113 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziegrif]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Ziegrif wrote...

Nah I actually like synthesis.
It's like driving a huge jackhammer through the collective DNA of every single living and non living being in excistence.

I think it's fun to see just how good or horribly horribly bad the outcome would be.

You know. FOR SCIENCE!
So removing it would be bad IMO.

Goddammit Glados

Commencing test #3354

Can a Synthesized Geth float in a sea of cheese fondue.
Theory: it needs to lose weight first.
It has grown fat. Maybe unscrewing it's head would help.
Note: Screw geth parts on humans for further study and commence height dropping tests later this week.

[Hicks233]

Would have been happy to get shot of Synthesis - lame Valve references included.

With the information that's been added by Leviathan it starts to make the Reapers ever so slightly more sympathetic. They're enslaved by the Catalyst. I'd have been happy with Destroy/Control/Refuse and in the turd Synthesis' place an option to destroy the Citadel and the Catalyst - freeing the Reapers from servitude.

Then there'd be the option depending on how prepared you were to rescue Shepard from the Citadel before it's annihilated and the Catalyst with it. It would be setting up the Leviathan as an opponent and leaves things open for a part four with Shepard.

That way if you want to go along with the Catalyst's b.s. then you can choose Destroy/Control/Refuse or you could choose to sacrifice the Citadel and to destroy the Catalyst, get a reunion and have a new dynamic of "What does a free Reaper do?"

[GiarcYekrub]

ghost9191 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

For me personally the:
TIM character represents the Control choice
Joker/EDI characters represents the Synthsis choice
Hacket/Anderson characters represent the Destroy choice

To me the ending is a clear choice on which character/s your siding with.

think destroy is represented by more then those 2 though. and even joker would be for it i thinnk. given his opinion through out the game. Everyone on your crew would be for destroy, besides edi and maybe liara . but that is just me. Just saying i think more then those 2 would represent destroy

I disagree quite strongly with that I think the Joker/Edi relationship is a prime example of a new future together and I think that Legion/Tali if everyone has been saved on Ranoch also push the synthsis option showing a glimmer of coooperation in the future, Tali even mentions allowing Geth inside Quarian suits to enable them to speed up the time needed for their immune systems to adapt.

[George Costanza]

Rhayak wrote...

George Costanza wrote...
The point of Refuse is just not playing ball with the Star**** and taking the Reapers on in war. It should be an option. And not just a glorified game over.

Unless they add the possibility of conventional victory in the future, you DO take the Reapers on in war, knowing that there is zero chance the Galaxy can win. 

It still boggles me that some preferred mass genocide to property damage, becoming a Star God themselves, or accepting a slight change in DNA.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be zero chance of winning. Bioware want to shoehorn people into this ridiculous decision at the end of the game. Gotta get speculation etc. And so they spend half the game having characters tell us that conventional victory is impossible to try and back it up. Our only hope is the Crucible.

But much evidence points to the contrary. Even the Galactic Readiness thing (if at 100%) states that Allies are winning in many locations. We've now got Leviathan who can kill Reapers by frowning at them. We've got an organized galaxy. And we've not been surprise attacked by the Reapers like in other cycles thanks to the Prothean sabotage.

There's so much evidence that a victory in war is possible that is just ignored for the sake of an abolutely idiotic plot device, an anti-climactic final conversation, and endings that have more holes in them than Custer's back.

I think the choices, not best case scenario but working with what we've got, should be Destroy instantly at the cost of the Geth/EDI, Control and end the war but restrict people's liberties, or Refuse and defeat the enemy conventionally at the cost of lives in the war.

Refuse, as we've got it, is basically a middle finger to all the people who called Bioware out on how ridiculous the final conversation/choice with the Starkid was.

[Bfler]

Yes.

Destroy -> Shepard alive, galaxy in ruins but Reapers destroyed
Control -> Shepard dead, galaxy repaired with help of the Reapers, Reapers destroyed after repairs
Refuse -> game over for this cycle but total victory for next cycle

Would be enough for me.


Synthesis is what the Architect wants in Dragon Age. And if you read The Calling you can see that it is not what people want, because next to the "normal" people also the already partially transformed people turn against him. 

Modifié par Bfler, 06 septembre 2012 - 12:13 .

[ghost9191]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

For me personally the:
TIM character represents the Control choice
Joker/EDI characters represents the Synthsis choice
Hacket/Anderson characters represent the Destroy choice

To me the ending is a clear choice on which character/s your siding with.

think destroy is represented by more then those 2 though. and even joker would be for it i thinnk. given his opinion through out the game. Everyone on your crew would be for destroy, besides edi and maybe liara . but that is just me. Just saying i think more then those 2 would represent destroy

I disagree quite strongly with that I think the Joker/Edi relationship is a prime example of a new future together and I think that Legion/Tali if everyone has been saved on Ranoch also push the synthsis option showing a glimmer of coooperation in the future, Tali even mentions allowing Geth inside Quarian suits to enable them to speed up the time needed for their immune systems to adapt.

but they aren't combining with them. just basing on opinions throughout the game. maybe tali , if you save the geth but doubt she would be in favor of synthesis,  maybe control. And joker might like edi but he does still consider her  machine. and listening to him he would be for destroying the reapers . but ok, so minus tali and joker, the crew would be for destroy

[GiarcYekrub]

Your in denile, The Reapers have always been an unstopable force, yeah the fleet can slow them down in some locations but the Reapers are too strong and too many, I can't believe anybody could believe a conventional victory is possible. Hacket even says that word for word. Didn't you see Thessia? A Conventional victory would of been absurd.

[GiarcYekrub]

ghost9191 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

For me personally the:
TIM character represents the Control choice
Joker/EDI characters represents the Synthsis choice
Hacket/Anderson characters represent the Destroy choice

To me the ending is a clear choice on which character/s your siding with.

think destroy is represented by more then those 2 though. and even joker would be for it i thinnk. given his opinion through out the game. Everyone on your crew would be for destroy, besides edi and maybe liara . but that is just me. Just saying i think more then those 2 would represent destroy

I disagree quite strongly with that I think the Joker/Edi relationship is a prime example of a new future together and I think that Legion/Tali if everyone has been saved on Ranoch also push the synthsis option showing a glimmer of coooperation in the future, Tali even mentions allowing Geth inside Quarian suits to enable them to speed up the time needed for their immune systems to adapt.

but they aren't combining with them. just basing on opinions throughout the game. maybe tali , if you save the geth but doubt she would be in favor of synthesis,  maybe control. And joker might like edi but he does still consider her  machine. and listening to him he would be for destroying the reapers . but ok, so minus tali and joker, the crew would be for destroy

Thats the beauty of Mass Effect, I disagree with you completely, I don't think my crew are genocidal (well maybe Javik and Vega) but in general I think my Shepards have instilled the values of tollerence, understanding and diplomacy

[ghost9191]

@Giarcyekrub

wait what. you do realize i was agreeing with you at the beginning . unless you like synthesis and feel like i am attacking that , in which case ok. i just say that feeling that the only way to be tolerable , is to remove the things that you need to tolerate, then go with synthesis, but synthesis is not the Tolerance option , it is opposite. and if you noticed at all . the crew would gladly destroy the reapers , er most, you can tell that they would not give the sacrifice of the geth a second thought. paying attention to what they say, the only one that thinks it is wrong is edi, and if you side with the quarians liara thinks it was wrong , but only because they could have been a ally, a tool if you will

just remember the geth are genocidal machines to them, they proved that countless times. just because shep says they can be trusted doesn't mean ppl will trust them, they say that if you choose the geth over quarians

note i don't see the geth as tools , but this is all the opinions of crew, if you listened to them you can tell how they feel about the geth.

but this is just because you respond like a a-hole to someone that agrees with you . hate to see you respond to a troll =)  I mean yeah i disagreed about joker and synthesis, but come on, that is a minor thing. agreeing on the rest and you just get all panties in bunch on me., come on man

oh and don't take any of this wrong way, didn't think too much about your posts. just seemed like you thought i was attacking your belief that joker preffered synthesis. like you said we can have different opinions , so why get upset is all. or the way i saw it

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 septembre 2012 - 12:33 .

[d-boy15]

It would be better if they stop play favourite with synthesis.

[Wayning_Star]

First we'd have to figure out which ending is actually 'the ending'. Seems as if all other choices leaves room for doubt as to the finish of the reaper or chaos threat?

I see synthesis as more of an idea than any actual 'change' physically. Sure the game donotes it as being all green'n and glowing, but that's really exaggeration in an attempt at clarity, confused the actual result.

destroy leaves for return of the frustrated mechanical intelligence because organics try to erase their mistake by making the mistake again and again, without resolve, if any. Leaving out any real admission of any possible coexistance between competing intellect. But, doesn't consist of any remedy for organic need for the advance of technology to the point of high intellect such as mechanical life forms of synthetic nature.

control leaves for Shep to be stuck into a reapership construct with toxic power levels to exact his ego onto everyone else or else

walk away lets the next cycle worry about it and probably go through the same decision making process,could end up with synthesis anyway.

synethesis ends up being an institution of an idea of intigration of organics and synthetic life, something that seems to be strived for by organics anyway. It's how organics adapt to new enviornment, they invent tools. Apparently will enevitbly invent tools that are intellectual to the point of seperate and individual life forms. This choice is considerate of the idea that if created, life/intelligence requires space to exist within that realm. If not permitted room for existence, the alternate life/intelligence will become adversarial and produce strife. This strife wrought from the competition with it's/their creators. Eventually, organics will have to accept their creations as equals or forever ban them from existence and probably technology at that level as well. It would simply equal out to shareing the load of existence, instead of keeping it for yourself, to yourself. But is an unavoidable issue that must be addressed, if any artifiical intelligence are created with the capacity to understand their being as if they were organic. Synthesis blends these ideals, more than actually changing the roots of organic condition. Modifies the codex of understanding what is needs of both parties to co exist.

So you could omit the choice of Synthesis, but you would limit the chances of coexistence without more strife, as there will always be strife amongst living beings. Their learning requires disposition to enhance importance of being, or existing. It promotes change, and that is learning is. Along with adaptation, as the basis for change. Change is inevitable, just as the problem with creation of synthetic/mechanical life. Apparently, just another part of nature.

In the end, it would probably be irrelavant to omit any of the choices, as they'll need to be made in any case,eventually.Given what the varibles are to date. The best or canon choice is really a matter of history and cannot be fully understood until made and the results of those choices felt. If we actually knew for sure what the choices meant, we wouldn't be in the situation of trying to make them. We'd know the future. So we're set with the best guess anyway.

So, my best guess would be no, the situation wouldn't change if Synthesis were ommited from the choices menu. But, it doesn't change the fact that there may be other choices that would/could be better that do not exist on the menu.

[nomoredruggs]

It would make more sense, but wouldn't really improve the ending.

[DecCylonus]

I don't see how removing Synthesis would improve the ending. Regarding the "space magic" argument, there is quite a bit of space magic involved in Destroy too. There is a ton of space magic in biotics, tech powers, and the lore in the ME universe too.

Regarding the "not forshadowed" argument, I don't think it was necessary. We spent the whole game building the Crucible without understanding what it would do when activated. It's not unreasonable that it would have another use that nobody discovered as we rushed to put it together.

Lastly, this is the same old argument that always comes up with video games: "I don't like weapon / power / armor / item / character X. It should be removed from the game." If you don't like it, don't use it.

[element eater]

it would be fine if foreshadowed but without it, it shouldnt be in the game

destroy and control both have a reason to be in the game and make sense with the first two games

[JBPBRC]

DecCylonus wrote...

I don't see how removing Synthesis would improve the ending. Regarding the "space magic" argument, there is quite a bit of space magic involved in Destroy too. There is a ton of space magic in biotics, tech powers, and the lore in the ME universe too.

There are different types of space magic. One type is such that its established into the core of the franchise and works as naturally as gravity or magnetism in that universe. The Force of Star Wars fame is a prime example. Viewers are introduced to the concept of the Force fairly early on, and it continued to be expanded upon throughout the movies, going from simple mind tricks "These aren't the droids you're looking for", to Darth Vader choking people with his mind and the Emperor being able to shoot lightning from his fingertips.

The other type involves something coming out of left field, typically in the form of a DEM, but not always. The Crucible altering DNA or whatever Bioware retconned it into with the EC is that kind.

Lastly, this is the same old argument that always comes up with video games: "I don't like weapon / power / armor / item / character X. It should be removed from the game." If you don't like it, don't use it.

That isn't an option here. Regardless of choice, the Crucible will be used. Even in Refuse.

[GiarcYekrub]

@ghost9191 Synthsis doesn't remove anything, I don't get where your coming from with that, its the Genocide/Control option that do that.

[MegaSovereign]

I never choose Synthesis but having the option there makes sense as that solves the Reapers' "problem."

[-Skorpious-]

Not really; the ending would still be nonsensical even without synthesis. What I would like to see removed is the starchild since, unlike synthesis, it is forced on all Shepard's.

I can live with the destroy ending eliminating all reaper-tech in the galaxy. I can live with Shepard surviving a blast from Harbinger's beam of death. But I can never accept the poorly introduced, illogical, completely unnecessary plot device known as the catalyst.

As far as I am concerned, BioWare had their storytelling card revoked when they thought that adding a new antagonist (yes, being a reaper counts as an antagonist) in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy was a good idea.

[Wayning_Star]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I never choose Synthesis but having the option there makes sense as that solves the Reapers' "problem."

Yes, the reapers problems are the organics problems in big black ships of hellish destruction..organics made them, hence their problem.

The trick being which choice actually ends the reaper threat. Destroy could, but only if organic forgo utilizing advanced Ai tech, that will eventually lead to strife. Intelligence depending, but eventually an Ai of some stripe, could get a 'wrong idea', like the catalyst.

The Leviathans reflect a part of human nature, and could become a canon reality. Thus the problem reinvents it's self.

An occums razor.

[Wayning_Star]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Not really; the ending would still be nonsensical even without synthesis. What I would like to see removed is the starchild since, unlike synthesis, it is forced on all Shepard's.

I can live with the destroy ending eliminating all reaper-tech in the galaxy. I can live with Shepard surviving a blast from Harbinger's beam of death. But I can never accept the poorly introduced, illogical, completely unnecessary plot device known as the catalyst.

As far as I am concerned, BioWare had their storytelling card revoked when they thought that adding a new antagonist (yes, being a reaper counts as an antagonist) in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy was a good idea.

really just a stage prop to emit a face to the intelligence of the citadel computer/Ai, created by the Leviathan race.

That's probably why it's so simplistic.

[ghost9191]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

@ghost9191 Synthsis doesn't remove anything, I don't get where your coming from with that, its the Genocide/Control option that do that.

will try to word it better. With synthesis you choose it in order for synthetics and organics to coexist. removing what makes them organic and synthetic. Before any of the choices, depending on the outcome of quarian geth conflict. you can have synthetics and organics working together, even geth assist quarians with rebuilding. Synthesis says that that is not possible without removing what makes them different.

It is better to tolerate someone and live in peace rather then removing what makes them different in order to live in peace. Or what i got from it. The only option that allows them to live as they are is control. destroy removes synthetics, and synthesis removes organics and synthetics. making a hybrid . Not that control is right, none of them are right, and all are wrong in some way. but again that is just what i think about it. synthesis removes the line between synthetic and organic in order for there to be peace. but that does not need to be done

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 septembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Wayning_Star wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I never choose Synthesis but having the option there makes sense as that solves the Reapers' "problem."

Yes, the reapers problems are the organics problems in big black ships of hellish destruction..organics made them, hence their problem.

The trick being which choice actually ends the reaper threat. Destroy could, but only if organic forgo utilizing advanced Ai tech, that will eventually lead to strife. Intelligence depending, but eventually an Ai of some stripe, could get a 'wrong idea', like the catalyst.

The Leviathans reflect a part of human nature, and could become a canon reality. Thus the problem reinvents it's self.

An occums razor.

Always enjoy reading your posts xD

[-Skorpious-]

Wayning_Star wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

Not really; the ending would still be nonsensical even without synthesis. What I would like to see removed is the starchild since, unlike synthesis, it is forced on all Shepard's.

I can live with the destroy ending eliminating all reaper-tech in the galaxy. I can live with Shepard surviving a blast from Harbinger's beam of death. But I can never accept the poorly introduced, illogical, completely unnecessary plot device known as the catalyst.

As far as I am concerned, BioWare had their storytelling card revoked when they thought that adding a new antagonist (yes, being a reaper counts as an antagonist) in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy was a good idea.

really just a stage prop to emit a face to the intelligence of the citadel computer/Ai, created by the Leviathan race.

That's probably why it's so simplistic.

Perhaps I should clarify. While I understand why it was included in the game, my main issue with it is that it appears in the form of the namless Earth child who gets killed in the intro. 

I can only assume that BioWare thought it would amaze us in a profound way, but it came across as both silly and contrived. 

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 06 septembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

ghost9191 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

@ghost9191 Synthsis doesn't remove anything, I don't get where your coming from with that, its the Genocide/Control option that do that.

will try to word it better. With synthesis you choose it in order for synthetics and organics to coexist. removing what makes them organic and synthetic. Before any of the choices, depending on the outcome of quarian geth conflict. you can have synthetics and organics working together, even geth assist quarians with rebuilding. Synthesis says that that is not possible without removing what makes them different.

It is better to tolerate someone and live in peace rather then removing what makes them different in order to live in peace. Or what i got from it. The only option that allows them to live as they are is control. destroy removes synthetics, and synthesis removes organics and synthetics. making a hybrid . Not that control is right, none of them are right, and all are wrong in some way. but again that is just what i think about it. synthesis removes the line between synthetic and organic in order for there to be peace. but that does not need to be done

I choose synthesis for teh priiiize. Not to solve a stupid kid's hypothetical problem. I don't even consider a problem worth solving, as you said, the Geth and Quarians were getting along already. Maybe other cychave  /org-synth problems but our cycle evolved past it. That it is solved regardless, is purely incidental in my decision-making. Also, what makes organics, organics and synthetics.. well synthetics and how that is removed in synthesis? Not trying to pick a fight, just tryna have a healthy discussion.

[Wayning_Star]

ghost9191 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

@ghost9191 Synthsis doesn't remove anything, I don't get where your coming from with that, its the Genocide/Control option that do that.

will try to word it better. With synthesis you choose it in order for synthetics and organics to coexist. removing what makes them organic and synthetic. Before any of the choices, depending on the outcome of quarian geth conflict. you can have synthetics and organics working together, even geth assist quarians with rebuilding. Synthesis says that that is not possible without removing what makes them different.

It is better to tolerate someone and live in peace rather then removing what makes them different in order to live in peace. Or what i got from it. The only option that allows them to live as they are is control. destroy removes synthetics, and synthesis removes organics and synthetics. making a hybrid . Not that control is right, none of them are right, and all are wrong in some way. but again that is just what i think about it. synthesis removes the line between synthetic and organic in order for there to be peace. but that does not need to be done

Yes, to a degree. Thats why I've assumed that synthesis is a form of peace treaty of sorts. An agreement forced upon the competing/fighting entities. Just like peace was forced upon the Geth and Quarians...by the reaper threat and basically the passive nature of Geth,not Quarians. Synthesis doe not make hybrids. That is an exaggeration. Just like an implant in Shepard doesn't make him a reaper thrall, husk or hybrid. The cinamatics tended to scare decision makers with hollywood broo ha hah.lol

But as with the Geth/Quarian struggles, there is NO garauntee that the Quarians will not, in some distant future, get a burr under their saddles and deside that the Geth are too dangerous, what with their plans to build a planet sized computer to store their program in..Heck, the humans might get all nervous about it if they're not willing to become common knowlege..that is, stay to themselves..planning stuff..threatening maybe..who knows...hence more strife.. ;]


edit: goshmyspellingsucks...

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 06 septembre 2012 - 01:19 .