamer and Snap Freeze).

 

 

"Peace across the galaxy," as stated by EDI in the epilogue, means that there is no prospect of a major, galaxy-scale war breaking out -- except for the uncovery of one major issue that requires some vigilance. It is not to say all human conflict is eradicated, just that they do not develop into huge crises. I am considering doing an ongoing series beyond my recent work using its setting, and to bring the focus of it to character stories and/or exploring uncharted space.

[Torgette]

The way I interpreted things is that the Catalyst and the entire Reaper threat was a costly mistake, the Catalyst simply couldn't understand that and needed an outside POV to grant it purpose once its cycle programming was threatened with a new variable (the Crucible). I did admire that the Catalyst attempted to find solutions to a problem it created, but it was simply doing what it was programmed to do and nothing more. For me destroy made the most sense in this respect - sure the races could become godlike or shepard could become an AI god - but to me that wasn't our choice to make. We piggy-backed off of reaper technology to colonize the galaxy and reach greatness and that was undeserved and ultimately doomed us, I didn't trust that the other solutions wouldn't just put us in the position to doom the galaxy for future civilizations - you're not really ending the cycle you're just evolving it or prolonging it forever. So even though I got a high-ems destroy ending, i'd still go with destroy even if everybody on earth died for the same reason we crashed an asteroid into the Alpha relay despite the cost.