2621 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

Tricia Helfer has done, for the portrayal of synthetic life, what the baby boom did for mothercare.

As for the synthesis ending.......... I'm not convinced that some brainwashing did not occur to make everyone wuv each other..........

It's that husk in the new ending that makes me go, huh?

Husk and soldier are battling it out. The Green hits them and suddenly they are not fighting? What changed their motivations? At first they were fighting for their lives, well the soldier was anyway, then suddenly they stop? I can understand a moment of 'What the heck just happened', but the scene seems to impart that both have come to a sudden understanding of something that does not translate through the scene.

Or in other words, somenones popped some freaky mojo into them that makes them behave differently without the individual haivng the opportunity to rationalise it themselves......... If this is true then all conflict will cease and not occur in the future. Sooooooo, fights over space and reseources are now a thing of the past? Would a Synthesis future need a citadel council to argue over resource allocation or would they just direct resources on request? And what about all the bad blood between species? Krogan, Turian and Salarian may have reached understandings but just because all seems forgiven does not mean they will forget their histories......

[Voodoo2015]

Ericus wrote...

KiganMatsuei wrote...

Voodoo2015 wrote...

Come to think of something. To win the war we must kill the Reapers!
The Catalyst is their leader or he is the Reapers something like that.
Right?

The Citadel is his home and his power. So why do not Shepard just leave and blow up the Citadel to smithereens.
Wouldn't the Catalyst lose all his power over the Reapers? Like in the destroy ending.

Just a thought!

An interesting thought, but there's no telling what would happen if he was shut down. I wondered myself why it wasn't possible for Shepard to just turn the power off somehow.

We still have zero clarification for what happened to the characters on the citadel, such as Bailey and Aria. With much of the Citadel intact, it is possible there are at least some survivors among the many residents and refugees. Could be interesting to have Bailey and Aria team up to somehow sever the Starbrat's connection to the Reapers while Shepard keeps him talking.

Not sure what the Reapers would do after that, though. Shut down? Keep fighting? Retreat?

The Catalyst says that it's the collective consciousness of the Reapers.  Hard to say if destroying the Citadel would have any direct impact on them.  It's possible that the Citadel is only a focal point for them to express their combined will.  Maybe destroying the Citadel would hinder contact between the Reapers?  If so, you'd expect them to be a bit easier to fight conventionally since they'd be in disarray.  Still very powerful of course, but not coordinated??

Think about it all the Reapers think they are unbeatable and That They are the Saviors of the Universe. Some things you can see if you look. Arrogance, Greed, Gluttony, Wrath, Sloth, Lust, Envy. The Seven Deadly Sins. The seriously believe that they can not be beaten .. They think they are gods and behaves like a another god by the name of lucifer.

Everything can die, everything can be defeated. but not us. We are the beginning, you are the end. We are superior. You prolong the inevitable. Your death is assured. I am Harbinger. I am the Harbinger of your perfection. I am the Harbinger of your ascendance. I am unstoppable. You can not stop us. You Will not stop me. We are Harbinger. The god complex.

Shepard knows how to kill a Reaper so In The Name Of Zeus's butthole, don't they shoot Them there ... How many Reapers haven't Shepard killed and thats on Foot. And over a thousand spaceships can not kill a single Reaper when The Normandy and fleet did in the first game.

If you choose destruct ending you will kill the Star Child. Right! And all the Reapers destroyed. So if you are destroying the Citadel from the outside, the energy from the explotion must do  the same as in destruct ending.

It could have been an good ending. Leave the Citadel in refusal. Tell everyone to shoot the round thing above the Crucible.

You know what they say about cutting the head off the snake. The tail doesn't know what to do.

[Karcsi9104]

 I thought Extended Cut will make bigger changes, gives more explanations. I rate it between acceptable and unacceptable. It didn't answered much of my questions, but I got some points where I need some explanations:
1) The Prothean VI says, the Illusive Man fled to the Citadel, then warned the Reapers that the good guys want to use it. I ask: if he was on the Citadel when Reapers took control of it, why wasn't he harvested?
           - He played hide and seek with them?
           - Or they made he think that he control them?
It should have been explained by Mr. Reaper consensus at the end.
2) The scene where Shepard's squad is extracted from London by the Normandy:            - It explains how some members of the crew get on board of the Normandy.            - There's a Reaper right in front of them, why doesn't it shoot the Normandy down?                       - If it shoot it down, the enemy's morale is at zero.                       - He doesn't want to shoot it, because they didn't open fire on him?                       - He waits for the wounded to retreat because it would be unethical?
3) Still not clear: if the Citadel phase in the end isn't a dream, how does Anderson get ahead of Shepard?
             - He sais, he followed Shepard through the beam but he didn't end up at the same place.
             - When we enter the control room, there is Anderson at the control panel, but there isn't any other entrance, only the one Shepard came in. How the hell Anderson get there?

4) Shepard shoot Anderson near his left kidney. After the old man dies, he starts bleeding from the same spot. Why?

5) When Shepard goes to the Citadel, Hackett says: "Somebody made it to the Citadel."
    When Anderson dies, he call Shepard, saying the Crucible does not fire. How the hell does he know, it's Shepard on the Citadel? The ground teams didn't see anyone making to the beam. Anderson didn't radio the fleet, nor Shepard, nor the Illusive Man. They didn't radio Shepard either. So how did Hackett know it was Shepard make through the beam? And what about Anderson?

6) During the conversation with the Catalyst, he says a lot of time: "we knew you were thinking about that" or something similar. That means, they know Shepard's thoughts, so they were/are in his/her head, so they try to indoctrinate him, the whole Citadel scene is only because they aren't strong enough to break Shepard.

7) After Hackett order the fleet to retreat to the meeting point, the Mass Relays are "badly damaged". So every ship of the fleet should be stranded through the way to the meeting point. So they can't reach their home planets in a few years, the quarians in a few hundred years. This doesn't seem to be the fact in the endings.

8) I didn't see much of the effects of my choices in the ending cinematics. Two were seen:
               - My romantic interest.
               - Krogans building their civilization.
Another one was Zaeed enjoying his retirement, but it was his choice not mine.

9) I am a big Star Trek fan and because of that I have to complain about the Reapers. They are very very similar to the Borg.
               - Borg has hive mind, so does the Reapers (they can act as individuals so can some borg)
               - Borg assimilate other races to achieve perfection. Reapers harvest organic civilizations to achieve perfection (said by the Catalyst).
                - Borg says: "Resistance is futile." Reapers tell us the same.

10) I am a physisict, working with high power lasers (which shold be very weak in comparsion to the weapons in the game, although they are at the terawatt=10^12 W range), so I have to tell you this:
Shepard gets hit by a Reaper laser/particle beam in Vancouver with no armor on (the second shot, after shich you can't hear for some time). How the hell can he/she survive a direct or nearly direct hit whit a weapon that cuts through a destroyer? The same goes for the second one onthe run to the beam.
                - A beam that powerful would ionize the air at a distance that the air near Shepard should be ionized too, even if he isn't hit directly. So he cannot breathe, he gets burned, her body recieves a severe shock, so he faints. If he isn't directly hit.
                - Ionization of that scale should make a big shockwave just thunder does (this is what we hear). This should break not even the ribs of Shepard but nearly all of his bones, and also knock him unconscious. If he isn't directly hit.
                - If he isn't directly hit, the rock/floor ahead of him should break, the small parts of it should tear his flesh, like a giant frag grenade (his shields should run out of energy because of the amount and energy of fragments, and in Vancouver, he/she doesn't have shields). This is a severe shock to the body so he faints.
                 - Adding the above points, he/she is dead or at least unable to move after a nearly direct hit.
                 - If he gets a direct hit, he/she is evaporated, but that is unlikely that Bioware should make a mistake that big.


11) When Shepard gets to the Catalyst, he isn't in a room, he is directly below the Crucible, there shouldn't be any air, Shepard should be in vacuum.

12) The Catalyst says: they thought the plans of the Crucible were lost. He also says, that he came up with new solutions. He had a maximum amount of a few days to make that three choices, to make the tube Shepard shoots on in the Destroy scene, and the controlling machine in the Control scene. Or if there were they in the last several million years, why wasn't there anybody, who realised that tube, and that controlling device in the hull of the Citadel Tower?

13) After choosing destroy, there is a glimpse of a breathing Shepard (if you have high enough Galactic Readiness). There are three possibilities:
                   - Most likely he/she gets knocked out when the Reaper fires at him in London. The Citadel level is only a dream, a final indoctrination attempt from the Reapers.
                   - Unlikely he/she  gets knocked out when the Reaper fires at him in Vancouver. The whole game is a dream.
                   - Very unlikely he/she gets to the Citadel, goes through it like an undead zombie and when the tube explodes into his/her face, and the Crucible also explodes near him/her, and there are a lot of explosions in the Citadel, the synthetic part from Lazarus project inside him/her is destroyed, falling through some vacuum, Earth's atmosphere, and impact to the rubble in London with several hundred kph without armor (badly damaged armor that gives no protection, doesn't have a breather helmet), probably has internal bleeding and broken bones at the start of falling, he/she lives.

I think I left out something, but this is bad enough, I don't want to make it look worse. I am very disappointed, but I can say, that nobody could write a good enough ending to a story like this especially if they are bought by Electronic Arts.

Finally I want to thank the Bioware team and the writers for the story they put together.

[3DandBeyond]

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

Tricia Helfer and all the VAs is fantastic.  Never a problem.

Synthesis requires Shepard force something into people's bodies (still) without their consent.  The kid still states it was always his goal but he tried it and couldn't make it happen, because it couldn't be forced.  But, it still is.  There were people in ME that didn't even want any implants so doing this is a violation.

There's even a poll here on how many people would want this if it were real.  Most wouldn't (last time I looked), but even if most people would like it (people in the game), it wouldn't matter.  If one person wouldn't (people in the game), it's wrong.

There are other problems with it.  The kid sees it as perfection and he thinks people seek perfection through tech-in whose warped mind?  Well, his.  First, perfection is not the goal of everyone and even if people seek it, tech is not what everyone sees as the way to it.  It also may lead to immortality.  No disease, no war, endless life.  Population explosion?

Also, it advances people beyond their readiness for it.  When has this ever been a problem in the game?

The only thing Shepard had ever had "permission" to do was destroy the reapers.  The fact the writers gave destroy some awful consequences is their way to not make it the canon ending.  But control and synthesis both have real long-term worse consequences.

[T-Raks]

I still don't like certain story elements of the ending (not a fan of a deus-ex-machina solution or space magic or how you wanna call it), but it's your story Bioware, so I appreciate the time and effort you put in to clarify how you wanted Shepard's story arch to end.

And I thank you for upgrading the game experience to a level where I'm looking forward to replay the game again and where I once again hope for lots of single player DLC (like for ME2). I hope the stuff is as good as advertised and we really wanna "hold on to our save files forever" to cite Michael Gamble. Though I'm curious how that should be possible with all DLC supposedly (likely after the EC) happening before Priority Earth.

I liked Hackett addressing the galaxy/player after the Reapers got defeated, the memorial scene and Shepard breathing. I mean he promised to find Miranda... The bigger picture is put better together so little inconsistencies are not THAT important anymore, though I hope that the IMO deserved backlash was a reminder that a story should be better thought through from the beginning.

I'll prepare another ME2 finish to import now and hope that once I'll in the middle of ME3 that there are some new playable missions on its way.

Thanks again for saving the game! I had my doubts but am satisfied now with your reaction.

[Ericus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Synthesis requires Shepard force something into people's bodies (still) without their consent.  The kid still states it was always his goal but he tried it and couldn't make it happen, because it couldn't be forced.  But, it still is.  There were people in ME that didn't even want any implants so doing this is a violation.

My interpretation of the Catalyst's comment is that Synthesis could not be forced by the Reapers.  But evidently it could by an organic.  It's lead me to believe that the Reapers actually weren't trying to stop Shepard from getting to the Citadel.  Everyone else, yes, but not Shepard.  It would explain why Harbinger didn't actually kill him during the run to the beam.  It would also explain why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy - with Shepard's crew alive, it gives him more motivation to pick a solution that can save them all.

It's pretty clear that the full-blown IT theory is not really happening, but it's still possible that the Reapers have been trying to break down Shepard's resistance.  Since the Catalyst can take on the form of the child in Shepard's dreams, it's not a stretch to believe that they've also been causing his nightmares.

Seems likely (to me) that the Reapers were hoping that they've been able to influence Shepard enough that he'll pick the Synthesis option.  It's clear from ME2 and ME3 that they consider Shepard special - perhaps the ultimate example of organic evolution in this cycle?  If so, who better to initiate the change?  

For those that like the Synthesis ending, I'm not suggesting it's a bad ending, but there's no question it's the ending the Reapers prefer.  I'm guessing that Control would be considered an acceptable second option, but the Reaper's seem arrogant enough to assume they could steer Shepard away from Destroy safely.

[BlueStorm83]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Tricia Helfer and all the VAs is fantastic.  Never a problem.

Synthesis requires Shepard force something into people's bodies (still) without their consent.  The kid still states it was always his goal but he tried it and couldn't make it happen, because it couldn't be forced.  But, it still is.  There were people in ME that didn't even want any implants so doing this is a violation.

There's even a poll here on how many people would want this if it were real.  Most wouldn't (last time I looked), but even if most people would like it (people in the game), it wouldn't matter.  If one person wouldn't (people in the game), it's wrong.

There are other problems with it.  The kid sees it as perfection and he thinks people seek perfection through tech-in whose warped mind?  Well, his.  First, perfection is not the goal of everyone and even if people seek it, tech is not what everyone sees as the way to it.  It also may lead to immortality.  No disease, no war, endless life.  Population explosion?

Also, it advances people beyond their readiness for it.  When has this ever been a problem in the game?

The only thing Shepard had ever had "permission" to do was destroy the reapers.  The fact the writers gave destroy some awful consequences is their way to not make it the canon ending.  But control and synthesis both have real long-term worse consequences.

---  It's pretty obvious why BioWare put so many obvious and blatant flaws into all the endings.  They were trying to create some kind of thought provoking "Pick the lesser of three (now four) evils... but which is the lesser?" kind of feel to the end of it.  I'll admit, if a MOVIE ended this way, with the hero forced to pick one of four, and then it faded to black before he made his choice, it would be thought provoking and pretty cool.

Problem is, as 3D said just a page or two ago, this is a Video Game.  And Video Games, as all games are, are a form of competition.  People compete to put their strength against the strength of an opponent.  The opponent may be other players, it may be AI opponents, or it may even be horrible controls that make you want to rip your hair out (the new Wobble Aiming against Marauder Shields!!!)  But we're there to find a challenge that we can overcome.

Lots of work is put into tuning games these days: you want people to win, but you want them to feel they've earned it.  You stimulate the same part of the brain that's there to reward us when we catch and kill our prey, mate with the object of our affection, save our children from danger, etc.  It's a part of the brain that ensures that our existence, or at least the continuation of our DNA, is assured.  If victory is handed to someone, they feel something is wrong.  If every softball game ends in a tie, or if nobody keeps score, the children inherently know that something is a little off.  We're hardwired to seek success, it's not something that we can turn off.  And that's why these endings, while complete, working, and not nonsensical, are still failures.

Reading a book, listening to a song, watching a movie, or seeing an event play out before us; those are thought actions.  All we can do is emphathize with them.  Playing a video game is different.  We invest our own emotions in it, rather than piggybacking on the emotions of a disconnected protagonist.  And at the end of Mass Effect 3: no matter what we do, the game ends in an artificial tie.  Look at the endings:

Possibility One:  My team, family, pack, society is destroyed.  The opposing team is also destroyed.  A third team wins.  While I may derive success from the loss of the opposing team, I can also derive failure from the equal loss of my team.  Neither Victory nor Defeat: a tie.

Possibility Two:  The Opposing Team forefeits.  In order to bring this about, players on my own team are fired without pay, breaking the contract I have made with them.  This was done because the opposing Coach did not like them, and I appeased his irrational hatred as part of a behind the scenes agreement.  My fired players are banned from ever playing the game again.  The game never truly began, we merely warmed up and then I decided my team was too weak to win.  No game played at all: a presumed loss averted at the cost of a real loss.

Possibility Three:  The Opposing Team now falls under my command.  They are merged with my team, therefore there is only one team, therefore we are unopposed.  However, my team did not defeat the other team.  We have not acchieved a victory.  Further, the other team's members are still of a nature diametrically opposed to the nature of my team's original members.  Both sides only accept this merger because I have forced it upon them, and I deny them both the game.  Without the game, there can be neither victory nor defeat.  An artificial tie.

Possibility Four:  The Opposing Team and my team are intermingled and merged, giving both teams new green uniforms.  Every other person alive at any place in the universe is also drafted into my team.  Every team member is merged into one being.  There is only one player, therefore the game can not be finished, nor can a new game ever begin again.  With no possible opponents, there can be neither victory nor defeat.  A one man tie.

CORRELARY:  No matter which option is taken, the Coach (you) must give up the game altogether.

As a STORY Mass Effect 3, and therefore Mass Effect as a whole, succeeds in getting from A to Z without including any symbols like # % or &.  As a Game, it fails at the very end as it forgets its very nature and denies players the ability to win the game.

[MGakaMoogie]

 I want to say thankyou..you guys did it and I wanna say I cried and we hugged and it was amazing..thanks again





-Moogie

[Rasofe]

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

I can acknowledge and even endorse the opinion of others that this is the most benevolent ending to the game.

However, as an anti-trancendentalist I'm strongly opposed to any such endeavour. When the Star Child claims that "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life", my immediate reaction is that is only true within the confines of the premise that there is a final evolution. This would make sense to an AI logic but it isn't true.

In the pre-edit cut, it sounded far too much like what Saren wanted.

[BlueStorm83]

Rasofe wrote...

I can acknowledge and even endorse the opinion of others that this is the most benevolent ending to the game.

However, as an anti-trancendentalist I'm strongly opposed to any such endeavour. When the Star Child claims that "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life", my immediate reaction is that is only true within the confines of the premise that there is a final evolution. This would make sense to an AI logic but it isn't true.

In the pre-edit cut, it sounded far too much like what Saren wanted.

But is it TRULY benevolent?  I always remember back to Knights of the Old Republic 2: I was a good guy, I always liked to help people.  Then one day, Kreia says to me, "You're not helping people, you're hurting them."  I'm like, "Whaaaaa???"  She explains that every time I give someone something they didn't earn, I make myself stronger, for having gone to the trouble, while making them weaker, by allowing them to stay still and not grow and learn.

In that sense, Synthesis is the final weakening of everything in the galaxy- even the Reapers.  If they want their perfect final evolution so damn much, let them EARN IT.

[seitani]

3DandBeyond wrote...

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

Tricia Helfer and all the VAs is fantastic.  Never a problem.

Synthesis requires Shepard force something into people's bodies (still) without their consent.  The kid still states it was always his goal but he tried it and couldn't make it happen, because it couldn't be forced.  But, it still is.  There were people in ME that didn't even want any implants so doing this is a violation.

There's even a poll here on how many people would want this if it were real.  Most wouldn't (last time I looked), but even if most people would like it (people in the game), it wouldn't matter.  If one person wouldn't (people in the game), it's wrong.

There are other problems with it.  The kid sees it as perfection and he thinks people seek perfection through tech-in whose warped mind?  Well, his.  First, perfection is not the goal of everyone and even if people seek it, tech is not what everyone sees as the way to it.  It also may lead to immortality.  No disease, no war, endless life.  Population explosion?

Also, it advances people beyond their readiness for it.  When has this ever been a problem in the game?

The only thing Shepard had ever had "permission" to do was destroy the reapers.  The fact the writers gave destroy some awful consequences is their way to not make it the canon ending.  But control and synthesis both have real long-term worse consequences.

Yea theres problems with synthesis ending. First of all no one should intervene in the course of evolution and shape every being how they see fit and who can guarantee that theres not war between species in the future (with the reaper's still roaming around guess who would win?) and like you said overpopulation. Also the husk gaining awarenes was kind of awkward, imagine human, reaper and husk together just chilling and drinking coffee in the morning. Reaper is a construction worker and husk is the new chief of ExoGeni Corporation. But still the Extended Cut made the endings 100 times better.

Modifié par seitani, 01 juillet 2012 - 05:34 .

[Rasofe]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

I can acknowledge and even endorse the opinion of others that this is the most benevolent ending to the game.

However, as an anti-trancendentalist I'm strongly opposed to any such endeavour. When the Star Child claims that "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life", my immediate reaction is that is only true within the confines of the premise that there is a final evolution. This would make sense to an AI logic but it isn't true.

In the pre-edit cut, it sounded far too much like what Saren wanted.

But is it TRULY benevolent?  I always remember back to Knights of the Old Republic 2: I was a good guy, I always liked to help people.  Then one day, Kreia says to me, "You're not helping people, you're hurting them."  I'm like, "Whaaaaa???"  She explains that every time I give someone something they didn't earn, I make myself stronger, for having gone to the trouble, while making them weaker, by allowing them to stay still and not grow and learn.

In that sense, Synthesis is the final weakening of everything in the galaxy- even the Reapers.  If they want their perfect final evolution so damn much, let them EARN IT.

That's an eloquent point. But may I acknowledge that Hitler had the same conclusion about the German race once defeat was inevitable - if they do not prevail in the world war, the German people deserved extermination were the terms of the dictator.

If we allow ourselves that kind of ruthless calculus about earning the right for eternal peace and prosperity, we must also allow it for the right of life. And to that end, there is the Rejection ending, which contests that if the races of the Milky Way deserve to break the cycle now, they will do it, or perish trying.

In short, Synthesis is the most benevolent choice. But it is not necessarily the right one.

Modifié par Rasofe, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:00 .

[Redbelle]

Rasofe wrote...

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

I can acknowledge and even endorse the opinion of others that this is the most benevolent ending to the game.

However, as an anti-trancendentalist I'm strongly opposed to any such endeavour. When the Star Child claims that "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life", my immediate reaction is that is only true within the confines of the premise that there is a final evolution. This would make sense to an AI logic but it isn't true.

In the pre-edit cut, it sounded far too much like what Saren wanted.

If it''s a final evolution does that not imply an evolutionary dead end whereby the only route left open to such a species is extinction as they can no longer adapt to a changing environment?

[BlueStorm83]

Rasofe wrote...

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

I can acknowledge and even endorse the opinion of others that this is the most benevolent ending to the game.

However, as an anti-trancendentalist I'm strongly opposed to any such endeavour. When the Star Child claims that "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life", my immediate reaction is that is only true within the confines of the premise that there is a final evolution. This would make sense to an AI logic but it isn't true.

In the pre-edit cut, it sounded far too much like what Saren wanted.

But is it TRULY benevolent?  I always remember back to Knights of the Old Republic 2: I was a good guy, I always liked to help people.  Then one day, Kreia says to me, "You're not helping people, you're hurting them."  I'm like, "Whaaaaa???"  She explains that every time I give someone something they didn't earn, I make myself stronger, for having gone to the trouble, while making them weaker, by allowing them to stay still and not grow and learn.

In that sense, Synthesis is the final weakening of everything in the galaxy- even the Reapers.  If they want their perfect final evolution so damn much, let them EARN IT.

That's an eloquent point. But may I acknowledge that Hitler had the same conclusion about the German race once defeat was inevitable - if they do not prevail in the world war, the German people deserved extermination were the terms of the dictator.

If we allow ourselves that kind of ruthless calculus about earning the right for eternal peace and prosperity, we must also allow it for the right of life. And to that end, there is the Rejection ending, which contests that if the races of the Milky Way deserve to break the cycle now, they will do it, or perish trying.

In short, Synthesis is the most benevolent choice. But it is not necessarily the right one.

Ah, I get you.  Benevolent in a most literal sense, Bene Volere, "To want good."  Indeed, it is the option you'd take if you hope to achieve the most good, though if it will actually achieve that goal is open to interpretation and philosophy.

[Redbelle]

seitani wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

Tricia Helfer and all the VAs is fantastic.  Never a problem.

Synthesis requires Shepard force something into people's bodies (still) without their consent.  The kid still states it was always his goal but he tried it and couldn't make it happen, because it couldn't be forced.  But, it still is.  There were people in ME that didn't even want any implants so doing this is a violation.

There's even a poll here on how many people would want this if it were real.  Most wouldn't (last time I looked), but even if most people would like it (people in the game), it wouldn't matter.  If one person wouldn't (people in the game), it's wrong.

There are other problems with it.  The kid sees it as perfection and he thinks people seek perfection through tech-in whose warped mind?  Well, his.  First, perfection is not the goal of everyone and even if people seek it, tech is not what everyone sees as the way to it.  It also may lead to immortality.  No disease, no war, endless life.  Population explosion?

Also, it advances people beyond their readiness for it.  When has this ever been a problem in the game?

The only thing Shepard had ever had "permission" to do was destroy the reapers.  The fact the writers gave destroy some awful consequences is their way to not make it the canon ending.  But control and synthesis both have real long-term worse consequences.

Yea theres problems with synthesis ending. First of all no one should intervene in the course of evolution and shape every being how they see fit and who can guarantee that theres not war between species in the future (with the reaper's still roaming around guess who would win?) and like you said overpopulation. Also the husk gaining awarenes was kind of awkward, imagine human, reaper and husk together just chilling and drinking coffee in the morning. Reaper is a construction worker and husk is the new chief of ExoGeni Corporation. But still the Extended Cut made the endings 100 times better.

Joe: Hey Jim

Husk Jim: Hey Joe...... How are the kids?

Joe: Fine, how are......... damn, sorry I forget.

Husk Jim: It's all right Joe. My reproductive organs were removed, largely due to censorship and the fact I don't wear clothes and......   and I've had to come to terms with that.

Joe: But your still seeing that girl?

Husk Jim: Yes but I've come to realise she's not really interested in me. She's just feeding a fetish for dry skinned techno organic shock trooper's who are having a hard time getting signed back up to the land of the living since my death certificate was posted. They don't want ppl like me in the system since it's impossible to get a job and they don't want the extra strain on the benefit system.

Joe: Sounds rough.

Husk Jim: It should be but since I no longer feel any physical sensation being homeless isn't such a burden. In fact I don't even need to eat much these days. So all in all I'd say I'm getting off pretty easy......... Although the non husk homeless don't like us hanging around to much after husk Stan joked that one of them had a tasty looking ear he could chew on.

Joe: And the support group?

Husk Jim: Well Banchee Heather is taking the whole, going to live the next one thousand years trapped in a saggy bag of flesh, hard. She was dating an accountant who doesn't like the Reaper makeover. Brute Nagat is trying to make a go of it and join the next Galympic weight lifting team. And Maurder Shields wrote a book called 'How I survived my head trauma and learned to love Shepard again'. That guy is the biggest sell out our group has...... We don't talk about him much these days.

[BlueStorm83]

Redbelle wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

seitani wrote...

btw guys what are your thoughts of the new synthesis ending, i know its a bit utopistic but it's becoming my favourite of the endings. I hated it before extended cut.
Edit: Maybe i like it because of Tricia Helfer's awesome voice acting;)

I can acknowledge and even endorse the opinion of others that this is the most benevolent ending to the game.

However, as an anti-trancendentalist I'm strongly opposed to any such endeavour. When the Star Child claims that "Synthesis is the final evolution of all life", my immediate reaction is that is only true within the confines of the premise that there is a final evolution. This would make sense to an AI logic but it isn't true.

In the pre-edit cut, it sounded far too much like what Saren wanted.

If it''s a final evolution does that not imply an evolutionary dead end whereby the only route left open to such a species is extinction as they can no longer adapt to a changing environment?

It would.  Evolution implies a continual change to deal with changing circumstances.  The universe is not a static thing.  Look at policies in place today: beaches are constantly dredged and built up, as the ocean erodes them, and the water begins to encroach on homes.  To believe that you can defeat the ocean is foolhardy: that money would be better spent in adaptation: build a community on Canals, like Venice.  Move inland.  Invest in a houseboat.  Instead, the unadaptive continue to dredge and replace sand, over and over, even using discarded christmas trees to shore up their, well, shores.

Synthesis being a "final evolution" also plays into the false notion that Evolution is a linear process: that something is "less evolved" than something else.  Anything insufficiently evolved dies.  An amoeba is as evolutionarily advanced as you or I: we co-exist in the same world at the same moment.  A Velociraptor is not: it failed to survive through the conditions that clearly the amoeba and I survived.

Furthermore, "evolution" is a slow process over the course of a vast period of time.  And it happens without input.  A true evolution to synthesis would result in billions of years passing and life forms eventually developing organs that provide the same function as already existing synthetic devices: however, the presence of those devices would remove the need for those organs to arise, and therefore it would never happen.  Synthesis would never arise in any form, besides the artificial addition of cybernetic parts to life forms, like Shepard's repairs, or the Reaperization we see among Reapers and their foot soldiers.

The entire concept of Synthesis is a flawed one, and could only be considered as an eventuality by someone who considers the permanent melding of Organic Life and Technology as the only way that existence can be assured.

Oh, look, that's exactly the kind of villian we have been fighting all along.

[seitani]

Well gonna start a full renegade playthrough of the trilogy soon for the first time, at least its crystal clear what choice i make at the end

[Matt2222]

Auckmid wrote...

Matt2222 wrote...

so i take it most people werent satisfied with the new extended cut dlc...i thought it was alot better than the first one

It was, and I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't think the EC is much better then the orriginal. If Bioware had have made the EC endings the first time around, I think that there would be MUCH less ending debate. However, since Bioware made a bad ending the first time around, and they decided to make a much improved post-release ending, I think that people were hoping that Bioware would make the perfect ending. While the EC endings are much, much more satisfying, there are still small details that people expected Bioware would fix the second time around, like actualy giving a conclusion as to what happens to Shepard in the ending which he survives in.

right but looking at other games they made woulda thought people would have been prepared for a bad ending count that 2 in a way no offense bioware personally i liked the destroy ending the best and yeah ur right they should have definitly fixed the 2 second breath scene to maybe a 30 second reunite scene but i suppose beggars cant be chosers in any case i liked the EC ending   

[BlueStorm83]

seitani wrote...

Well gonna start a full renegade playthrough of the trilogy soon for the first time, at least its crystal clear what choice i make at the end

---  SERIOUSLY.  As a full Renegade I get to keep Mordin alive, I get to save all the life forms in the galaxy (I don't count those damn toasters as alive) and I get to live through it all?  **** yes!

Of course, my PARAGON, who I always have been from the begining, was absolutely ****ed at the end.

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...


Joe: Hey Jim

Husk Jim: Hey Joe...... How are the kids?

Joe: Fine, how are......... damn, sorry I forget.

Husk Jim: It's all right Joe. My reproductive organs were removed, largely due to censorship and the fact I don't wear clothes and......   and I've had to come to terms with that.

Joe: But your still seeing that girl?

Husk Jim: Yes but I've come to realise she's not really interested in me. She's just feeding a fetish for dry skinned techno organic shock trooper's who are having a hard time getting signed back up to the land of the living since my death certificate was posted. They don't want ppl like me in the system since it's impossible to get a job and they don't want the extra strain on the benefit system.

Joe: Sounds rough.

Husk Jim: It should be but since I no longer feel any physical sensation being homeless isn't such a burden. In fact I don't even need to eat much these days. So all in all I'd say I'm getting off pretty easy......... Although the non husk homeless don't like us hanging around to much after husk Stan joked that one of them had a tasty looking ear he could chew on.

Joe: And the support group?

Husk Jim: Well Banchee Heather is taking the whole, going to live the next one thousand years trapped in a saggy bag of flesh, hard. She was dating an accountant who doesn't like the Reaper makeover. Brute Nagat is trying to make a go of it and join the next Galympic weight lifting team. And Maurder Shields wrote a book called 'How I survived my head trauma and learned to love Shepard again'. That guy is the biggest sell out our group has...... We don't talk about him much these days.

This is hilarious!!

[3DandBeyond]

seitani wrote...

Well gonna start a full renegade playthrough of the trilogy soon for the first time, at least its crystal clear what choice i make at the end

What choice would that be?  I'm going to go out on a limb because so many people say it-you think it's destroy. 

But, in my opinion, Destroy is the only true paragon choice.  It is the only one that accomplishes the mission and leaves the galaxy free to fully self-determine their future, mistakes and all.  Yes, it has the horrible consequence of killing EDI and the geth, but since it was viewed as a suicide mission even that which I wish could be avoided by some in game actions, is somewhat excusable.  No, I don't like it.  But Destroy is the only choice that leaves people intact and that does not radically change Shepard's views to more coincide with TIM's.  It also is the only choice that may actually allow people to evolve in ways that could better them.

Control involves reapers doing things like re-building the relays.  Part of the problem.  People only ever advanced due to reaper tech in the first place.  They might learn new ways without reaper nannies.  And reaper police.

Synthesis advances people beyond their natural readiness for it and therefore they have not earned it.  Of course it is forced and done without people's consent.

Reject is the ultimate unthinking rash Renegade option.  It's that reactionary punch in the gut.  Great speech, but it really could have featured different possibilities if it weren't that someone was sending players a message.

I don't see any of these as paragon actions.  Destroy is just harder to see as paragon because of EDI and the Geth, but again it's the only one that gets rid of the kid and the reapers and lets people stand on their own.

[EnforcerWRX7]

This EC ending is mediocre at best. NO matter what Bioware says, the Catalyst logic makes zero sense. It didn't make sense the first time and it doesn't make sense now.

And WHY is the catalyst where he is at? The plans for the crucible, where did they come from? The crucible still doesn't make any sense. Why is the catalyst even prepared for it? HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY BE PREPARED FOR IT!?  Why does it attach to the citadel at all?   That has to mean the catalyst intended it the whole time.

Nothing makes sense in the ending. I admit the scene are emotional but the ending ending is just one flawed conversation after another, even with the EC.

It would have made more sense for the catalyst just to say he is an AI, and he believes it is his duty to clean up the galaxy. It would be easier to believe he was just a crazy, kooky program gone schitzo than what we got. Why does he live in the citadel?

I feel like my playtime through ME1-ME3 was all a big joke in the end. Its hard to believe this is the ending we got but now we know its all here to stay.


(and for the record, destroy is the only ending that even makes sense...)

Modifié par EnforcerWRX7, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:58 .

[seitani]

3DandBeyond wrote...

seitani wrote...

Well gonna start a full renegade playthrough of the trilogy soon for the first time, at least its crystal clear what choice i make at the end

What choice would that be?  I'm going to go out on a limb because so many people say it-you think it's destroy. 

But, in my opinion, Destroy is the only true paragon choice.  It is the only one that accomplishes the mission and leaves the galaxy free to fully self-determine their future, mistakes and all.  Yes, it has the horrible consequence of killing EDI and the geth, but since it was viewed as a suicide mission even that which I wish could be avoided by some in game actions, is somewhat excusable.  No, I don't like it.  But Destroy is the only choice that leaves people intact and that does not radically change Shepard's views to more coincide with TIM's.  It also is the only choice that may actually allow people to evolve in ways that could better them.

Control involves reapers doing things like re-building the relays.  Part of the problem.  People only ever advanced due to reaper tech in the first place.  They might learn new ways without reaper nannies.  And reaper police.

Synthesis advances people beyond their natural readiness for it and therefore they have not earned it.  Of course it is forced and done without people's consent.

Reject is the ultimate unthinking rash Renegade option.  It's that reactionary punch in the gut.  Great speech, but it really could have featured different possibilities if it weren't that someone was sending players a message.

I don't see any of these as paragon actions.  Destroy is just harder to see as paragon because of EDI and the Geth, but again it's the only one that gets rid of the kid and the reapers and lets people stand on their own.

I was thinking destroy and play as ultimate renegade ***hole as i can so i will destroy geth anyway on rannoch so only downside in the end is EDI. I agree reject is the ultimate renegade choice but it's so unsatisfying that i think i will pass that. Destroy can be viewed as a paragon choice also,  i chosed it in my first playthrough of 3 and i was playing full paragon. Btw i've given guite a lot of money to Bioware, i have 2 Mass Effect games  with original-  and ugly orange "value games" covers, Mass Effect 2 Collectors Edition and normal game and Mass Effect 3 Collectors Edition and normal game so total of 6 ME games:D

edit: Reason for two ME 1 games is that i first ordered it online here in Finland and it had that ugly orange cover which i didn't know and it was so ugly that i wanted one with original covers. So i begin my search and i couldn't find a single new copy in Finland with original cover so i had to order one from England.

Modifié par seitani, 02 juillet 2012 - 05:05 .

[3DandBeyond]

Just some interesting things I just found out. There is a bit of dialog change with Hackett when you are on the Normandy and select to attack cerberus base--when it automatically sends you to talk to Hackett.

He and Shepard used to talk about the Crucible's readiness and if they don't find or get the Catalyst. Now he only offers 2 options-ready to go or need more time to get ready. If you pick that Shepard needs more time Sam tells you Hackett is available to talk. You get some of the dialog options that were available at other times-about the state of readiness for everyone. I don't know if the options or Hackett's answers are dependent on whether you are paragon or renegade (I have an almost full paragon) but there are new questions you can ask.

One line of questions is about Cerberus. If you select it Hackett says something like this, that the Illusive man is crazy and there's only one way to defeat the reapers, no more reapers. And then you can ask what if the Illusive man is right, what if the reapers can be controlled. Hackett says that's like trying to tame a shark, someone could get killed. And he orders Shepard to kill TIM.

The implications of this are clear. Hackett is ordering Shepard to kill TIM, he thinks controlling the reapers is a bad idea, and he is basically ordering Shepard to destroy the reapers. He doesn't have to say I'm ordering you to destroy it-his wishes are clear and as Shepard's commander, his wishes are an order.

I think it's easy to miss this dialog because generally if you select TIM's base you are ready to go, so you don't select the other.