406 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

[Jamie9]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Machines are given a greater understanding of organics, and organics, in addition to having their DNA strengthened (they're not cyborgs), gain a greater understanding of their fellow living creatures.  Synthesis, for the most part, is enlightenment, understanding.

Hell, Legion did it, and it worked out really well for the Geth.

Legion sacrificing himself to give the Geth sentience is freakin' foreshadowing of Synthesis. I can't believe I've never made that connection before.

[Geneaux486]

Jamie9 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Machines are given a greater understanding of organics, and organics, in addition to having their DNA strengthened (they're not cyborgs), gain a greater understanding of their fellow living creatures.  Synthesis, for the most part, is enlightenment, understanding.

Hell, Legion did it, and it worked out really well for the Geth.

Legion sacrificing himself to give the Geth sentience is freakin' foreshadowing of Synthesis. I can't believe I've never made that connection before.

I hadn't either until someone else pointed it out.  I'd give 'em credit if I remembered who it was

[Jamie9]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

I actually uphold the idea that you can headcanon whatever you like. You're playing it. If headcanon makes you happy, then use it.

However, you can't argue against it or use it to back up an argument for obvious reasons, so it doesn't belong here.

[Reptilian Rob]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

If Starchild says he prefers Synthesis, it kind of gave me the hint not to pick it...

[saracen16]

Blacklash93 wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

Synthesis is abhorrent because as EDI says they beat poverty, conflict, hunger, and even death itself. If life has nothing to overcome then it will stagnate. If you wish to see the end result of Synthesis then look no further than the Collectors.

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Hell, she STATED that exact opposite that you mention: "to recover the greatness that was lost... and surpass it. We will reclaim our worlds and the stars, as the line between synthetic and organic disappears, we may transcend mortality itself to reach a level of existence I can not even imagine..."

[savionen]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

It's because the Synthesis is so puppydogs and rainbows that it feels extremely out of place, especially after so many people being sacrificed or dying. Mix in stuff like saying "there will be no conflict" which is impossible and it gives a bit of the appearance that something is deeply wrong.

[ADLegend21]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

If Starchild says he prefers Synthesis, it kind of gave me the hint not to pick it...

Yeah well when an AI, who has seen trillions of societies come and go, thinks something is a good idea that might be an indication of something good. With Age comes wisdom.

[Baronesa]

savionen wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

It's because the Synthesis is so puppydogs and rainbows that it feels extremely out of place, especially after so many people being sacrificed or dying. Mix in stuff like saying "there will be no conflict" which is impossible and it gives a bit of the appearance that something is deeply wrong.

Stepford Ending?

[Reptilian Rob]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Except the Synthesis ending indicated the exact opposite of that.

Yeah, I never understood this whole "I'm going to ignore what the ending says and substitute my own because what the ending says blows!" mentality.

If Starchild says he prefers Synthesis, it kind of gave me the hint not to pick it...

Yeah well when an AI, who has seen trillions of societies come and go, thinks something is a good idea that might be an indication of something good. With Age comes wisdom.

AIs are fallable, I take no great credit in what an extemely old one like the Starchild says. Rampancy comes to mind. 

Modifié par Reptilian Rob, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:08 .

[KotorEffect3]

Jamie9 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Machines are given a greater understanding of organics, and organics, in addition to having their DNA strengthened (they're not cyborgs), gain a greater understanding of their fellow living creatures.  Synthesis, for the most part, is enlightenment, understanding.

Hell, Legion did it, and it worked out really well for the Geth.

Legion sacrificing himself to give the Geth sentience is freakin' foreshadowing of Synthesis. I can't believe I've never made that connection before.

Project overlord, Saren's speech, Legion's loyalty mission, The collector base, EDI, and the Lazarus Project are all foreshadowing ME 3's end choices in one way or another.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Refuse is actually worse, because it involves Shepard ignoring direct orders from his superiors to use the Crucible at all costs, throwing away all the time and sacrifice put into the thing's construction and placement, and pretty much just unecesarilly killing everyone. I mean really, if Synthesis leaves that bad a taste in your mouth, just pick destroy. The Geth are gonna die either way. Or pick control. The whole "I'll die free" thing is nonsense because for one thing, Shepard's got no business talking about freedom when he/she's deciding that everyone should just go ahead and be harvested, and for another thing, each of the three choices ends in freedom for the innocent. I do think it's great that Refusal is possible though.

That is said with no understanding of what using the Crucible entails and the potential ramifications. As I stated earlier, Refusal is Shepard's belief we can defy the Reapers indomitable will and defeat them conventionally. No other cycle has ever unified the galaxy as Shepard has. Refusal is Shepard's acknowledge all the choices are an extreme gamble due to the ambiguity of the Catalyst. Therefore, she is taking the only one where she knows exactly what both possible outcomes are. We either defy the odds one last time and overcome the Reapers or die trying.

[DRTJR]

Jamie9 wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

Synthesis is abhorrent because as EDI says they beat poverty, conflict, hunger, and even death itself. If life has nothing to overcome then it will stagnate. If you wish to see the end result of Synthesis then look no further than the Collectors.

You... don't want to beat poverty, conflict and hunger?

I can see the different opinions on death but poverty? I can understand wanting to do it in a different way to synthesis but you don't want to overcome those things because you hate the concept of stagnation that much?

That's... cold.

Synthesis, is a magic "Fix-It", If you do not have to work to get food, or shelter how many of us would work?That is Stagnation.

If you had no one to challenge you, how many of us would strive to be better? That is Stagnation.
If you have nothing to challenge as a culture, be it internal or external problems then it will stagnate. If we do not fight amongst ourselves we can't advance because their will be no challenger, be it physical or mental, no new ideas means Stagnation.

[Jamie9]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Project overlord, Saren's speech, Legion's loyalty mission, The collector base, EDI, and the Lazarus Project are all foreshadowing ME 3's end choices in one way or another.

Well, yeah, although I don't think Saren's synthesis was our synthesis. I also don't think TIM's control was our control.

Legion on Rannoch directly foreshadows it though. Legion sacrifices himself to provide a template that affects all beings (for Legion just Geth).

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Machines are given a greater understanding of organics, and organics, in addition to having their DNA strengthened (they're not cyborgs), gain a greater understanding of their fellow living creatures.  Synthesis, for the most part, is enlightenment, understanding.

Hell, Legion did it, and it worked out really well for the Geth.

Legion sacrificing himself to give the Geth sentience is freakin' foreshadowing of Synthesis. I can't believe I've never made that connection before.

Project overlord, Saren's speech, Legion's loyalty mission, The collector base, EDI, and the Lazarus Project are all foreshadowing ME 3's end choices in one way or another.

Also TIM's speech of "self-righteousness" vs "necessary sacrifices". Not much of foreshadowing, just 15 mins ahead, but still...

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:13 .

[KotorEffect3]

Jamie9 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Project overlord, Saren's speech, Legion's loyalty mission, The collector base, EDI, and the Lazarus Project are all foreshadowing ME 3's end choices in one way or another.

Well, yeah, although I don't think Saren's synthesis was our synthesis. I also don't think TIM's control was our control.

Legion on Rannoch directly foreshadows it though. Legion sacrifices himself to provide a template that affects all beings (for Legion just Geth).

Point is looking back these themes are sprinkled throughout the entire trilogy.  Project overlord foreshadows both control and synthesis.  Hell the geth even had green lights in that DLC

[Jamie9]

DRTJR wrote...
Synthesis, is a magic "Fix-It", If you do not have to work to get food, or shelter how many of us would work?That is Stagnation. 

If you had no one to challenge you, how many of us would strive to be better? That is Stagnation.
If you have nothing to challenge as a culture, be it internal or external problems then it will stagnate. If we do not fight amongst ourselves we can't advance because their will be no challenger, be it physical or mental, no new ideas means Stagnation.

This is like arguing with Javik. 

Depends what type of work you're talking about. Some people find their work very fulfilling. Especially if it helps others. So I would go to say that many would still work. Cultural norms would change and work would be treated differently.

You should strive to be better to become a better person, not because you want to 1-up that other guy.

Why do we *need* to advance? Seriously, why? If these advances help us understand things better, sure. If they make our lives better, sure. But do we *need* to advance?

Or can we live life helping others, conversing, fulfilling your ambitions, perhaps falling in love?

Stagnation wouldn't be the end of the world.

[saracen16]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Refuse is actually worse, because it involves Shepard ignoring direct orders from his superiors to use the Crucible at all costs, throwing away all the time and sacrifice put into the thing's construction and placement, and pretty much just unecesarilly killing everyone. I mean really, if Synthesis leaves that bad a taste in your mouth, just pick destroy. The Geth are gonna die either way. Or pick control. The whole "I'll die free" thing is nonsense because for one thing, Shepard's got no business talking about freedom when he/she's deciding that everyone should just go ahead and be harvested, and for another thing, each of the three choices ends in freedom for the innocent. I do think it's great that Refusal is possible though.

That is said with no understanding of what using the Crucible entails and the potential ramifications. As I stated earlier, Refusal is Shepard's belief we can defy the Reapers indomitable will and defeat them conventionally. No other cycle has ever unified the galaxy as Shepard has. Refusal is Shepard's acknowledge all the choices are an extreme gamble due to the ambiguity of the Catalyst. Therefore, she is taking the only one where she knows exactly what both possible outcomes are. We either defy the odds one last time and overcome the Reapers or die trying.

And die trying is EXACTLY what happens. Shepard is just a soldier. You are shown that the fleets are being decimated by the Reapers as the Normandy leaves Earth and even in the final Crucible chamber.

Nevertheless, you are justified in making that choice.

Modifié par saracen16, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:33 .

[savionen]

Jamie9 wrote...

This is like arguing with Javik. 

Depends what type of work you're talking about. Some people find their work very fulfilling. Especially if it helps others. So I would go to say that many would still work. Cultural norms would change and work would be treated differently.

You should strive to be better to become a better person, not because you want to 1-up that other guy.

Why do we *need* to advance? Seriously, why? If these advances help us understand things better, sure. If they make our lives better, sure. But do we *need* to advance?

Or can we live life helping others, conversing, fulfilling your ambitions, perhaps falling in love?

Stagnation wouldn't be the end of the world.

Competition is what business is all about. You don't NEED to work your ass off to make a better product if there's nobody there competing with you. It forces people to be better, to work harder.

Life is conflict, everything about it. At the bare minimum of survival. Multiple people want the same things, but there's not enough to go around. Not even talking about just physical resources or materials. If multiple people want the same job they're competing for it.

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:21 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

RiouHotaru wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I just got done playing. Is refusal an option??

It's basically a Nonstandard Game Over with extra scenes.

But you don't get any achievements for it.  (Even if you complete the game on Insanity, you won't get the achievement if you go with Refusal)

Interesting. And appropriate. It's idiotic, and the player gets what they deserve for it.

The Angry Bird's choice, no doubt.

[Jamie9]

savionen wrote...

Competition is what business is all about. You don't NEED to work your ass off to make a better product if there's nobody there competing with you. It forces people to be better, to work harder.

Life is conflict, everything about it. At the bare minimum of survival. Multiple people want the same things, but there's not enough to go around. Not even talking about just physical resources or materials. If multiple people want the same job they're competing for it.

Well, capitalism is good in our society, of course. It leads to better products and services for the consumers.

But we're talking about a hypothetical future where there is no need for such conflict. Everybody can have an equal life.

[Versus Omnibus]

Rubios wrote...

Cannot believe this thread is going from Mass Effect's synthesis/refusal ending to economics.

Buddy, on Social Network, anything is possible.

[Bourne Endeavor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


No, it does not work that way. Have you heard in the news lately how a Tennis player kicked an official but later said he meant to kick the chair? While the latter may have been his intent, the former is what actually happened. This analogy applies to BioWare. They can claim whatever they wish however when the narrative contradicts them, it does not matter. All we have to go on regarding Relay explosions is Arrival. There is no exposition to insinuate the Crucible beam will trigger a different explosion. Instead, all we witnessed was a violent one in the original ending. BioWare realized this mistake and changed it.

That is a retcon no matter how you slice it. Either they retconned Arrival or the ending. If nothing else, I do not accept plot points from twitter or youtube. Either put it in the game or it does not count.

....

Does everyone magically forget WHAT caused the Relay to explode in Arrival?  Because really, I get the idea people have somehow contracted selective amnesia on the subject.

Because I see a huge difference between:

"Relay is struck by a ridonkulously huge object and is sheared apart."

And

"Relay explodes after releasing all it's energy in a massive beam."

Okay, say I was intending to blow up a building and have access to C4, dynamite and TNT. What difference does it make which I use, provided I have enough, if all three produce the desired result? They will all accomplish the same thing under these circumstances. Putting this analogy to Mass Effect, we have nothing to refute what was already witnessed. When a Relay explodes it triggers a blast the near equivalent to a supernova. If the Crucible beam were to cause a different explosion, then the narrative is required to explain why because as it stands, the result remains the same. Relay explosions are bad. What causes them is irrelevant until proven otherwise.

Evidently, BioWare realized this flaw in their narrative because they retconned it. The Crucible Beam does not cause an explosion anymore, thus crisis averted.

[Jamie9]

Rubios wrote...

Cannot believe this thread is going from Mass Effect's synthesis/refusal ending to economics.

You mean you don't see the connection?