550 réponses à ce sujet

[Reign Tsumiraki]

Deepo78 wrote...

 
Mass Effect always been kind of schizophrenic in the respect that it doesn't quite know whether it's a hard sci-fi story or a space opera. The first game definitely played with alot of hard sci-fi concepts (Artificial Intelligence, the ethics of genocide, humanity through the eyes of other species) but by the second game most of these concepts were kind of moved into the background for a more traditional action story that focuses on a diverse cast of characters. Most of ME3 is character and action driven as well with the hard sci-fi concepts again being relegated into mission objectives yet the Ghost Child sequence seems to be ripped right out of a Carl Sagan novel and the choices he presented seem to be oddly Kurzweilian.

My pet theory is that near the end of the process, the head writers seemed dead set on course correcting Mass Effect back into in a hard sci-fi story but forgetting that a large chunk of the series fans (Myself included) merely suffered through ME1 and only became truly engaged by the second game and were looking for something more engaging on an emotional level.

Hard sci fi? That sounds odd. ME3 turned the Mass Effect series into even softer sci-fi, in my opinion. The part at the end was never explained, and nobody knows how it works. Especially synthesis. This is why they call it space magic.

[WizenSlinky0]

Deepo78 wrote...

 
Mass Effect always been kind of schizophrenic in the respect that it doesn't quite know whether it's a hard sci-fi story or a space opera. The first game definitely played with alot of hard sci-fi concepts (Artificial Intelligence, the ethics of genocide, humanity through the eyes of other species) but by the second game most of these concepts were kind of moved into the background for a more traditional action story that focuses on a diverse cast of characters. Most of ME3 is character and action driven as well with the hard sci-fi concepts again being relegated into mission objectives yet the Ghost Child sequence seems to be ripped right out of a Carl Sagan novel and the choices he presented seem to be oddly Kurzweilian.

My pet theory is that near the end of the process, the head writers seemed dead set on course correcting Mass Effect back into in a hard sci-fi story but forgetting that a large chunk of the series fans (Myself included) merely suffered through ME1 and only became truly engaged by the second game and were looking for something more engaging on an emotional level.

Mass Effect 3 hardly went back to hard science fiction, not sure where you were seeing that, but I sure didn't. It played mostly on the same concepts as Mass Effect 2...Rule of Cool and Willing Suspension of Disbelief. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that (though I would have liked the game to have gone back more to ME1). The problem was, where mass effect 2 managed to maintain the suspension of disbelief, its sequel did not.

[Deepo78]

Reign Tsumiraki wrote...

Deepo78 wrote...

 
Mass Effect always been kind of schizophrenic in the respect that it doesn't quite know whether it's a hard sci-fi story or a space opera. The first game definitely played with alot of hard sci-fi concepts (Artificial Intelligence, the ethics of genocide, humanity through the eyes of other species) but by the second game most of these concepts were kind of moved into the background for a more traditional action story that focuses on a diverse cast of characters. Most of ME3 is character and action driven as well with the hard sci-fi concepts again being relegated into mission objectives yet the Ghost Child sequence seems to be ripped right out of a Carl Sagan novel and the choices he presented seem to be oddly Kurzweilian.

My pet theory is that near the end of the process, the head writers seemed dead set on course correcting Mass Effect back into in a hard sci-fi story but forgetting that a large chunk of the series fans (Myself included) merely suffered through ME1 and only became truly engaged by the second game and were looking for something more engaging on an emotional level.

Hard sci fi? That sounds odd. ME3 turned the Mass Effect series into even softer sci-fi, in my opinion. The part at the end was never explained, and nobody knows how it works. Especially synthesis. This is why they call it space magic.

"Hard Sci-Fi" is sort of an ad-hoc term but it's clear they were trying to get away from the action/ space opera elements of the story at the very end by separating you from your squad so abruptly during the moments leading up to the Crucible. I definitely agree that the three options were poorly represented attempts at invoking something like sweeping science fiction concepts out of maybe a Gibson or Ian Banks novel. The Synthesis option was a sort of  "Forced Singularity" that implied there was some unknown analogue for DNA in the Geth and EDI that could be rewritten along with human DNA at the drop of a hat along with many other problems. Even if it was the writers last minute intent to make Mass Effect more like a Foundation novel and less like Star Wars it's safe to say that they failed miserably.

Modifié par Deepo78, 26 mai 2012 - 04:47 .

[Dryball]

It's the complete antithesis to the main characters' overall goal throughout the story. And I do mean complete. From, "we must destroy the reapers and free the galaxy from never-ending genocide," to, "They just need a little of us in them, never mind that they are already doing exactly that by harvesting us and turning us into new reapers."

Yeah...makes sense to me...

[CuseGirl]

JamieCardillo wrote...

CuseGirl wrote...

TheBull wrote...

You know i really get tired of people always asking the same stupid question: "Why do you hate Synthesis so much"???

You really want to know why we hate Synthesis, because (and here it is where it gets funny)
SAREN from ME 1 tried to accomplish the EXACT same thing and you know what most players did to him......persuaded him into SUICIDE and now 5 years later its supposed to be the best ending.......Why did we stop him in the first place??? It would have saved us time, money and heartache.

It's not a stupid question. Obviously the OP has an opinion on synthesis and maybe his opinion clouded him from seeing the reasons why others disagreed (a common problem on BSN).

I don't think my opinion has in any way been "clouded," rather I just think synthesis was not explained as well as it should have been, causing it to be a misunderstood option.

No no, I was saying your CURRENT opinion on synthesis prevents or hinders you from understanding why others hate the synthesis choice.

[Deepo78]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Deepo78 wrote...

 
Mass Effect always been kind of schizophrenic in the respect that it doesn't quite know whether it's a hard sci-fi story or a space opera. The first game definitely played with alot of hard sci-fi concepts (Artificial Intelligence, the ethics of genocide, humanity through the eyes of other species) but by the second game most of these concepts were kind of moved into the background for a more traditional action story that focuses on a diverse cast of characters. Most of ME3 is character and action driven as well with the hard sci-fi concepts again being relegated into mission objectives yet the Ghost Child sequence seems to be ripped right out of a Carl Sagan novel and the choices he presented seem to be oddly Kurzweilian.

My pet theory is that near the end of the process, the head writers seemed dead set on course correcting Mass Effect back into in a hard sci-fi story but forgetting that a large chunk of the series fans (Myself included) merely suffered through ME1 and only became truly engaged by the second game and were looking for something more engaging on an emotional level.

Mass Effect 3 hardly went back to hard science fiction, not sure where you were seeing that, but I sure didn't. It played mostly on the same concepts as Mass Effect 2...Rule of Cool and Willing Suspension of Disbelief. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that (though I would have liked the game to have gone back more to ME1). The problem was, where mass effect 2 managed to maintain the suspension of disbelief, its sequel did not.

Very true, in many ways I think Mass Effect 2 has more in common with a WW2 Bronson film or a caper movie in the sense that you really get the feeling that your Shepard is juggling all this disparate and complex characters.  

[CuseGirl]

I fail to see how anyone who likes the synthesis choice/ending can justify it, outside of just saying "I just like it because I like it". Because taken at face value (without any IT jargon and looking at the choice within the context of the narrative) it is impossible to objectively say this is a good choice or even a choice that should exist within the story.

[Dryball]

o Ventus wrote...


It's a form of medicine, you simpleton. Remediation, not manipulation. No one is playing God with your amino acid structure. They're removing the disease from your system, not retooling it. Your system itself is left almost untouched.

Actually the entire purpose of Gene Therapy is precisely genetic manipulation. The goal is to introduce something into the body that forces it to turn on or off specific parts of the genetic code to either remove or instill a trait that is possibly dormant or perhaps remove a trait that is overactive. IE., attempting Gene Therapy to turn off the gene that causes the body to needlessly produce excessive and constant amounts of tissue in places it doesn't belong(cancers or tumors). They can do this in numerous ways. It can be as simple as adding a hormone into the body, or even using a completely external stimuli like electricity, or as complex as actually introducing modified DNA directly into a cell. The latter being difficult to the Nth degree as control and reversal of changes may or may not be possible.

If you were to look up the definition it even specifically states, "genetic manipulation."

Modifié par Dryball, 26 mai 2012 - 05:10 .

[CARL_DF90]

Oy. Read this thread right here OP. It should answer most of your questions.

http://social.biowar...ndex/11435886/1

If that doesn't do it then I recommend watching this vid below. Any intelligent, thinking person should recognize the problems after doing so.

[JamieCardillo]

cyrslash1974 wrote...

Just have a look in sky and you will see Quarian ship and Geth ship fighting together against reapers.
Just have a look on Rannoch, you will see Quarians and Geths living now in peace, each of them keeping their own identity.

Have you used a Synthesis option to have these results ? no. They are free.
It's a hope. Peace between Synthetics and Organics is possible.
StarChild doesn't know what hope means.

Unfortunately, no, it wasn't hope. Would be great if that's all it had took, but no. In fact, it was almost exactly like the synthesis option due to that Legion implemented his salvaged bit of Reaper code into the geth consensus which heightened the capabilities of the geth and gave each units its own state of independent consciousness, aka creating a "new framework." In my opinion, this choice directly mirrors what you attempt with the synthesis: taking Reaper technology and manipulating it to have (what you're led to believe are) positive effects on what it is used on, rather than the negative effects they were intended for.
And don't immediately jump on the fact that I said to use Reaper tech and scold me. Try telling Admiral Hackett that he can't use all that salvaged tech you gathered from the first two games to develop weapons that have a chance to take down a Reaper because their origins conflict with your morals.

[JamieCardillo]

CuseGirl wrote...

I fail to see how anyone who likes the synthesis choice/ending can justify it, outside of just saying "I just like it because I like it". Because taken at face value (without any IT jargon and looking at the choice within the context of the narrative) it is impossible to objectively say this is a good choice or even a choice that should exist within the story.

I'm a fan of red and green purely for the sake that neither affiliates me with the Reapers. I spent three games fighting the Reapers, I damn well don't want to be one, so screw the Control choice. As I've said numerous  times, I'm aware the Destroy is the OBVIOUS best choice, but it also contributes to a number of the plotholes created in the ending...because I just rendered every piece of machinery known in the galaxy useless- with a good chunk of the galaxy's population stranded in a single star system. This goes without saying that Synthesis has as many, if not more, problems with it, and it is far from perfect. Hell, I wouldn't even classify it as "ready." It still has so much work to be done with its execution and explanation before it can be considered legitimate, and same goes for all the other endings. However, I still keep my hopes high that not only Bioware will build off the great potential the choice has with the upcoming EC but will also make it a neccessarily BAD decision. Because honestly, they already told us our ending wouldn't be in ABC format and we got RGB, so you better believe I'm not gonna be satisfied if there's only one truly correct choice to make at the end.

And lastly, I'm so sickk of all this bullcrap about how it doesn't make sense. I'm shooting sh*t in space, dammit! I don't give a damn if there's a little space magic tossed in there too. My love for the Mass Effect series is based entirely around the feeling that almost anything is possible because I'm a gamer who likes to escape into unfamiliar things that I can't explain. I'm a dreamer, so let me dream! 

[Vigilant111]

The Catalyst uses such childish word: harvesting, it does not realize people are not simple grains, and people have never finish evolving, in another wards, not getting ripe, so where does harvesting come in?

[BP20125810]

legion999 wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

The short answer - People don't really understand it, so they fear it. I wish Bioware did a better job of explaining it to us during the end game.

Once you really look at it, its actually my favorite and one of the better choices in my opinion.

And back to square one with the "you don't get it!" arguement.

Im not saying you are stupid if you don't get it.  It was Bioware's job to make it clearer

[BP20125810]

If IT gets dissproven, are a lot of you going to change your mind about synthesis?

Modifié par BP20125810, 26 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[JamieCardillo]

Vigilant111 wrote...

It is despised because no one could speculate what might happen, and there was very little explanation, the practicality of merging two totally different beings into one is also questionable, not that it is impossible, but improbable

I'm still reeling over the thought of what might be happening in the scenarios that occur after the final cutscene of the Destroy option. Pretty much the entire military force of the galaxy is stranded in the Sol System with no working technology and a remaining food supply that may last them a whole 6 hours. And I'll be damned if I choose to join become a Reaper (seriously, not quite getting how that is less immoral than synthesis).

Every single ending has its fair share of issues, and as I said in my original posts, I'm not attempting to sway anyone into thinking Synthesis is the best choice because its most definitely not.  I'm just caught between the ideal that I should be defeating the Reapers and the ideal that I should be creating peace. I personally don't see how the Control option can even produce any results that even resemble one of those goals.

[JamieCardillo]

BP20125810 wrote...

If IT gets dissproven, are a lot of you going to change your mind about synthesis.

You need to be a little more specific. At this point in time, the main concern for most is the consequences it has on ethics and exactly what it accomplishes. Even if IT is disproving, Bioware can still choose to go either way with this choice, meaning if they do not further explain what in the world synthesis really is or just do a poor job with it, it will continue to be seen as wrong to a lot of the fanbase that hates it now.

[shepskisaac]

OblivionDawn wrote...

As for the last part of your post, I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that Synthesis changed the very foundation of biochemistry on a molecular level (hence the glowing leaves, etc).

But it definitely didn't change the entire chemistry and physics laws in the universe. Organic life is build on chemistry that's available in the entire universe. It is true that even if you change every currently existing organic (even the smallest bacteria), 50 million years from now purely organic organisms, with purely organic DNA will still emerge. It's just chemistry. You have an ocean of H2O with lots of carbon and other compounds on hot some stormy planet and you will get organic compounds created over some time. Then, you will get aminoacids, then, proteins, fats, cells, single-cell organisms, then, multicelluar organisms, sentient races ->space-faring races who will create synthetics etc. After few billion years, you will get pure organics again, from scratch, based on the existing chemistry.

Not to even mention the possibility of bacteria's from other galaxies reaching our galaxy and bringing back purely organic life much quicker. Or space-faring races from other galaxies reaching our galaxy.

I was initially lured by pretty visuals of synthesis (Joker's nice glowing eyes, happy EDI etc), but after some though, it is indeed not a solution really, and it's highly questionable.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 26 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[Vigilant111]

JamieCardillo wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

It is despised because no one could speculate what might happen, and there was very little explanation, the practicality of merging two totally different beings into one is also questionable, not that it is impossible, but improbable

I'm still reeling over the thought of what might be happening in the scenarios that occur after the final cutscene of the Destroy option. Pretty much the entire military force of the galaxy is stranded in the Sol System with no working technology and a remaining food supply that may last them a whole 6 hours. And I'll be damned if I choose to join become a Reaper (seriously, not quite getting how that is less immoral than synthesis).

Every single ending has its fair share of issues, and as I said in my original posts, I'm not attempting to sway anyone into thinking Synthesis is the best choice because its most definitely not.  I'm just caught between the ideal that I should be defeating the Reapers and the ideal that I should be creating peace. I personally don't see how the Control option can even produce any results that even resemble one of those goals.

U also create peace by destroy just cos Catalyst tells you it won't work does not mean it won't... anything is possible, "new possibilities" - its own words, not neccessarily saying its lying, just saying it could be wrong

[ref]

The reason I despise it, is because it defiles everything Shepard is fighting for, humanity.

Modifié par Refara, 26 mai 2012 - 06:22 .

[Cether]

Remember in ME2 Mordin gave this awesome speech about why the Collectors were dead as a species? Go watch it again. That's why.

[mauro2222]

Because is just stupid. Evolution can't be stopped, there's no pinnacle.

[BP20125810]

I dont get the permission part of it. If you had a crappy car and I uprgraded it to a brand new luxury car without your permission, would you be upset that I didn't ask you first.

Synthesis is the apex of evolution. A level even higher than that of the Reapers. I feel that I can assume this, and i am assuming, only because the Reapers were all changed during synthesis as well.

[Vigilant111]

BP20125810 wrote...

If IT gets dissproven, are a lot of you going to change your mind about synthesis.

NO! I DON'T

I am not crazy about IT, though I think a lot of problems will go away if its upheld by BW, but I have been a longtime advocate of critiquing control/synthesis options objectively, so far your pro arguments have not been convincing

Modifié par Vigilant111, 26 mai 2012 - 06:32 .

[mauro2222]

BP20125810 wrote...

I dont get the permission part of it. If you had a crappy car and I uprgraded it to a brand new luxury car without your permission, would you be upset that I didn't ask you first.

Synthesis is the apex of evolution. A level even higher than that of the Reapers. I feel that I can assume this, and i am assuming, only because the Reapers were all changed during synthesis as well.

You assume wrong, sorry. It doesn't work like that.

[Asharad Hett]

JamieCardillo wrote...

Synthesis- Why is it so despised?

Because it means you failed.