550 réponses à ce sujet

[darkchief10]

kookie28 wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

D24O wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
https://encrypted-tb...b3IJmrK12sCzxfR


%20http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc402/delossantosj1/spidermanthread.jpg%20

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbwVdeGJmFrWE0pt6rtt0kHeb5zJhbpv7ETjxVi2obDEMbr-91Ow

[legion999]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

  Fans hate on Control and Synthesis because they are not the endings that fans want (we win and all go home happy). Neither is Destroy, but that one is at least closest to it.

Slowly and surely, Destroy becomes the only "accepted" path and as a result, fans go to great lengths to try to discredit the other two to further justify their decision so it feels less crappy.

And again with labelling all fans as people who want happy endings. Maybe we'd like for there to be an option for a happy ending?

And for the record I would now choose control. Genocide doesn't sit right with me. And the less said about synthesis the better.

[EricHVela]

Jamie9 wrote...

I think I get you. I'll throw my common sense away for this discussion if that would help. I admit it would be very hard to make something you cannot comprehend in a story. It would either seem stupid, be farfetched, or be comprehensible. In this case, it has ended up being stupid. To make sense, the writer needs to be able to comprehend it, therefore it is comprehensible. The only way to solve this is to leave key information out.

Husks kind of, sort of make sense scientifically. It's not too crazy for all liquids to be removed and for the organs etc. to be replaced with tech.

I guess this demonstrates that certain things in sci-fi will be easily accepted, whereas some will not.

So I think the extended cut could solve many problems. If it is explained somewhat, perhaps not fully, but we need to know the immediate consequences of it to be able to make that decision. I see it as a chain reaction.

Concept > Execution > Consequences

but our mind processes it as:

Concept < Execution < Consequences

We're not shown the consequences so we don't know what to think here. If the execution is poor but it provides great storytelling potential, it could be forgiven somewhat.

So we fall back to execution, which is again poor, it is not elaborated on at all. I get that you seem to like it being incomprehensible, so they don't have to tell us everything. Just tell us the basics: will our characters we love be the same people or not?

So we fall back to concept, and because the other two were poorly done, the concept is not accepted. This is why the Lazarus Project was generally accepted, it had good consequences and was executed well. So the concept was accepted.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading my wall of text. I hope I accurately read your post. Feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

This is essentially what I said, too, but not so eloquently.

[o Ventus]

legion999 wrote...

And for the record I would now choose control. Genocide doesn't sit right with me. And the less said about synthesis the better.

Not to sound like I'm trying to influence your choice here, but people need to stop attributing genocide to the Destroy ending. The species inside the Reapers are... ummm... dead. Unless there's some strange species of fish people that can survive having their brains melted into Reaper glue.

And please, don't give me that "But their ideas and personalities are alive!" crap either, I prefer science in my science fiction, not metaphysical BS.

[JamieCardillo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

  Fans hate on Control and Synthesis because they are not the endings that fans want (we win and all go home happy). Neither is Destroy, but that one is at least closest to it.

Slowly and surely, Destroy becomes the only "accepted" path and as a result, fans go to great lengths to try to discredit the other two to further justify their decision so it feels less crappy.

The jokes on you.

I wouldn't pick control or Synthesis even if I could live.

There is no such thing as a happy ending in Mass Effect.

They will all be hideously depressing.

At least some people understand why red is the best. I knew red was the way to go from the very beginning, because its how we've been told this story would end from the very beginning. To think a meatbag organic could become the poster child for an assault against an army of galactic juggernauts and walk away unscathed is just foolish. Shepard needed to die (whether he really did or not) and so did the Reapers.

The only reason I chose synthesis on my first go was because it was the least black-and-white of the three at first glance. Control would just make the reapers go away...boring; Destroy would just blow up reapers...I spent an hour watching explosions since starting the final assault; Synthesis was the only one I had no idea what to expect, I just knew it would be different somehow. Unfortunately, now, we can all agree synthesis didn't give as much explanation as we would have liked, and destroy is the obvious correct choice.

[CuseGirl]

JamieCardillo wrote...
When completing the game for the first time (Yessir, I did play through multiple times. Sorry if that blew any minds.), I found the most interesting choice to be the synthesis option. Of course, like everyone else, I was very displeased to discover there was almost no difference between any of the endings, but the concept in itself still intruiges me.

I understand a lot of people are unhappy with the pure fantasy of somehow molding the DNA of organics with synthetics, and the only apparent change is green eyes, blahblahblah. I get that part, believe me, I am currently in the Mass Effect Forum. But what I'm not understanding is why some fans are borderline insulted by this choice. Sure, it's not very easy to comprehend, but it's my belief we aren't supposed to fully comprehend it. It's a the final evolution of life. Scientists today still have some difficulty explaining precisely how evolution works. I honestly don't have any other points to make to defend the choice because I really don't know what part of it is in need of any defending.

And just to be clear: as the title would indicate, I am just asking a question. What I have written above is meant only to be used as a basis for others to explain what I'm missing; it is not meant to be an attempt to spread any idealism or convert members of the Red or Blue Churches to the all-holy Green Church. I understand the degree to which a lot of you are pissed off at the endings, but I'm only asking that you respond with legitimate, nonbeligerent answers to my question.

*A reply to some comments:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12237187/3#12237988

Well, not everyone hates synthesis, but for the ones who do dislike it: they usually mention one or more of these reasons (in no particular order of importance):

1. Shepard dies. And he dies in such a manner that that one would believe he was forcibly turned into a husk, but REALLY quickly.

2. The results of synthesis are drastic genetic changes to organic beings (humanoids and plants/lesser-animals) and (somehow) addition of organic material to synthetic beings are changes those beings didn't ask for. Joker didn't ask for a new synthetic DNA. He asked for dead Reapers. So did EDI. I mention the two of them specifically because they are 2 humanoids focused on in the crash landing video clip.

3. The synthesis ending was marketed as the "perfect" ending. Perfect meaning, if the player got the highest EMS needed to access the all the "good endings", they were presented with this "NEW, GREAT" option. We were told this ending was "the best" by the Bioware devs/writers. But it's hard for a fan to accept the synthesis ending as perfect when it includes the things I mentioned in #1 and #2.

4. The Starkid's logic in all of the ending choices is nearly incomphrehensible to anyone with half a brain. So to believe that this ending/choice is the best choice means a player has to not just suspend their logical reasoning, they basically have to brain dead.

5. The presentation of the synthesis ending makes it seem like the OVERALL theme and central conflict of the Mass Effect series was ending the war/struggle between synthetics and organics. And a good number of fans (not all, but a lot) disagree on that notion. Most of us believe the game was about overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds through the use of diverse fighting/diplomatic tactics and putting aside old grudges. Synthesis and the Catalyst admiration of this choice make those themes seem irrelevant, even to the point of simply ignoring Shepard's accomplishments in resolving the Geth/Quarian war.

6. The final reason? ::Zaeed voice:: It just makes no gawddamm sense.

[wizardryforever]

I'll just say one thing about this, then leave, because I'm not getting bogged down in this again.

All three endings are done without the consent of the galaxy.  Shepard must choose for everyone, and given how much faith is put in him/her, I don't feel like it's too much of a stretch to exercise that faith.  Synthesis is not unique in this.  The only difference is that this impacts everyone on a personal level, rather than a long term metaphysical level.  However, everyone is impacted the same, so I doubt the anger at Shepard's choice (should there be any) would last long.  Since it is not only irreversible but universal, I'd say that most people will accept it.

[Taboo]

JamieCardillo wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

  Fans hate on Control and Synthesis because they are not the endings that fans want (we win and all go home happy). Neither is Destroy, but that one is at least closest to it.

Slowly and surely, Destroy becomes the only "accepted" path and as a result, fans go to great lengths to try to discredit the other two to further justify their decision so it feels less crappy.

The jokes on you.

I wouldn't pick control or Synthesis even if I could live.

There is no such thing as a happy ending in Mass Effect.

They will all be hideously depressing.

At least some people understand why red is the best. Synthesis was the only one I had no idea what to expect, I just knew it would be different somehow. Unfortunately, now, we can all agree synthesis didn't give as much explanation as we would have liked, and destroy is the obvious correct choice.

Yes. 

YES!

[Bill Casey]

It's... not right. It looks pretty. Calm and peaceful. But it's not right...

[Stump01]

wizardryforever wrote...

I'll just say one thing about this, then leave, because I'm not getting bogged down in this again.

All three endings are done without the consent of the galaxy.  Shepard must choose for everyone, and given how much faith is put in him/her, I don't feel like it's too much of a stretch to exercise that faith.  Synthesis is not unique in this.  The only difference is that this impacts everyone on a personal level, rather than a long term metaphysical level.  However, everyone is impacted the same, so I doubt the anger at Shepard's choice (should there be any) would last long.  Since it is not only irreversible but universal, I'd say that most people will accept it.

While all three choices do affect others without their consent, the synthesis option is over the top.  Control just directly affects the reapers, Destroy affects them, the geth, and EDI, but Synthesis affects ALL life, including forms of life that may never evolve to the point where the reapers would reap them.

[kookie28]

o Ventus wrote...

legion999 wrote...

And for the record I would now choose control. Genocide doesn't sit right with me. And the less said about synthesis the better.

Not to sound like I'm trying to influence your choice here, but people need to stop attributing genocide to the Destroy ending. The species inside the Reapers are... ummm... dead. Unless there's some strange species of fish people that can survive having their brains melted into Reaper glue.

And please, don't give me that "But their ideas and personalities are alive!" crap either, I prefer science in my science fiction, not metaphysical BS.

Geth.

[legion999]

o Ventus wrote...

legion999 wrote...

And for the record I would now choose control. Genocide doesn't sit right with me. And the less said about synthesis the better.

Not to sound like I'm trying to influence your choice here, but people need to stop attributing genocide to the Destroy ending. The species inside the Reapers are... ummm... dead. Unless there's some strange species of fish people that can survive having their brains melted into Reaper glue.

And please, don't give me that "But their ideas and personalities are alive!" crap either, I prefer science in my science fiction, not metaphysical BS.

I'm sorry you've misunderstood me. I was refering to EDI and the Geth. The species the Reapers harvested are dead. The ships they made from them are mockeries.

If destroy only killed the Reapers I would choose it. I choose Control now so that I can make the Reapers kill themselves and destroy any Cerberus forces left.

Modifié par legion999, 25 mai 2012 - 09:40 .

[JamieCardillo]

Jamie9 wrote...

JamieCardillo wrote...

Let me first tell you, I tried very hard to form a witty sentence that made mention to us having a name and number in common, but there was no way to bring the number part in there without sounding like a retard, so I have no choice but to let this opportunity slip away. 

But on a slightly less childish note, let's continue our discussion on "space magic." I know I'm having trouble explaining my side of the argument, but all I can think of to say is "we cannot comprehend what is beyond comprehension." You say common sense disproves everything about this choice because it isn't possible, but I will remind you that the premise of this series is for you to defeat colossal, sentient machines that begain this series by putting human corpses on spikes to make glowing, mechanical zombies. Probably longer than I needed to make that point, but whatever. So I guess what I'm saying is, of course it's impossible, but like the Reaper invasion, it happened and we are not the ones who get to decide to what extent it makes sense, nor can we proclaim it makes no sense at all until it is further explained.

I'm sorry to cause you so much brain pain. I may even rename myself just to relieve you.

Or maybe I'm your ninth clone...

I think I get you. I'll throw my common sense away for this discussion if that would help. I admit it would be very hard to make something you cannot comprehend in a story. It would either seem stupid, be farfetched, or be comprehensible. In this case, it has ended up being stupid. To make sense, the writer needs to be able to comprehend it, therefore it is comprehensible. The only way to solve this is to leave key information out.

Husks kind of, sort of make sense scientifically. It's not too crazy for all liquids to be removed and for the organs etc. to be replaced with tech.

I guess this demonstrates that certain things in sci-fi will be easily accepted, whereas some will not.

So I think the extended cut could solve many problems. If it is explained somewhat, perhaps not fully, but we need to know the immediate consequences of it to be able to make that decision. I see it as a chain reaction.

Concept > Execution > Consequences

but our mind processes it as:

Concept < Execution < Consequences

We're not shown the consequences so we don't know what to think here. If the execution is poor but it provides great storytelling potential, it could be forgiven somewhat.

So we fall back to execution, which is again poor, it is not elaborated on at all. I get that you seem to like it being incomprehensible, so they don't have to tell us everything. Just tell us the basics: will our characters we love be the same people or not?

So we fall back to concept, and because the other two were poorly done, the concept is not accepted. This is why the Lazarus Project was generally accepted, it had good consequences and was executed well. So the concept was accepted.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading my wall of text. I hope I accurately read your post. Feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

Yea, we're pretty much in the same boat here. It's not like I'm saying the synthesis ending is a perfect choice and I'm the only sane person for not hating it. I know it's got some serious flaw, and you're pretty much right on point with how it all comes down to concept, execution, and consequences.

I wish there were more people like you that can accept it may just be possible that these are the kinds of cracks in the story that will be paved over when the EC is released. I understand why people got pissed at Bioware, just not why they can't allow them to right their wrongs.

[o Ventus]

kookie28 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

legion999 wrote...

And for the record I would now choose control. Genocide doesn't sit right with me. And the less said about synthesis the better.

Not to sound like I'm trying to influence your choice here, but people need to stop attributing genocide to the Destroy ending. The species inside the Reapers are... ummm... dead. Unless there's some strange species of fish people that can survive having their brains melted into Reaper glue.

And please, don't give me that "But their ideas and personalities are alive!" crap either, I prefer science in my science fiction, not metaphysical BS.

Geth.

Don't have brains and can't be assimilated. They also aren't organic.

Invalid.

[CuseGirl]

wizardryforever wrote...

I'll just say one thing about this, then leave, because I'm not getting bogged down in this again.

All three endings are done without the consent of the galaxy.  Shepard must choose for everyone, and given how much faith is put in him/her, I don't feel like it's too much of a stretch to exercise that faith.  Synthesis is not unique in this.  The only difference is that this impacts everyone on a personal level, rather than a long term metaphysical level.  However, everyone is impacted the same, so I doubt the anger at Shepard's choice (should there be any) would last long.  Since it is not only irreversible but universal, I'd say that most people will accept it.

I agree with everything you said except the part in bold. Some people would literally kill themselves if they found out their DNA was changed permanently, especially since it was changed with "synthetic DNA". Look at characters like Miranda or Grunt, how much they are affected by their genetic modifications. It affects their personality positively and negatively. And that's just modification, not WHOLESALE syntetic additions to their DNA.

[kookie28]

o Ventus wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

legion999 wrote...

And for the record I would now choose control. Genocide doesn't sit right with me. And the less said about synthesis the better.

Not to sound like I'm trying to influence your choice here, but people need to stop attributing genocide to the Destroy ending. The species inside the Reapers are... ummm... dead. Unless there's some strange species of fish people that can survive having their brains melted into Reaper glue.

And please, don't give me that "But their ideas and personalities are alive!" crap either, I prefer science in my science fiction, not metaphysical BS.

Geth.

Don't have brains and can't be assimilated. They also aren't organic.

Invalid.

Modifié par kookie28, 25 mai 2012 - 09:43 .

[zninjazzero]

1) It doesn't solve Shepard's problem of wanting to stop the Reapers.

2) It doesn't even solve the Star brat's problem of "the created" rebelling, because people are still gonna create stuff, which according to him will then rebel

3) Evolution does not work that way

4) What's wrong with biological framework? How does making everything cybernetic fix anything at all?

5) Forced homogenization. The entire game (and ME2, also) has characters talking about how important biological variety has been to our cycle. And now we're forcing everything to be the same.

6) Sudden introduction of "technology" that's just completely outside the established realm of Mass Effect, ie "space magic", completely breaks the willing suspension of disbelief. Nothing before has given any indication that this sort of process is possible in the ME universe.

7) Why does Shepard have to jump into a beam and disintegrate to activate it? There were like a hundred dead bodies down the hall from there that he could have tossed in. Shepard was killed off for no apparent reason.

[Deltateam Elcor]

Any good person with morals, will realise that all the choices are bad.

One is save the majority over the unknown minority.

Another is succumbing to ones own lust for power, no matter the intentions.

The last being quite frankly, the supremacist choice that i can only attribute to the (Bad guys in WW2) ideology and such.

All suck.

Modifié par Deltateam Elcor, 25 mai 2012 - 09:47 .

[Jamie9]

JamieCardillo wrote...

Yea, we're pretty much in the same boat here. It's not like I'm saying the synthesis ending is a perfect choice and I'm the only sane person for not hating it. I know it's got some serious flaw, and you're pretty much right on point with how it all comes down to concept, execution, and consequences.

I wish there were more people like you that can accept it may just be possible that these are the kinds of cracks in the story that will be paved over when the EC is released. I understand why people got pissed at Bioware, just not why they can't allow them to right their wrongs.

If more people were open-minded, we'd have a kinder world. I wish more people were like you.

That's why I believe this Indoctrination vs. Face Value Forum War is pointless, because both sides just want the ending to work.

Over the course of 5 years, I read "Keys to the Kingdom", a seven novels long series. It's ending was terrible, quite similar to Mass Effect 3's. It will always be that novel series I loved, but it has a terrible ending. Mass Effect has the chance to change that fact, and not many stories get that chance. We should all throw our ideas around and work together, with the devs.

[Bill Casey]

If you ignore the Catalyst entirely, you are left with mental images of Anderson shooting the pipe and the Illusive Man grabbing the electrical switches...

[TheBull]

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.

[CuseGirl]

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).

[Bill Casey]

[matthewmi]

Oh look this thread again....but as others have said synthesis is very unethical. I feel really bad for primitive societies who now have glowing eyes and synthetic parts or religious groups that have had their bodies altered in ways that are against their religion etc.....

[Bob3terd]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Because violation of consent.

Yup