226 réponses à ce sujet

[shodiswe]

Synthesis isn't nessesarily evil because of the Catalysts unethical methods. The research is tainited by the wrongs commited though, but the results are probably as the creators had intended it to be, just without the mass genocidal tendencies of the Catalyst to brign order to the Lab environment...

[Xamufam]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Cheviot wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
You did notice that in control and synthesis the reapers are still there right?  That's not a win by any stretch of the imagination.  They aren't defeated.  In one they are the totalitarian foot soldiers of Shepard's intelligence-not Shepard.  Shreaper has no heart, no emotion, no feeling.  That's not Shepard.

But it knows what Shepard wanted, what Shepard died to protect, and it promises that it will uphold the ideal, the protection of the many.  The Reapers are shown trying to atone by rebuilding the Relays, and they seem to be staying away from actual settlements, so recriminations are avoided. 

Also, didn't you notice how happy everyone was in most of the endings?  How, in Synthesis, galactic society was able to surpass previous achievements? How peace lasted? Compared to the alternative if the Catalyst hadn't offered those choices, each ending is a victory.

And all of this presupposes the choices are valid and the catalyst is credible.  Neither can be proven.  And refuse is an F U to us so as written it is a non-choice.  We are forced into a no choice conundrum.

Not every choice ends well.  I thought the justification Shepard gave was believeable, as was the defeat.  It turned out alright in the end though, give or take 50,000 years.

Uh where did Shepard ever say s/he needed to become something greater.  Only after becoming Shreaper.  Where did Shepard ever say it was a goal to only try and work for the many and ignore others that might have a problem with that?  Shreaper also might know what Shepard wanted, but wouldn't care because it wouldn't feel.  Listen to the music, it's very ominous not happy sounding.  No real person who ever saw what happened to Palaven, Thessia, Earth and on the collector's base would be happy with reapers around anywhere ever.  And they would still fear them because in Control they have no idea Shreaper is controlling them.  And for all anyone knows the reapers killed Shepard-which alone will give one group of people reason to hate them even if they send flowers.  Ever heard of Jack?  She gets pissed off pretty easily over more minor things.  And the geth.  Hmmm.  They didn't much care for what happened with the heretics and they don't like the old machines at all.  And the rachni-they really don't like the reapers and they have genetic memory and know what they have done since Prothean times.  The Krogan aren't pacifists.  The Batarians aren't either.  What happens if some of the many start fighting each other-the reapers are the new galactic police.  Who will they help?  The star kid's programming slipped up somewhere, so what if some conflict started and the purpose of the kid and Shreaper's purpose were and are to stop conflict.  What if the Xen decides to attack the geth?

In synthesis you can't honestly see anything wrong?  Knowledge should be earned.  Synthesis is forced on people since it is without their consent.  No one gave Shepard permission for that.  Some people in ME didn't even want implants and you think it's ok to force this on them?  Ever seen the Stepford Wives-the original version? 

Ever heard of advancement before being culturally ready in ME causing any problems?  Heard of the krogan?  Ever talk to Mordin about what happened to the protheans/collectors?  Ever talk to EDI about what it means to be alive?

So, synthesis leads to immortality.  Sure no conflict will ever arise from that.  Since we see Krogan babies after Synthesis there may be some conflict as a result of immortality.  You were very worried about them before but now they have green eyes and are smiling it's all ok.  Lots of immortal people in the galaxy can have lots of babies and they still have some individuality, so why can't conflict still begin again?  Immortality means lots of Krogan, lots of rachni, and so on.  Good luck with that.

Destroy is just some cruel artificial way to make players pay for choosing to try and destroy the reapers to get a good ending.  They didn't want a canon ending.

No ending is a victory-it's enacting the kid's choices and not Shepard's.  Since when did the kid's purpose become Shepard's?

And refuse is not a victory since I couldn't care less if some future cycle kills the reapers.  I care about the people here and now.  I just don't think a video game should make you dump your and your character's values, moral, ethics, and "soul" to end it.  That's not a victory.  That's sadistic.

You should tell Ieldra2 that in A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium
That person don't get it

[3DandBeyond]

shodiswe wrote...

Synthesis isn't nessesarily evil because of the Catalysts unethical methods. The research is tainited by the wrongs commited though, but the results are probably as the creators had intended it to be, just without the mass genocidal tendencies of the Catalyst to brign order to the Lab environment...

No one is saying that it is only evil because of the catalyst and him wanting it and him being evil or nasty.  That is one part of it.  It's like a foundation.  He likes it and he's not someone I like, so I am skeptical of it to begin with based on that.  That's a high obstacle even if nothing else were wrong with it.  Even if I knew nothing else about it (as if), I am not there to do what the kid wants.

Add to it just what Synthesis is (the unnatural advancement of all life beyond its state of readiness in order to achieve some warped notion of perfection-knowledge without it being earned) and how it is accomplished (through forced molestation of autonomous individuals without their consent).

I want to know if anyone actually thinks that just knowing stuff automatically and having reaper tech within you would make you perfect?  There was a poll and most people said they wouldn't want it done to them, so if you wouldn't want it done to you, what would make it alright to do to others that would not want it?

The choices if authentic do achieve perhaps the original creators' purpose for the kid, but that's not Shepard's purpose.  You also see that the existence of the kid who is sending in the only synthetics that are provably and constantly in conflict with organics, may be doing that to prove his point and create the need for the choices.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  He says Synthetics will always be in conflict with organics--well, yes they will if you keep sending them to harvest organics.  He is also saying, you will always need my solution(s) to stop this conflict---no, what would really work is if you would stop sending synthetics to kill organics. 

[krasnoarmeets]

Good/Evil is subjective based on moral vision/ethical standards. People always make judgements using their own filters.

To many the idea of one imposing his will upon a multitude without any respect to individual will, intent, freedom to choose for themselves etc is morally distasteful. Overall, Synthesis represents this imposition. Interpretation of this imposition is always going to be individual.

[3DandBeyond]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

Good/Evil is subjective based on moral vision/ethical standards. People always make judgements using their own filters.

To many the idea of one imposing his will upon a multitude without any respect to individual will, intent, freedom to choose for themselves etc is morally distasteful. Overall, Synthesis represents this imposition. Interpretation of this imposition is always going to be individual.

This imposition is akin to someone performing some kind of surgery on you for no reason and without your permission.  The law takes a dim view of that and considers that an assault.

The fact that some can justify this in any way really worries me.  The fact that someone wrote this and thinks there's justification for it, really worries me.  Consider that if someone just touches you without your consent that can be classified, depending on the type of touch is an assault or even a sexual assault.  Synthesis is the unauthorized invasion of another's body.  The fact that it's using nanotech of some sort is not the issue.

Shepard never was told by anyone it's ok to do that.  That was never the goal.  The goal was never to stop conflict with all synthetics, the specific goal Shepard was to achieve and everyone was to work for was to destroy specific synthetics, the reapers and Synthesis doesn't even do that.

There is nothing morally ambiguous about infusing people with nanotech or reaper tech.  It's wrong unless everyone says it's ok.  It also smacks of experiments that have been done on people to see if injecting people's brains with a substance could bring about mind control among other things-LSD was one of the drugs, and there were other such experiments where they used people against their will for "intelligence" boosting tests and even to test the psychotic effects of drugs on people. 

[Lord Goose]

This imposition is akin to someone performing some kind of
surgery on you for no reason and without your permission.
The law takes a dim view of that and considers that an
assault.

Well, in that case you are dying and surgery is a mean to save your life. If one consider Destroy and Control unacceptable it is the only way.

[RiouHotaru]

3DandBeyond wrote...

No their association with one new and improved antagonist is very much to the point, that association is part of what should inform Shepard as to their validity at the very least-the emphasis has changed, but this has always been the real problem with these choices without knowing their supposed meaning.

He has every reason to lie, because he needs to finish this cycle.  Shepard has caused problems.  He is the only being that has had any idea what the crucible, citadel combo will do.  He is the catalyst.  He knows and has known all about the crucible, but he is vague as to its origins.  He has been duplicitous-he's no kid and tries to appear innocuous by being a "kid".

If you go onto believing the choices are authentic, though they could just all very easily be make the harvest faster switches, their merits if any are tremendously outweighed by their drawbacks.  Destroy is ambiguous as to its scope based on what he says it will do and to whom.  And well Synthesis and Control are internal and external versions of each other with Synthesis being implemented without prior consent of individuals and Control requiring people live with mass murderers who burp people goo.  They have the effect of telling people they have no value unless internally or externally augmented by reaper tech or reaper helpers.

The dystopia express is boarding and leaving now.  You will believe you have a ticket to utopia, but just you wait and see.

But the association IS irrelevant, and for one really, REALLY big reason:

The Catalyst gave you the Control or Destroy option at ALL.  If what he was doing was true manipluation, why even present those options in the first place.  He makes it very clear that he dislikes those options for various reasons (Destroy doesn't solve the conflict, just delays it.  And in Control, you overwrite and replace him altogether a fact he ADMITS to not liking).  If his goal was to manipulate Shepard, he'd make the options sound WORSE than he did, twist the explanation, or simply not offer them at all.

As for informed consent, I'll note that once again, the Geth did NOT sign up to be wiped out along with the Reapers, and Shepard has to volunteer his/her life for Control, in exchange for domination of the Reapers.  Informed consent is a debunked argument because the Galaxy gave Shepard the authority to end the cycle by any means necessary.

And again, TAO's entire argument rests on the premise that the Catalyst = antagonist, rather than proxy.  If that initial premise is false (which IS a possibility), then the everything she's been arguing falls apart.  And there's certainly enough enough to support Catalyst-As-Proxy.

[RiouHotaru]

Thaa_solon wrote...

I propose the "bad writing Theory" or "Lack of communication between BW teams in creating the end Theory"

Here's a better theory:

"Fans overanalyze and overthink things because they'll never be happy with what they get."

[elitehunter34]

RiouHotaru wrote...
But the association IS irrelevant, and for one really, REALLY big reason:

The Catalyst gave you the Control or Destroy option at ALL.  If what he was doing was true manipluation, why even present those options in the first place.  He makes it very clear that he dislikes those options for various reasons (Destroy doesn't solve the conflict, just delays it.  And in Control, you overwrite and replace him altogether a fact he ADMITS to not liking).  If his goal was to manipulate Shepard, he'd make the options sound WORSE than he did, twist the explanation, or simply not offer them at all.

What it means is that the Catalyst is presenting these options for no reason at all.  It is bad writing.  Destroy and Control are completely antithetical to its goals.  The only possible reason is one could give is that the Crucible forced the Catalyst to present these options.  Which only raises further questions.  Why was Shepard not told about this?  How did not one of the Crucible engineers not realize that the Crucible was designed to interface with an AI?  Why does a device designed to kill Reapers have to interface with the creator of the goddamn Reapers?  Why is the Catalyst affected at all by the Crucible?  None of these questions have satisfactory answers.

RiouHotaru wrote... 
And again, TAO's entire argument rests on the premise that the Catalyst = antagonist, rather than proxy.  If that initial premise is false (which IS a possibility), then the everything she's been arguing falls apart.  And there's certainly enough enough to support Catalyst-As-Proxy.

Seriously, did you even read the OP?  How does TAO's argument rest on that premise?  TAO's argument is that the Catalyst designed Synthesis.  TAO never even said anything about the Catalyst being an antagonist in this thread. This is a blatant strawman.

[RiouHotaru]

elitehunter34 wrote...

What it means is that the Catalyst is presenting these options for no reason at all.  It is bad writing.  Destroy and Control are completely antithetical to its goals.  The only possible reason is one could give is that the Crucible forced the Catalyst to present these options.  Which only raises further questions.  Why was Shepard not told about this?  How did not one of the Crucible engineers not realize that the Crucible was designed to interface with an AI?  Why does a device designed to kill Reapers have to interface with the creator of the goddamn Reapers?  Why is the Catalyst affected at all by the Crucible?  None of these questions have satisfactory answers.

For starters, he didn't make them.  His creators made them.  He just uses them as part of his solution.  And as for the questions, they don't need satisfactory answers, nor do they require any explanation at all.  That he presented options that were antithetical to his goals isn't bad writing, or  plot-hole.  Nor does it violate his character.  He's a proxy.  He's designed to tell you what your choices are.  Remember, on low EMS endings you don't even necessarily GET any of the other options, it's possible to be locked into one ending, and one ending only.

Also I doubt anyone knew the Catalyst was an AI.  Remember, the assumption even by the PROTHEANS is that the Catalyst, the firing mechanism, is the Citadel.  In reality the Citadel is an extension of the Catalyst.  So that changes all your questions.  And even if you argue it doesn't, not ALL the questions need answering.  The Crucible presents the Catalyst with the ability to calculate three different solutions based on the added power the Crucible provides.  That's it.  Then he explains what those choices are.  That's all.

That TAO insists there's this hidden agenda...

Seriously, did you even read the OP?  How does TAO's argument rest on that premise?  TAO's argument is that the Catalyst designed Synthesis.  TAO never even said anything about the Catalyst being an antagonist in this thread. This is a blatant strawman. 

Her premise is that the Catalyst is being maliciously deceitful.  It always has been her working premise.  Every single thread she's made operates under this assumption.  She doesn't have to say it, everyone here already KNOWS this is the case.

[elitehunter34]

 

RiouHotaru wrote...  
For starters, he didn't make them.  His creators made them.  He just uses them as part of his solution.  And as for the questions, they don't need satisfactory answers, nor do they require any explanation at all.  That he presented options that were antithetical to his goals isn't bad writing, or  plot-hole.  Nor does it violate his character.  He's a proxy.  He's designed to tell you what your choices are.  Remember, on low EMS endings you don't even necessarily GET any of the other options, it's possible to be locked into one ending, and one ending only.

Also I doubt anyone knew the Catalyst was an AI.  Remember, the assumption even by the PROTHEANS is that the Catalyst, the firing mechanism, is the Citadel.  In reality the Citadel is an extension of the Catalyst.  So that changes all your questions.  And even if you argue it doesn't, not ALL the questions need answering.  The Crucible presents the Catalyst with the ability to calculate three different solutions based on the added power the Crucible provides.  That's it.  Then he explains what those choices are.  That's all. 

I never said the Catalyst made the choices.  Stop strawmanning man.  I'm saying that it makes no sense why he presents him to you because they are antithetical to his goals.  Your entire argument rests on the assumption that it is designed to tell you what the choices are.  You are completely missing the point.  The fact that being locked into an ending is a possibility doesn't negate any of my points at all.  Destroy and Control are not solutions to his problem.  Destroy allows synthetics to rise up, and the Catalyst believes that synthetics will always eventually wipe out organics, the Catalyst even says this when he says "soon you're children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back". Control also allows synthetics to rise up because the Catalyst knows that Shepard is not going to continue the cycles.  Synthetics might rebel and destroy organics, even with the power of the Reapers. 

You can say possibly for Control that the Catalyst trusts Shepard enough to prevent this from happening, but I don't buy that at all.  The Catalyst has gone with the Reaper solution for millions of years.  It knows it works.  It does not make any sense at all how an ancient AI that has gone with such a radical solution will willingly hand Control over to you; it doesn't make sense why it would trust you.  

The Catalyst only wants Synthesis and knows the Crucible makes it possible.  It would only give you that option; the others are too much of a risk.

RiouHotaru wrote... 
Her premise is that the Catalyst is being maliciously deceitful.  It always has been her working premise.  Every single thread she's made operates under this assumption.  She doesn't have to say it, everyone here already KNOWS this is the case.

You're going to have to do better than saying "everyone knows it to be true."  I see TAO make no such claim in TAO's argument, nor is it implied.  Saying that everyone knows it is begging the question, if everyone knows it, then why am I disagreeing with you?  It's because you have no proof.  Quit letting your biases get in the way of the facts.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

Lord Goose wrote...

This imposition is akin to someone performing some kind of
surgery on you for no reason and without your permission.
The law takes a dim view of that and considers that an
assault.

Well, in that case you are dying and surgery is a mean to save your life. If one consider Destroy and Control unacceptable it is the only way.

No it isn't.  You have other choices.  This though is not even meant to address the problem.  If your appendix ruptures and you are unconscious and a doctor takes out your appendix and gives you breast implants at the same time, that's wrong.  The goal is to destroy the reapers not to become one with them.  The goal in taking out a ruptured appendix is clear, doing a breast augmentation is not even related to the surgical need.

[3DandBeyond]

RiouHotaru wrote...

For starters, he didn't make them.  His creators made them.  He just uses them as part of his solution.  And as for the questions, they don't need satisfactory answers, nor do they require any explanation at all.  That he presented options that were antithetical to his goals isn't bad writing, or  plot-hole.  Nor does it violate his character.  He's a proxy.  He's designed to tell you what your choices are.  Remember, on low EMS endings you don't even necessarily GET any of the other options, it's possible to be locked into one ending, and one ending only.

Also I doubt anyone knew the Catalyst was an AI.  Remember, the assumption even by the PROTHEANS is that the Catalyst, the firing mechanism, is the Citadel.  In reality the Citadel is an extension of the Catalyst.  So that changes all your questions.  And even if you argue it doesn't, not ALL the questions need answering.  The Crucible presents the Catalyst with the ability to calculate three different solutions based on the added power the Crucible provides.  That's it.  Then he explains what those choices are.  That's all.

That TAO insists there's this hidden agenda...

Please point me to the direct quote in the game that says the catalyst's creators made the choices.  My game seems to have skipped that part.

You have no idea that any choice is actually antithetical to the kid's goals-he merely tells you they are.  For all you know all of them could just turn Shepard and all people into ham sandwiches. 

All questions in an ending do need answering or the context of their meaning may be ambiguous and confused and even contradictory.  The whole ending actually was inserted as someone's idea that everyone (Shepard) needed to know all this junk that is presented.  However, these were never any real part of the "quest".  I don't need to know a shark's motivations or to know who is in control of it for it to make for a great movie (Jaws).  In ME only once is it is not a main theme or goal to know why and what the reapers are and who controls them.  The ending is the only place where that seems important at all and as such for a complete story the explanation should be clear and full and have meaning to the whole story.  It doesn't.  I don't care who they are, I want them dead, not gone, not neutered, not caged, dead.  I don't care who controls them, I want them dead.  I don't care how old they are, I want them dead.  And if I go to pull the trigger on a gun, the gun will not be one my enemy freely gave me and said will help me, and I damn well want to be sure it is a gun that will kill my enemy if indeed he gave it to me.

Shepard even says this in talking about the crucible to Liara, that they don't want it to be like handing a loaded gun to a kid and they want to know what it is before using it, but they never do and so this Shepard is now going to use it because the enemy says it's awesome and great and he's known all about it for like forever?

[RiouHotaru]

Even if he's manipulating you, any of the three choices offer a better chance than nothing at all.

Anyway, it's clear to most people this is TAO taking yet another jab at Synthesis, for reasons I can't possibly understand. She picked Refuse, someone else picks Synthesis. Both are valid and reasonable choices. Why she insists on this crusade against an option is baffling. But then most people in this thread recognize what's going on.

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Thaa_solon wrote...

I propose the "bad writing Theory" or "Lack of communication between BW teams in creating the end Theory"

Here's a better theory:

"Fans overanalyze and overthink things because they'll never be happy with what they get."

A rather poor handwave of the argument, if you ask me.

[AresKeith]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Even if he's manipulating you, any of the three choices offer a better chance than nothing at all.

Anyway, it's clear to most people this is TAO taking yet another jab at Synthesis, for reasons I can't possibly understand. She picked Refuse, someone else picks Synthesis. Both are valid and reasonable choices. Why she insists on this crusade against an option is baffling. But then most people in this thread recognize what's going on.

what we see is poor writing by Casey and Mac

[RiouHotaru]

wantedman dan wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Thaa_solon wrote...

I propose the "bad writing Theory" or "Lack of communication between BW teams in creating the end Theory"

Here's a better theory:

"Fans overanalyze and overthink things because they'll never be happy with what they get."

A rather poor handwave of the argument, if you ask me.

No it's not.  People seem to think the fans are utterly blameless in this, but they aren't.  And really, overanalysis was STATED as a reason they don't come and say much here unless they have something important to say.  Because every little thing they say gets picked apart.

Just like what's happening here.

[RiouHotaru]

AresKeith wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Even if he's manipulating you, any of the three choices offer a better chance than nothing at all.

Anyway, it's clear to most people this is TAO taking yet another jab at Synthesis, for reasons I can't possibly understand. She picked Refuse, someone else picks Synthesis. Both are valid and reasonable choices. Why she insists on this crusade against an option is baffling. But then most people in this thread recognize what's going on.

what we see is poor writing by Casey and Mac

And I disagree.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it bad writing.

[3DandBeyond]

Synthesis is forcing people to become something they are not and it says they are of no value until they become that something else.

It also says that knowing things is better than learning things. But learning forms our personalities. Figuring out things, making mistakes and overcoming those mistakes makes us unique individuals who have followed different paths to find perhaps the same conclusions, but we give different value to the knowledge gained by what we did to get it. We also see it from our own unique perspective.

This is a part of what nature and nurture are about. You can take twins and raise them in separate families and they may end up in the same careers and may have made similar choices along the way, but they are different people.

Look at EDI. People say that if she is killed in Destroy, you could just remake her, but that isn't true. She had experiences as EDI that formed her choices and made her unique. Simply recreating her intelligence and all, will not make her become EDI.

Look at Shepard. Shepard was concerned on Cronos if she was an AI that just thought it was Shepard. But if Liara is the LI and is on Cronos, Liara says she knew it was Shepard the minute she first touched her again. TIM didn't want a clone and didn't want a control chip, because he wanted a wholly autonomous person whose personality and all decisions had been formed by all the experiences of the real Shepard.

Look at Grunt. He is a Krogan with no understanding of what it means to be a Krogan. He has been given all the knowledge needed to be one, but he can't "get" what it means, because he has never "been" a Krogan. He didn't grow up on Tuchanka or with Krogan. He didn't have their shared experiences or learn how they felt about things, how they overcame their problems and limitations. He is even appalled at how Tuchanka looks, having been told things about it and having formed his own ideas. He never lived as a Krogan so he needs to learn to be one.

Knowing something is not the same as learning something. If we all know all the same things at all the same time and from only one perspective, perhaps even a cold analytical one of an AI, then we have no individuality of thought. Our brain cells even form differently based upon our experiences, so we "see" the same things in different ways. If we only see them from one perspective our brains will change and we will cease to be unique. We will eventually stagnate, having lost the ability to even learn because you do actually learn to learn. If you don't need to, you no longer will.

[Xellith]

Explain how synthesis works. That determines if this is bad writing.

[RiouHotaru]

Synthesis doesn't require an explanation. Not -everything- requires a concrete explanation. Things being left unexplained isn't bad writing.

[3DandBeyond]

RiouHotaru wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Even if he's manipulating you, any of the three choices offer a better chance than nothing at all.

Anyway, it's clear to most people this is TAO taking yet another jab at Synthesis, for reasons I can't possibly understand. She picked Refuse, someone else picks Synthesis. Both are valid and reasonable choices. Why she insists on this crusade against an option is baffling. But then most people in this thread recognize what's going on.

what we see is poor writing by Casey and Mac

And I disagree.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it bad writing.

For some perspective on this.  The crucible is a MacGuffin, never fully explained and sought after to solve things for no real known reason.  It's purpose is unknown but we want it. 
The catalyst is a Deus ex Machina-starts off as a MacGuffin because it's unknown as to what it is and what it actually will do.  Once it is the star kid it's a DeM, dropped in from out of nowhere to solve the problem (not very well) and to finish the story. 

Book publishers, writers, writing courses, writing digests, books on writing and so on do define these 2 things as lazy writing.  They are plot devices that replace actually writing content and fleshing out stories.  Publishers also regularly reject stories containing these elements.  In and of themselves they are not totally wrong or bad to use, but when used to the extent they are here (the crucible is never fully and satisfactorily explained and is THE holy grail of the story).  The catalyst and citadel (where the choices exist) are illogical and not really helpful in actually achieving Shepard's and the galaxy's goal-he really only helps in achieving his own goal.  And having the ending fully rely on this huge question mark in sheep's clothing really breaks the story.

[AresKeith]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Synthesis doesn't require an explanation. Not -everything- requires a concrete explanation. Things being left unexplained isn't bad writing.

that is the dumbest excuse I've heard, if you don't know what something is or does, your required to know

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No it's not.  People seem to think the fans are utterly blameless in this, but they aren't.  And really, overanalysis was STATED as a reason they don't come and say much here unless they have something important to say.  Because every little thing they say gets picked apart.

Just like what's happening here.

Which is a directly precipitated consequence of their actions to begin with. Had they produced a narratively cohesive, fleshed-out and elaborated upon ending that fully addressed their intentions, as any writer should do, the overanalyzation of the game--and their statements--would be rendered useless.

To put in simple logical terms, a (poor quality ME3 released) occurred, b (fan outrage) occurred in consequence. C (terror of overanalyzation) could have been avoided as a consequence.

[3DandBeyond]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Synthesis doesn't require an explanation. Not -everything- requires a concrete explanation. Things being left unexplained isn't bad writing.

If it is not fully explained and is super space magic it does not fit in with the ME story.  ME is Science Fiction which means the main plot elements must in some way that conforms with the known science in the story's "universe" be explained.  ME uses some real science and some science created within it (fictional science) to explain near everything.  Minor elements that just exist and are known by the inhabitants to exist may be space magic, but they can be overlooked as just things they know about in the future that we don't know about yet.  And they are not a major part of the plot.

The end of the game and of any story is THE major part of the plot.  It's where you tie up all the things you've been trying to do or what you've been searching for in the story.  If it's a mystery, it's the "AHA" moment of figuring out the mystery.  It is not the place to bring out some new main character that will solve his own problem, ignore your goal for the most part, and require you abandon your morals and your own desires in order to help him.

It is also not the place to introduce a major solution to a goal (his or yours) that has no credible explanation and that he doesn't even try to explain--super space magic.  This is science fiction, that means fiction based upon science-and it must remain true to that in major points of the plot.  Synthesis does not-it's fantasy.