Aller au contenu

Photo

Synthesis/Control... not a "betrayal."


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
314 réponses à ce sujet

#1
teh DRUMPf!!

teh DRUMPf!!
  • Members
  • 9 142 messages
 One common charge made against the green and blue paths is that they entail the players turning their back on everything they've been fighting for. And often times, examples are used to prove this, only to prove a selective memory of the overall fanbase.

In fact, I maintain that advancing through the Reapers is all we’ve done up to this point, and the only reason why victory through all three games is even possible...


1.) Mass Relays:

The Reapers’ “trap” in getting us to advance on the paths that they desire is the reason why we’re in the fight to begin with. Confined to our own systems, organic life would likely go the way of the drell. Earth is overpopulated in the ME lore even with space flight established. Per Thane, we found mass-relay tech before the problem could lead to overpopulation.

With that knowledge, the Protheans made all the success of ME1/2/3 possible by creating a mass-relay back to the relays’ control center (the Citadel) and rewriting the keepers.

In first using the mass-relays, we used a recovered piece of technology not created/mastered by us and used it without knowing completely what it would do... sound familiar?

2.) Keepers:

Originally part of the Reapers’ elaborate trap, the keepers have become valuable custodians of the Citadel after Prothean rewrite, and safeguarded against the cycle instead of assisting in it.

3.) EDI:

This creation is made possible by the study/mastery of Reaper tech.

4.) Thanix cannon:

See: #3.

5.) Seeker-swarm countermeasure:

The solution to this problem sure as hell wasn’t to destroy them, but to neutralize them with careful study of the tech itself, and to adapt accordingly by merging it with our own tech.

6.) Reaper IFF:

The losses of the Cerberus team studying it and possibly the Normandy’s crew are negligible. In truth, I’d attribute that more to Cerberus being incompetent, because both could have easily been avoided. In the end, what really matters is that the IFF helped make the mission to/from the Collector “homeworld” possible. No IFF, Collectors take humanity out of the fight before the war even begins.

7.) Object Rho:

Like the IFF, ‘Rho had its unfortunate consequences, but those were considerably outweighed by the success in taking away the Reapers’ advantage in the Alpha Relay.

8.) ME3 Geth:

They join you in the fight for Earth and assist building the Crucible - if upgraded through the Reapers’ code.

9.) Collector Base:

Whether recovered completely or salvaged from ruins, the tech from the ‘base is added to the Crucible after the assault on Cerebrus HQ.

10.) The Citadel:

Combined with the Crucible, the Citadel holds the solution(s) to the Reaper threat.


My point here is that while YES, we have been fighting to destroy the Reapers up this point in the series, we’ve mostly been accomplishing that through methods of control/adaptation of the Reapers’ own tech. So why is it so far-fetched to think that if given the option, Commander Shepard would choose Control or Synthesis? To me, it really isn’t. So let’s get off our “all things Reaper/Reaper tech is t3h eeeevviiiilllzz!” shall we?

Thread disclaimer: posters accusing OP of trolling and/or indoctrination hereby certify their own douchebaggery.

Go!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 30 mai 2012 - 05:20 .

  • Labrev aime ceci

#2
darkchief10

darkchief10
  • Members
  • 2 056 messages
good post actually, too bad the forums are full of confirmation bias, people refuse to listen to evidence that refutes their beliefs, it's just human nature

#3
frylock23

frylock23
  • Members
  • 3 037 messages
It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

#4
Yoshiyuki Ly

Yoshiyuki Ly
  • Members
  • 773 messages
Adapting their technology was a means to understand how the Reapers work. By understanding how the Reapers function, we're one step closer to defeating them. To ignore their defeat and instead adapting their technology once again defeats the purpose of having gone all this time, building up to this dramatic climax...and in the end, you don't pick destroy because of what? Sympathy for the geth and EDI? Fear that synthetics may indeed destroy organics completely in the long run?

No. Destroy the bastards. That's exactly what we signed up for and that's what we should have happen, no matter the sacrifices involved.

#5
darkchief10

darkchief10
  • Members
  • 2 056 messages

frylock23 wrote...

It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

which is why i hate synthesis and will never choose that bag of fail...
but i still think control  is a very viable solution, i was mads my renegade couldn't side with cerberus but oh well

#6
Toxic Waste

Toxic Waste
  • Members
  • 585 messages
In ME1 the goal was set. Destroy the Reapers.That was the objective and the overall goal. Not to open peace talks or trade negotiations. Not to come up with an alternate road other then war. It was to Destroy the Reapers.
In ME2 (if you choose to destroy the base) the goal was restated.
The Reapers were (are) coming to wipe out the galaxy. No if ands or butts.

And throughout the series Shepard asks a lot of questions, getting as much info as possiable to make the choice s/he eventually makes. starkid comes out, give you 17 lines and there is little Shep says other then "oh really?" (paraphrasing) and then makes the decision. Sorry, but for me, if I don't get a good answer I justy blow the thing up.

Besides, why trust something that has been "harvesting" life for longer then your planet has been in existance? I couldn't change my ex-wifes beliefes and way of thinking, but I am somehow going to be able to change a machines way of thinking?

Sorry, that is just beyond my comprehension.

#7
Dusen

Dusen
  • Members
  • 374 messages
My main reasons for not liking those two endings is that 1) I spent the better half of ME2 and all of ME3 trying to convince TIM that humanity is not ready to control the kind of power that the reapers possess, heck I either killed him myself or convinced him that he should kill himself because of it 2) I spent all of ME1 fighting Saren to prove to him that he cannot combine organics with synthetics/reapers.

While it is true that throughout the games we utilize reaper tech against the reapers themselves in no way does that justify those two endings. The game makes it clear several times that humanity is not ready to command that kind of power (TIM conversation at the end of ME2 and the conversation at the end of ME3) nor is it right to combine synthetics with organics (Saren's plans during ME1, all of Project Overlord DLC, etc).

As I stated before though, these are just my reasons for not choosing control/synthesis, regardless of whether Bioware actually intended them to be the "best" choices.

#8
Ji99saw

Ji99saw
  • Members
  • 227 messages

darkchief10 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

which is why i hate synthesis and will never choose that bag of fail...
but i still think control  is a very viable solution, i was mads my renegade couldn't side with cerberus but oh well


Control is pure garbage, there is no reason for it considering organics are still going to make synthetics and start the cyclye all over again. Which means no matter what Genocide will continue with Destroy and Contol but control is really stupid because now shep is the one charge of Genocide which is everything he hates

#9
The Night Mammoth

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

Ji99saw wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

which is why i hate synthesis and will never choose that bag of fail...
but i still think control  is a very viable solution, i was mads my renegade couldn't side with cerberus but oh well


Control is pure garbage, there is no reason for it considering organics are still going to make synthetics and start the cyclye all over again. Which means no matter what Genocide will continue with Destroy and Contol but control is really stupid because now shep is the one charge of Genocide which is everything he hates


Only if you believe that problem actually exists. 

I do not. 

Hence control. 

#10
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages
Counter point if non of the races every touch the tech, The wouldn't be in the war in the first place...

#11
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

which is why i hate synthesis and will never choose that bag of fail...
but i still think control  is a very viable solution, i was mads my renegade couldn't side with cerberus but oh well


Control is pure garbage, there is no reason for it considering organics are still going to make synthetics and start the cyclye all over again. Which means no matter what Genocide will continue with Destroy and Contol but control is really stupid because now shep is the one charge of Genocide which is everything he hates


Only if you believe that problem actually exists. 

I do not. 

Hence control. 

Even if the problem doesn't exists control is a bad choice and pointless.

#12
Lord Goose

Lord Goose
  • Members
  • 865 messages

Sympathy for the geth and EDI?


Actually, yes. They helped, although they could have abandoned/kill you thousands times. If your Shepard is adopted "sacrifice must be avoided stance", it's not even a choice.

Although, I kinda feel betrayed by game developers who made this choice the least satisfying.

#13
Garrison2011

Garrison2011
  • Members
  • 38 messages

Yoshiyuki Ly wrote...

Adapting their technology was a means to understand how the Reapers work. By understanding how the Reapers function, we're one step closer to defeating them. To ignore their defeat and instead adapting their technology once again defeats the purpose of having gone all this time, building up to this dramatic climax...and in the end, you don't pick destroy because of what? Sympathy for the geth and EDI? Fear that synthetics may indeed destroy organics completely in the long run?

No. Destroy the bastards. That's exactly what we signed up for and that's what we should have happen, no matter the sacrifices involved.


Took the words right out of my mouth. Destroying them is the only option.

#14
Lord Goose

Lord Goose
  • Members
  • 865 messages

It was to Destroy the Reapers.


The goal was to save the Galaxy. If its achievable with lesser casualities, why the hell it shouldn't be done? Yes, I also wanted to destroy the reapers, but my Shepard were mostly concerned about them destroying galactic civilazation as whole and humanity in general.

#15
Guest_Fibonacci_*

Guest_Fibonacci_*
  • Guests

darkchief10 wrote...

good post actually, too bad the forums are full of confirmation bias, people refuse to listen to evidence that refutes their beliefs, it's just human nature


My personal bias is that the intent of the developers was that any color you picked was the correct choice.  Any thing you have done for the past 3 games all formed the single, perfect canon -- at least as far as your Shepard is concerned.  What we have is that all colors are equally wrong.  The only viable choice is to stop playing.

#16
Ji99saw

Ji99saw
  • Members
  • 227 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

darkchief10 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

which is why i hate synthesis and will never choose that bag of fail...
but i still think control  is a very viable solution, i was mads my renegade couldn't side with cerberus but oh well


Control is pure garbage, there is no reason for it considering organics are still going to make synthetics and start the cyclye all over again. Which means no matter what Genocide will continue with Destroy and Contol but control is really stupid because now shep is the one charge of Genocide which is everything he hates


Only if you believe that problem actually exists. 

I do not. 

Hence control. 


Why would a billion year old all powerful machine lie? He can destroy everyone and everything with ease, and we use all the tech he created, which means we have no way of defeating him on our own term. He has to give use the choice of defeating  or controling him, and thats the only way we can stop them

#17
Leonardo the Magnificent

Leonardo the Magnificent
  • Members
  • 1 920 messages
I've always considered that control is the paragon, or ideal, choice. You've gained the power of the Reapers without having to sacrifice your friends or completely ruining the intergalactic transportation network. Even if the control you're given amounts to a single command, you could still command the Reapers to destroy themselves. Ergo, it's destroy sans consequence, save for Shepard's death.

#18
Sal86

Sal86
  • Members
  • 651 messages
Interesting point. i think I see where you're coming from but it's just not the same. Using the reapers' own tech against them in order to destroy them (which was our aim until we met the catalyst) is a far cry from trying to control them or use their tech to change the genetic makeup of all life in the galaxy.

It's the difference between picking up your enemy's gun to shoot him and joining his government.

Not to mention that many of the items you give as examples indoctrinated people. At least some reaper tech is evil. It's a risk to be selective about whether you trust it or not. Shepard takes that risk herself only with the IFF and it ended up biting her in the ass.

#19
T-Raks

T-Raks
  • Members
  • 823 messages
My Shepard is not the type to give in. Pro synthesis/control talk gets old to him. Nuff said!

Modifié par T-Raks, 30 mai 2012 - 06:01 .


#20
balance5050

balance5050
  • Members
  • 5 245 messages
The reapers leave all that tech there to control our evolutionary paths throughout the galaxy, it's just another form of control and by giving in to the doctrine of control you give in to thinking like a reaper.

Modifié par balance5050, 30 mai 2012 - 06:06 .


#21
liggy002

liggy002
  • Members
  • 5 337 messages

balance5050 wrote...

The reapers leave all that tech there to control our evolutionary paths throughout the galaxy, it's just another form of control and by giving in to the doctrine of control you give in to thinking like a reaper.


Yes, Saren did support Synthesis so how bad could it be?  Image IPB

Modifié par liggy002, 30 mai 2012 - 06:12 .


#22
The Night Mammoth

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

Ji99saw wrote...

Why would a billion year old all powerful machine lie?


Lie? 

I never said anything about lying. 

He can destroy everyone and everything with ease, and we use all the tech he created, which means we have no way of defeating him on our own term.


We could debate that until the horns of the horsemen sound. 

He has to give use the choice of defeating  or controling him, and thats the only way we can stop them


It doesn't have to. It could kill Shepard and continue with the cycle, taking extra care to scour the galaxy, since time is no issue. Every choice involves some sort of gamble, and it seems strange that a machine who has eradicated billions in a cycle of genocide that has lasted eons because of a percieved greater problem likes gambling. 

#23
The Night Mammoth

The Night Mammoth
  • Members
  • 7 476 messages

dreman9999 wrote...
Even if the problem doesn't exists control is a bad choice and pointless.


If you say so. 

Not entirely sure how it's 'pointless' but okay. 

#24
tomcplotts

tomcplotts
  • Members
  • 593 messages
this is why it's important to take Javik on the Thessia mission (yep, more "dlc" content that turns out to be pretty damned important). His story--and that of the Prothean VIs--is that control factions sprout from indoctrination in the cycles. To accede to the control demand is essentially to surrender to the Reapers plans. In fact, the control option is a de facto loss for you as a player as it is the Reapers desired solution. Which begs the question of *why* it is.

But to tie this into the OP, I'd argue the opposite: that the use of Reaper tech might advance the game, but it hinders your mission. It's the use of that tech that seduces your companions and allies into opposing their own destruction. It's the Reaper tech that is the vehicle at most important times for *your* defeat, not theirs. As others have said, you're not controlling them, they are controlling you.

Red. Red. Red. Red. and Red. Only.

#25
liggy002

liggy002
  • Members
  • 5 337 messages

T-Raks wrote...

My Shepard is not the type to give in. Pro synthesis/control talk gets old to him. Nuff said!


He is if you choose to give in, that's the beauty of choice and of this game.  But my Shep chose not to give in!