9089 réponses à ce sujet

[antares_sublight]

Can't we all just agree the endings are they are are stupid and none of them are actually defensible? They're either contradictory, just plain blank pages for you to write your own fanfiction or obvious solutions with random guilt-trips attached to them.

"They've got us fighting each other instead of them [BioWare]"

[Uncle Jo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Again, that is a sentiment of the current Geth. Not only does it rest on the flip of a bit now, but it may easily change post-singularity, when the Geth are so powerful that they will be as impossible to stop as cavemen throwing sharpened sticks at a B-52 Bomber.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But the Geth have done nothing wrong. They merely seek to improve themselves. They are not deserving of death. So if I have the means to make it so that we can keep pace with them, and no one has to die, I will take that option.

Even if I do understand your point, I'd like to remember you that if you choose synthesis (don't remember if it was your choice, if I'm wrong please correct me), you're going to forcibly transform every single being into a [whatever], because of an assumption.

By doing this you're thinking exactly like the Reapers.

[Vox Draco]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...


Yes. It always baffles me how easy all your and Shepard's past experiences are thrown out of the window by some people, in favor of the catalysts opinion. well, but I am sure there are plenty of wonderful arguments for this, as usual...

Humans forget easily...
You know what? If the DLC were to confirm that the pile of c**p the glowing troll spout was true, I'll choose control then.
I'll offer those abominations the ride of their very long life. First stop by the Omega 4 Relay and from there on, one way trip to the blackhole.

Nah, not very satisfying for me. I still prefer to see Shepard standing on a pile of reaper-corpses, spitting on them and their lies. Even if Control or synthesis are "clarified" with some kind of positive effect...I'll pass and stick to my first interpretation anyway. And I still doubt that the EC can even clarify control or synthesis enough to clean it of the stench of collaboration, unconditional surrender and defection to the enemy...

[Uncle Jo]

antares_sublight wrote...

Can't we all just agree the endings are they are are stupid and none of them are actually defensible? They're either contradictory, just plain blank pages for you to write your own fanfiction or obvious solutions with random guilt-trips attached to them.

"They've got us fighting each other instead of them [BioWare]"

Taken at face value? Yeah, I agree completely. But if the choices aren't exactly what they seem to be, i.e the brat is lying (not necessary IT), then it's something we've never seen before. I think also that they're having actually the laugh of their life, when they read the forums...

[antares_sublight]

Uncle Jo wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Can't we all just agree the endings are they are are stupid and none of them are actually defensible? They're either contradictory, just plain blank pages for you to write your own fanfiction or obvious solutions with random guilt-trips attached to them.

"They've got us fighting each other instead of them [BioWare]"

Taken at face value? Yeah, I agree completely. But if the choices aren't exactly what they seem to be, i.e the brat is lying (not necessary IT), then it's something we've never seen before. I think also that they're having actually the laugh of their life, when they read the forums...

Everyone at BioWare is clapping and hee-hawing and pointing saying "speculations speculations!!! hahaha *snort*"

[dreman9999]

BP20125810 wrote...

Silasqtx wrote...

Thread title "A different ascension"

Reaper goal = Ascension

Synthesis = Ascension

Synthesis = Reaper Goal

You lose the game.

Don't be ignorant about it.  The OP clearly states that the reaper goal is ascension through means of murder and liquification.  Synthesis is ascension through means of the catalyst's newfound power.

I hate when IT fanatics invade a good thread and don't even read the OP.

The problem is not  they are killing every one...It's that they are imposing their will on everyone.

Modifié par dreman9999, 25 mai 2012 - 07:20 .

[Uncle Jo]

Vox Draco wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Vox Draco wrote...


Yes. It always baffles me how easy all your and Shepard's past experiences are thrown out of the window by some people, in favor of the catalysts opinion. well, but I am sure there are plenty of wonderful arguments for this, as usual...

Humans forget easily...
You know what? If the DLC were to confirm that the pile of c**p the glowing troll spout was true, I'll choose control then.
I'll offer those abominations the ride of their very long life. First stop by the Omega 4 Relay and from there on, one way trip to the blackhole.

Nah, not very satisfying for me. I still prefer to see Shepard standing on a pile of reaper-corpses, spitting on them and their lies. Even if Control or synthesis are "clarified" with some kind of positive effect...I'll pass and stick to my first interpretation anyway. And I still doubt that the EC can even clarify control or synthesis enough to clean it of the stench of collaboration, unconditional surrender and defection to the enemy...

LMAO.

Edit: But... you'll lose EDI and the Geth

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 mai 2012 - 07:25 .

[Taboo]

If we harken back to the theory of montage, we assume that each according image should make sense in the context of which it is presented. That is to say:

Destruction->Destruction->Jungle Planet

This lead up creates emotion in the audiences. emotion is carried via trasitional cuts. The narrative is fiction but the images are accepted as "real" within the mind. This is why you feel sympathy for fictional chracters.

If you accept the image as "real", you believe in the totality of the narrative. You have chosen to do so, within the context of the narrative. You accept the images on the jungle planet as "real."

I have never seen an abrupt change in narrative presentation this blatent before. What we perceive should be taken as a whole, not in sections. Our ending is presented as a series of rapid scenes with little to know explanation. The jungle planet raises questions even with the most staunch pro-enders. This could have been easily explained via cross cuts, showing what Joker was running away from and then cutting back to the crash. Alas we are presented with plain image and sound.

Instead we have a scene entirely lacking in narrative context, because of this people panic and decide to decipher it in any which way.

If the intention was symbolic, Bioware failed.

If the intention was literal, Bioware failed.

This is why people still believe these things and continue to believe despite Bioware's claims to the contrary:

People believe that everyone dies with the destruction of the Relays.
People believe that everyone is going to starve.
People becoming husks in Synthesis.

These are a few examples I have provided.

People have accepted the image as "real" because they have evidence to support what they see. That is to say that within the context of time that the images they have arrived at their conclusion based upon things they are aware of in previously established lore.

This was clearly not Bioware's intention and as such any attempt ata trying to create a complete image in your head is fruitless without clarification.

You accept the scene on the jungle planet as "real" and use it to create an assumption based upon that.

We do not have:

A: The original context of the scene
B: Relevant information to suggest what happens to everyone else after each ending.

You can always make assessments and you've done far better than most people but at this time you only have assumptions.

Nothing is clear until Bioware says so.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 25 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[Uncle Jo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

*stuff about how Bioware's supposed to have fail ME3*

Thought you were the one who was glad to have a thread where people don't rage about the ending/bioware...I was wrong ?

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[Taboo]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

*stuff about how Bioware's supposed to have fail ME3*

Thought you were the one who was glad to have a thread where people don't rage about the ending...I was wrong ?

He asked for an explanation and I gave him one.

Will he respond?

I don't know.

I was referring to personal attack threads by the way.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 25 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[Uncle Jo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

*stuff about how Bioware's supposed to have fail ME3*

Thought you were the one who was glad to have a thread where people don't rage about the ending...I was wrong ?

He asked for an explanation and I gave him one.

Will he respond?

I don't know.

I was referring to personal attack threads by the way.

My bad. Problem with your posts is that you often don't quote. So it's sometimes hard to follow... Anyway, misinterpretation... so mea culpa

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Can't we all just agree the endings are they are are stupid and none of them are actually defensible?

I can agree with the first part but never the second. The endings have two parts - concept and execution - and the I firmly believe that only the latter is stupid.

Uncle Jo wrote...

Even if I do understand your point, I'd like to remember you that if you choose synthesis (don't remember if it was your choice, if I'm wrong please correct me), you're going to forcibly transform every single being into a [whatever], because of an assumption.

By doing this you're thinking exactly like the Reapers.

The Reapers don't give any race a chance to overcome the cycle - they kill them all whenever they get too advanced. I'm doing the exact opposite of that.

antares_sublight wrote...

Everyone at BioWare is clapping and hee-hawing and pointing saying "speculations speculations!!! hahaha *snort*"

No matter how much you may personally dislike it, speculation isn't actually bad.
A boring "well, that was interesting. Ok, next game!" ending - that would be the real tragedy.

My only real issue with speculation is how much is required here, which EC will directly address by reducing the number of blanks we have to fill.

[Taboo]

God I hope so.

We aren't even speculating at this point.

The game collapses under the weight of it's faulty execution.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

If you accept the image as "real", you believe in the totality of the narrative. You have chosen to do so, within the context of the narrative. You accept the images on the jungle planet as "real."

With you so far.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

Instead we have a scene entirely lacking in narrative context, because of this people panic and decide to decipher it in any which way.

How are we lacking context? We are shown: desperate situation  (prior to the Crucible firing), climax (Crucible fires chosen color), resolution (Reapers leaving/dying), denouement (jungle planet, hopeful mood/tone/composition.) The only other thing Bioware could have done to contextualize the endings would be to put up a neon sign saying "GALAXY OKAY! :-)"

...Well, not quite. They could also have done epilogues for the squadmates and galaxy, like Siduri did. Hopefully EC will do that.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
If the intention was symbolic, Bioware failed.

If the intention was literal, Bioware failed.

You're preaching to the choir. I fully agree that they failed. Hence, I'm looking forward to EC.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
This is why people still believe these things and continue to believe despite Bioware's claims to the contrary:

People believe that everyone dies with the destruction of the Relays.
People believe that everyone is going to starve.
People becoming husks in Synthesis.

These are a few examples I have provided.

No, they believe those things because they hate the starchild and are grasping at any excuse to rewrite the endings and remove him. And they hate him because they wanted the one-dimensional catharsis of "push button, nuke Reapers, no collateral damage." I for one am glad Bioware at least tried to make things more complicated than that.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
People have accepted the image as "real" because they have evidence to support what they see. That is to say that within the context of time that the images they have arrived at their conclusion based upon things they are aware of in previously established lore.

There is NO "previously established lore" that covers the Crucible. None. The excuse-graspers above want Arrival-style holocausts and mass-starvation for the same reason they want Synthesis husks, and tone be damned.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
Nothing is clear until Bioware says so.

Which makes it doubly hilarious that Bioware HAS said so and people are unwilling to accept it simply because they hate the Starchild.

But I suppose you mean "until Bioware says so in-game." To which I say, yes, you've made yet another very obvious statement, but there is a difference between something being certain and something being likely. The likelihood that Synthesis is meant to be a horrible and negative thing for the galaxy is far more remote than its intent as a benefit.

[Taboo]

 This is the direct result of the narrative being presented as such. Confusion and anger lead to the lack of inference based on inherent context that is formed from the images. Most people need to see what's happening.When people get angry they pick things apart. This is my point. Had we had proper closure and information relevant to the rest of the story we wouldn't have as big of an issue. On this I think we can agree. 

I am referring not to the crucible but the examples I listed previously. People assign meaning to nothing, which is my point. Why do we have the Indoctrination Theory? People panic. Why do they think people have starved? Lack of context. Bioware can say  that this doesn't happen all they want but it will not counter the negative images in people's minds. They won't listen.

Bioware has not said anything about Synthesis and this is what worries people. I don't care that you choose it, that is your right. I see the potential benefits but I do not like the way it is enforced.
This is EXACTLY what you are not supposed to do in a narrative. Bioware says they want you to speculate, but they also insist that there is one explanation for each ending. You cannot do this to an audience. At least in the capacity we have.


People will hate everything less if they are happy. They are not happy. They have no closure. Give the Synthesis people what they want and they shut up. Give the Talimancers Tali and they shut up. Give the Control people whatever and they shut up.

Less people hate the Star Child than you and I think. They will forgive and I know they will because I too am guilty of manipulating an audience with images.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 25 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[Uncle Jo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

1)The Reapers don't give any race a chance to overcome the cycle - they kill them all whenever they get too advanced. I'm doing the exact opposite of that.

2) How are we lacking context? We are shown: desperate situation  (prior to the Crucible firing), climax (Crucible fires chosen color), resolution (Reapers leaving/dying), denouement (jungle planet, hopeful mood/tone/composition.) The only other thing Bioware could have done to contextualize the endings would be to put up a neon sign saying "GALAXY OKAY! :-)"
...Well, not quite. They could also have done epilogues for the squadmates and galaxy, like Siduri did. Hopefully EC will do that.

3) No, they believe those things because they hate the starchild and are grasping at any excuse to rewrite the endings and remove him. And they hate him because they wanted the one-dimensional catharsis of "push button, nuke Reapers, no collateral damage." I for one am glad Bioware at least tried to make things more complicated than that.

[/quote]
1) We'll never agree on what Synthesis works nor what's the result. So I advice we let it be.
However there is still a common point between you and them. You're meddling (really, really deeply) with the matters of others without their permission.

2) You serious? You dare call that pile of nonsense a denouement (at face value)? I know that's been said a billions of times, but I still repeat it:
- How in the hell did your squademates, who were with you till the beam, boarded in the Normandy?
- How in the hell did Joker chicken out and ran away from the battlefield? Same goes for your squademates? You know that we call that high treason, right?
- Why in the hell was Joker flying through the Relay? Did he knew that you're going to fire the crucible (thus destroying them) and tried to escape?

3)Thanks for enlightening us. You chose Synthesis? Fine. You believed in the Catalyst? Cool. You happy with the face valued ending? Wonderful. For all I care.
But don't trivialize please, or assume you know us. As well as you DON'T have any right to judge anyone of us. I personally don't hate the ending and never wanted the brat to be removed. On the contrary. I just think he's a liar.That's all.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 mai 2012 - 09:36 .

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I am referring not to the crucible but the examples I listed previously. People assign meaning to nothing, which is my point. Why do we have the Indoctrination Theory? People panic. Why do they think people have starved? Lack of context. Bioware can say  that this doesn't happen all they want but it will not counter the negative images in people's minds. They won't listen.

They did! (For starvation.) Indoctrination Theory isn't "negative" - it may be pretty fanciful, but it's also impressive the level of thought that was put into it. If I were Bioware, I wouldn't squash it (until EC anyway) either.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

This is EXACTLY what you are not supposed to do in a narrative.

Where are these "cosmic rules of art" that you are so privy to?

Art, by its very nature, has no rules. There are certain expected conventions, yes, that the artist is free to invoke, disregard or actively subvert as he sees fit.

Taboo-XX wrote...  

People will hate everything less if they are happy. They are not happy. They have no closure. Give the Synthesis people what they want and they shut up. Give the Talimancers Tali and they shut up. Give the Control people whatever and they shut up.

Less people hate the Star Child than you and I think. They will forgive and I know they will because I too am guilty of manipulating an audience with images.

The only thing I can tell those people is to wait for EC. But I won't stop exposing their irrational hate born of unhappiness for what it is in the interim.

[PsyrenY]

Uncle Jo wrote...

1) We'll never agree on what Synthesis works nor what's the result. So I advice we let it be.
However there is still a common point between you and them. You're meddling (really, really deeply) with the matters of others without their permission.

2) You serious? You dare call that pile of nonsense a denouement (at face value)? I know that's been said a billions of times, but I still repeat it:
- How in the hell did your squademates, who were with you till the beam, boarded in the Normandy?
- How in the hell did Joker chicken out and ran away from the battlefield? Same goes for your squademates? You know that we call that high treason, right?
- Why in the hell was Joker flying through the Relay? Did he knew that you're going to fire the crucible (thus destroying them) and tried to escape?

3)Thanks for enlightening us. You chose Synthesis? Fine. You believed in the Catalyst? Cool. You happy with the face valued ending? Wonderful. For all I care.
But don't trivialize please, or assume you know us. As well as you DON'T have any right to judge anyone of us. I personally don't hate the ending and never wanted the brat to be removed. On the contrary. I just think he's a liar.That's all.

1) Only because I see the alternatives as untenable. Destroy is heinous and Control is irresponsible. If Control is clarified to my satisfaction, I'll gladly take that as an option rather than force change on the Galaxy, but as events currently stand my Shepard has no real choice. And even with a clarified Control there is a not-insignificant chance that the Geth or some other synthetic race will ascend and take us all out.

2) All of that stuff, while nice to know, is rather incidental to the galaxy at large. Knowing that Joker and Garrus survived, and why they fled to begin with, are both nice but the effect on the war/grand scheme of things is minimal.

3) Yeah, I'm generalizing a bit. Obviously not every "anti-ender" hates the Starchild. But most do. That doesn't apply to you personally? Fine, but I never said it did.

[Vigilant111]

"we help them ASCEND, so that they can make way for new life, storing the old life in reaper form", in another words, change them into MONSTERS and USE them against new advanced organics, hmm, great people, excellent values...NOT

[BP20125810]

dreman9999 wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

Silasqtx wrote...

Thread title "A different ascension"

Reaper goal = Ascension

Synthesis = Ascension

Synthesis = Reaper Goal

You lose the game.

Don't be ignorant about it.  The OP clearly states that the reaper goal is ascension through means of murder and liquification.  Synthesis is ascension through means of the catalyst's newfound power.

I hate when IT fanatics invade a good thread and don't even read the OP.

The problem is not  they are killing every one...It's that they are imposing their will on everyone.

But the reapers were changed as well during synthesis.  That's why they all turned green.  Plus, if I was to "impose my will" on you by replacing your car with a brand new top of the line luxury car, would you be upset because i didn't "ask permission."

[Vigilant111]

BP20125810 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

Silasqtx wrote...

Thread title "A different ascension"

Reaper goal = Ascension

Synthesis = Ascension

Synthesis = Reaper Goal

You lose the game.

Don't be ignorant about it.  The OP clearly states that the reaper goal is ascension through means of murder and liquification.  Synthesis is ascension through means of the catalyst's newfound power.

I hate when IT fanatics invade a good thread and don't even read the OP.

The problem is not  they are killing every one...It's that they are imposing their will on everyone.

But the reapers were changed as well during synthesis.  That's why they all turned green.  Plus, if I was to "impose my will" on you by replacing your car with a brand new top of the line luxury car, would you be upset because i didn't "ask permission."

so they turned green, changed costumes, still doesn't tell me what they will do

[JShepppp]

First off, Ieldra2, I'd like to commend you for your writing style. I read through the entire OP without even noticing how long it was lol, and your explanation and handling of the transhuman themes was very well-written. 

Basically, from what I get, Synthesis is the "step forward" compared to Control (stays the same) and Destroy ("backwards"), relative to the singularity. As the Reapers, within the ME universe, have often been the embodiment of the transhumanist ideals Synthesis represents (and they represent a horrific version of it), it's natural to push synthesis aside and this makes synthesis a difficult choice. I feel you gave the perfect description of that entire issue.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here is what I propose as the meaning: post-Synthesis intelligent life will no longer experience random changes and natural selection as a response to environmental stress factors because it will have surpassed being shaped by its natural environment. Instead, apart from their own will, the only environment that will now shape their evolution is other post-Synthetic intelligent life. Deliberate change will replace random mutation and natural selection. It is possible that post-Synthesis life will allow itself to be shaped by random changes, but even that would be a deliberate decision. This means that this end of natural evolution is not inherent in the Synthesis, but rather a likely consequence.

I bolded the last part because that was one of the most interesting things I got out of your analysis. 

I don't really have much to add, but I do want to say that you created a very compelling and admirable case here, especially on BSN where there isn't much synthesis love. Thanks for pushing forward perhaps why Synthesis is "considered the best ending via EMS". Again, great read and full of awesome thoughts.

[xbb1024]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Here is what I propose as the meaning: post-Synthesis intelligent life will no longer experience random changes and natural selection as a response to environmental stress factors because it will have surpassed being shaped by its natural environment. Instead, apart from their own will, the only environment that will now shape their evolution is other post-Synthetic intelligent life. Deliberate change will replace random mutation and natural selection. It is possible that post-Synthesis life will allow itself to be shaped by random changes, but even that would be a deliberate decision. This means that this end of natural evolution is not inherent in the Synthesis, but rather a likely consequence.

I believe this idea goes against the running theme of diversity thoughout the game, as most notably expressed by Javik when he implies the fall of his cycle was due to a lack of it. Legion might have had something to say as well, I don't quite remember now. The process by which deliberate change is decided, when faced with a completely new challange, could fail. Natural selection as a decision mechanism has an advantage because it would not be subject to the fallibility of a decision maker or decision making body.  This mecahnism will be broken forever if everyone becomes the same.

[Vigilant111]

JShepppp wrote...

First off, Ieldra2, I'd like to commend you for your writing style. I read through the entire OP without even noticing how long it was lol, and your explanation and handling of the transhuman themes was very well-written. 

Basically, from what I get, Synthesis is the "step forward" compared to Control (stays the same) and Destroy ("backwards"), relative to the singularity. As the Reapers, within the ME universe, have often been the embodiment of the transhumanist ideals Synthesis represents (and they represent a horrific version of it), it's natural to push synthesis aside and this makes synthesis a difficult choice. I feel you gave the perfect description of that entire issue.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here is what I propose as the meaning: post-Synthesis intelligent life will no longer experience random changes and natural selection as a response to environmental stress factors because it will have surpassed being shaped by its natural environment. Instead, apart from their own will, the only environment that will now shape their evolution is other post-Synthetic intelligent life. Deliberate change will replace random mutation and natural selection. It is possible that post-Synthesis life will allow itself to be shaped by random changes, but even that would be a deliberate decision. This means that this end of natural evolution is not inherent in the Synthesis, but rather a likely consequence.

I bolded the last part because that was one of the most interesting things I got out of your analysis. 

I don't really have much to add, but I do want to say that you created a very compelling and admirable case here, especially on BSN where there isn't much synthesis love. Thanks for pushing forward perhaps why Synthesis is "considered the best ending via EMS". Again, great read and full of awesome thoughts.

Destroy is NOT backwards, its a clean slate, a fresh start, like formatting your hard drive when u cannot remove the virus

[Heeden]

xbb1024 wrote...

I believe this idea goes against the running theme of diversity thoughout the game, as most notably expressed by Javik when he implies the fall of his cycle was due to a lack of it. Legion might have had something to say as well, I don't quite remember now. The process by which deliberate change is decided, when faced with a completely new challange, could fail. Natural selection as a decision mechanism has an advantage because it would not be subject to the fallibility of a decision maker or decision making body.  This mecahnism will be broken forever if everyone becomes the same.

An end to natural evolution. We will still be able to change our societies over time but it will no longer be down to the forces of random events and survival-of-the-fittest to dictate these changes.

Also no-one says Synthesis makes everyone become the same, I don't think it's even implied anywhere.

Vigilant111 wrote...
Destroy is NOT backwards, its a clean slate, a fresh start, like formatting your hard drive when u cannot remove the virus

When
you format your hard drive all the data and applications you stored on
it are lost. It will take time to progress forwards until you have the
same information and programs available.