1081 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

wantedman dan wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Synthesis changes the playing-field so we can advance as partners, not with one form of life dominating the other.

That's a well-intentioned but misguided argument. Life is shown to be able to accomplish this WITHOUT forcefully changing everything.

Exactly-the writers decided to omit this as part of the EC-and this was one of the most discussed problems with the things the kid says.

Control and synthesis are similar issues with real problems.  Both deny people self-determination, one through an external overseer that will re-create all destroyed tech as reaper tech so that people will not ever create their own.  And the other through internal forced change with a goal that is both ridiculous and a soul killer.  One problem that may result from synthesis is also another type of conflict.  EDI speaks of immortality-what happens when there are way too many perfect beings in the galaxy if no one ever dies?

And if just one person would object to synthesis being forced upon them, it is wrong.  The only thing Shepard had permission (and orders) to do and that everyone worked for was the destruction of the reapers.  Hackett tells Shepard this (the only solution to the reaper problem: no more reapers), before cronos.  Tell Hackett you aren't ready to go and then go talk to him and he will order you to kill TIM and tell you Control is horrible.

[AgentStark]

I think it's interesting how there are so many cues that point to destroy as the true ending.

Anderson in the destroy preview
The many pushes from Hackett and Anderson to destroy the Reapers
The musical cues
And of course, Shepard lives. Im sure there's more but you get my point.

[d-boy15]

destroy may had the fittest cues of music

"A Future That Many Will Never See" ---> "Resolution" I think it's the same theme, the first time
I hear it, I even think that I was the same score.

anyway, we all know what writers want us to choose and I think it's not destroy ending.

Modifié par d-boy15, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:57 .

[darkpassenger2342]

i dont feel theres an ending they "want us to choose" at all.

[d-boy15]

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

i dont feel theres an ending they "want us to choose" at all.

oh, really...

destroy - bad bad bad

control - sameside characters always tell us "don't choose control!!!"

synthesis - why not?

Modifié par d-boy15, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:01 .

[darkpassenger2342]

i have already learned myself in the last day or 2 that synthesis is NOT by any means the majority nor the wanted ending..
a large amount people are HIGHLY against it
not me.
 if you prefer the synthesis ending, you wont find alot of agreement here lol.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

d-boy15 wrote...

destroy may had the fittest cues of music

"A Future That Many Will Never See" ---> "Resolution" I think it's the same theme, the first time
I hear it, I even think that I was the same score.

anyway, we all know what writers want us to choose and I think it's not destroy ending.

Actually, the genocide in destroy and the appearance of it being the most selfish choice are their artificial ways of making a canon ending not a canon ending.  It's very much like they created it and then second guessed it that everyone would naturally pick it so they had to make it incredibly awful to automatically pick.  Then, they decided there would be no ultimate pay off for choosing it-in both versions Shepard is just a torso in rubble.  Awesome closure.  They specifically didn't give that scene closure and now they have released conflicting stories as to why they didn't.  The first version was that people wanted different things in a Shepard lives ending-when people repeatedly said they just wanted Shepard and friends to each know the other was alive, they changed it and on twitter, they now say they didn't know people wanted to see Shepard alive.  Uh, right.  No, they created a choice they were afraid people would always pick and they felt kind of burned that a lot of people were unhappy that the only LI that is consistently in the 3 games (Liara) was considered to be their preferred LI-they kept saying there was no canon love interest, but no other LI is available as one in all 3 games.

The goal all along was the destruction of the reapers.  All throughout ME3 itself, so many times Shepard and other characters give clues as to control and synthesis being abhorrent in any form because they are.  There is no justification or backup within the game for choosing either of these.  In fact, Shepard is all but ordered by Hackett to destroy the reapers and to not even think about trying to control them-he orders Shepard to kill TIM who he says is totally insane for trying to control them.

And then there are the speeches afterward.  Hackett giving the Destroy speech is an affirmation of Shepard doing the right thing.  Also, the way he talks about it indicates that it is the best chance for people to really rely on themselves and to have unity that they choose.  The writers threw in EDI and the geth and the torso just to make it difficult and sadistic.

The endings just tend to be like someone's college Doctoral Thesis-trying to see what awful choice people will make out of a bunch of awful choices.  Not very game like.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:35 .