113 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

-Skorpious- wrote...

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. 

My theory: BioWare initially intended to incorporate indoctrination into the endgame. That child with the face of the one lost on Earth was intended to be implemented there. As s**t hit the fan and they got rushed, they left all the half-implemented ones ingame and that's what we're seeing. That's what IT people uncover.

[ghost9191]

@pirate1802

one agree with you on the first, dislike it when ppl say i choose destroy to solve the issue, like damn it i choose it to blow them up simple

i don't know, but i mean does it not combine the two in some way. as edi says. " as the lines between organic and synthetic blur" from what i got it just seems like they make the two more like the other in order to remove differences. and make peace

but this is just about the catalysts problem, that the only way to make peace is to remove what makes them different or whatever, or so i got ., or by making them more alike idk. just what i thought synthesis did. But again this is mainly about how this fixes the catalyst problem. not so much the choice itself. Just how it fixes synthetic organic disagreements

[Inprea]

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.

With a comment like that you would be a Franken Fran fan. I swear that woman that stores the organs of other people in her body for future use is just creepy. Kind of laughed when someone was dumb enough to ask to see her face.

[Taleroth]

Synthesis and destroy are equally absurd. They're just absurd in two different emotional spectrums. Synthesis posits that you can comfortably change the chemical composition of both organic chemistry and robots by shooting "organic energy" with some sort of laser. Destroy posits that Shepard must walk into an exploding tube to activate a system that is capable of blindly examining all manufactured systems for sapience and then causing them to explode if they show positive. It's uploading a virus from a mac to an alien mothership by shooting it with a gun until it blows up. On a galactic scale with attempted suicide and genocide.

Modifié par Taleroth, 06 septembre 2012 - 01:36 .

[Dubozz]

ghost9191 wrote...
well makes more sense i guess, i mean have destroy , the "paragon" and control would be renegade, kinda like ME2 . control or destroy your ending. Synthesis did kinda come out of nowhere and left me with a ill feeling just because it was considered the best lol

QFT

[ghost9191]

@Wayning_star

agree but hybrid was best way i could put it i guess

and i think that there is no guarantee that species will get along in any ending. except maybe control. ppl get in a argument and shepcatalyst sends in Z reaperz

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Yes, it still wouldn't be enough to make the endings decent, though. That would require removing the Catalyst. Synthesis isn't even transhumanism, it's just some silly attempt at mysticism and sends a very wrong message. The implementation and execution is just awful. I suspect Walters thought simply "Cyborgs, cool right?".

[GiarcYekrub]

I chose Synthsis so EDI and Joker coulde have J-EDI babies

[Wayning_Star]

[/quote]

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. 

[/quote]

Yeah, I wasn't taken aback by the kid being catalyst, they had to propose it somehow, may as well be a human kid, that being representive of a 'child' program. It left out the fact that the 'kid' was millions of years old tho..and dumber'n a box of rocks. Then they give it cosmic powers on top of that. But that's not all that uncommon in sci fi to adorn silly stuff with emmence power. The 'kid' reflection always just ended up with me thinkin it were a mental picture of the catalysts' actual view of earthlings. Underdeveloped, cross bossy children. Brats as it were...prolly what sticks in the craw of folks viewing it.. Just a thought tho?

[Wayning_Star]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I chose Synthsis so EDI and Joker coulde have J-EDI babies

plug'it in plug it in!!


(about 4'oh clock'n the morn'nin..lol)

[Ozida]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Yes, it still wouldn't be enough to make the endings decent, though. That would require removing the Catalyst. Synthesis isn't even transhumanism, it's just some silly attempt at mysticism and sends a very wrong message. The implementation and execution is just awful. I suspect Walters thought simply "Cyborgs, cool right?".

Agree with what Chaotic-Fusion said. It would make endings more tolerable, yet not perfect enough. Synthesis is just cheezy and weird solution to a problem, in my opinion. Another space magic, if you wish.

[Wayning_Star]

ghost9191 wrote...

@Wayning_star

agree but hybrid was best way i could put it i guess

and i think that there is no guarantee that species will get along in any ending. except maybe control. ppl get in a argument and shepcatalyst sends in Z reaperz

why do you hate control endings!?!



Just like he did with the Quarian/Geth wars. Synthesis seems like it'd make their communications a bit more open, so their'd be less to no surprises. But that would be as boring as it would be for Shep stuck in a reaper hull for the duration..

In any event, it seemed to quell the reapers and made them do good stuff for a change.. Heck, maybe the Husks et al, could even get a date!! It sure hammers out the rough edges for Edi and Joker... yay!!

[DecCylonus]

JBPBRC wrote...

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.

I disagree. The Mass Effect series constantly introduced new technology that seemingly came from left field, but people accepted it. At the end of ME1, Sovereign used what appeared to be a directed energy weapon, even though there was nothing like it in the lore. In ME2 it was suddenly possible to resurrect a dead person with technology. The Collectors had a particle beam weapon, something that was not part of any of the lore until it appeared in the hands of a drone. The Reapers are created by a mysterious process that requires the liquification of organics and somehow preserves them, something never discussed until the end of ME2. If we are going to reject Synthesis because it doesn't fit with what came before or the codex lore, then we should have rejected these things too.

Also, Synthesis is Reaper technology, even if it required the Crucible to become viable. Lots of handwaving was done with Reaper tech and it kept getting more powerful, much as the Force went from mind tricks to lightening bolts in the course of three movies.

Lastly, my statement "If you don't like it, don't use it," was not referring to the Crucible. It referred to Synthesis specifically. More importantly, I was taking aim at people saying something should be removed from the game because they don't like it. We wouldn't have much choice in video games if we took things out because a portion of players disliked them. If we took out everything that somebody disliked, then we would be left with Shepard as a Geth Infiltrator and the only weapon choice would be the Piranha.

[ghost9191]

@Wayning_Star

i don't hate control. control is my second choice, and love the ending. the job mark meer did was great, made me sad at the "moment of silence" part. Just saying i see control as a police state, way that the new catalyst keeps order is by force. make sure no one gets uppity

and yeah , mainly just talkking bout how synthesis solves the catalysts problem. they might do good, or turn later on. or it is a dystopia. or everyone is brainwashed into loving the big genocidal machines, idk i just don't think reapers would go all sunshine and unicorns like that. not all anyways. If they are made from different species, and if anythign of those species is left wouldn't that be a bit traumatic . And they were made for one thing, not sure if they would turn so easily. but that is mostly headcanon. so idk maybe it is all sunshine and rainbows, but whateever

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 septembre 2012 - 01:41 .

[Wayning_Star]

It just dawned on me some more. Synthesis is the control destroy and possibly walk away choices, all rolled into one... That's strange to say the least?

you control by infusing DNA material to all concerned and others yet to be concerned.

you destroy by making the reapers more like you and you some like them, so they're nullified. Same as destroyed for a reaper self.

you walk away by allowing the future to decide if youre walk away decision actually works for the next possible cycle.

[DirtyPhoenix]

ghost9191 wrote...

i don't know, but i mean does it not combine the two in some way. as edi says. " as the lines between organic and synthetic blur" from what i got it just seems like they make the two more like the other in order to remove differences. and make peace

but this is just about the catalysts problem, that the only way to make peace is to remove what makes them different or whatever, or so i got ., or by making them more alike idk. just what i thought synthesis did. But again this is mainly about how this fixes the catalyst problem. not so much the choice itself. Just how it fixes synthetic organic disagreements

One can make organics and synthetics similar without removing the base characteristics of what makes them organics and synthetics.

About his problem, I give teh middle finger to his problem. He can tell me destroy solves his problem and brings eternal utopia, I'd still stick with synthesis:O But giving it somethought, how making us similar to each other results in less war, is a long process. Long story short, organics create synthetics to do what they cannot, because their physical bodies are imperfect. Then they go to war because they don't understand each other; they view synthetics with fear. Synthesis grants organics means to develop beyond their physical limitations and synthetics an understanding of prganic nature, thus reducing the chances of war.

But as I said, this is not my motivations to pick synthesis. And according to a poll I saw, alot of synthesizers don't buy the catalyst's reasoning either. They pick synthesis for its own benefits, not to solves its little "problem."

[goofyomnivore]

I think it would of been better had the Crucible had one use. And have the 'variables' in endings and what not be dictated by your choices throughout the games. Rather than RGB be the driving force behind the epilogues/ending.

[ghost9191]

pirate1802 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

i don't know, but i mean does it not combine the two in some way. as edi says. " as the lines between organic and synthetic blur" from what i got it just seems like they make the two more like the other in order to remove differences. and make peace

but this is just about the catalysts problem, that the only way to make peace is to remove what makes them different or whatever, or so i got ., or by making them more alike idk. just what i thought synthesis did. But again this is mainly about how this fixes the catalyst problem. not so much the choice itself. Just how it fixes synthetic organic disagreements

One can make organics and synthetics similar without removing the base characteristics of what makes them organics and synthetics.

About his problem, I give teh middle finger to his problem. He can tell me destroy solves his problem and brings eternal utopia, I'd still stick with synthesis:O But giving it somethought, how making us similar to each other results in less war, is a long process. Long story short, organics create synthetics to do what they cannot, because their physical bodies are imperfect. Then they go to war because they don't understand each other; they view synthetics with fear. Synthesis grants organics means to develop beyond their physical limitations and synthetics an understanding of prganic nature, thus reducing the chances of war.

But as I said, this is not my motivations to pick synthesis. And according to a poll I saw, alot of synthesizers don't buy the catalyst's reasoning either. They pick synthesis for its own benefits, not to solves its little "problem."

yeah , which i was just trying to figure out why it would solve the catalysts problem. And i know they can still retain what they were in some way, but it does seem to make them less human or asari. well more then human anyways. kinda like a cybord is not very human anymore . i get the reasons though, heard that brat say them. humans seek perfection through machines and synthetic seek understanding and all,  But i just feel like to do that kinda changes what organics and synthetics are.  Takes away what makes them unique , i mean organics and synthetics, not races and stuff

or something like that. just me though

[ghost9191]

strive wrote...

I think it would of been better had the Crucible had one use. And have the 'variables' in endings and what not be dictated by your choices throughout the games. Rather than RGB be the driving force behind the epilogues/ending.

agree, i don't think there needed to be one last big choice, but like you said basically decided on your choices leading up to it. that way they would have mattered more

[Wayning_Star]

ghost9191 wrote...

@Wayning_Star

i don't hate control. control is my second choice, and love the ending. the job mark meer did was great, made me sad at the "moment of silence" part. Just saying i see control as a police state, way that the new catalyst keeps order is by force. make sure no one gets uppity

and yeah , mainly just talkking bout how synthesis solves the catalysts problem. they might do good, or turn later on. or it is a dystopia. or everyone is brainwashed into loving the big genocidal machines, idk i just don't think reapers would go all sunshine and unicorns like that. not all anyways. If they are made from different species, and if anythign of those species is left wouldn't that be a bit traumatic . And they were made for one thing, not sure if they would turn so easily. but that is mostly headcanon. so idk maybe it is all sunshine and rainbows, but whateever

first I was kidding.

Synthesis isn't explained enough, imo, it's a guess, compared to what the other choices are, even walk away has a certain absoluteness to it. Synthesis tends to make everyone wonder wtf just happened? With that,it's way harder to decide on it, as it's not a decision unless you can muster enough reality of it to make it viable. I cannot blame folks for not liking it on those grounds alone. It's the only guess that I could make in the game, cause the other definitely had a codexual reality to them and varifiable down sides. Synthesis down sides had to be metagamed, as it weren't yet in the codexual reality of the MEU. An "unknown' quantity.

Synthesis was the best guess and possibly the canon ending to it, as it 'seemed' to cull the reaper threat all together. But that codex entry wasn't until the last cut scences. The other choices had their risks and negatives posted pre decision. Synthesis documented plus sides for me was the chance that reaper hostages of a many harvested races could be accessed and the synthetics that exist could be saved.So I went for the craziest decision as canon. The wild card decision. imho

edit: what to do in case your finger nails tend to microchip? ME4!!!

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 06 septembre 2012 - 02:02 .

[Wayning_Star]

ghost9191 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

i don't know, but i mean does it not combine the two in some way. as edi says. " as the lines between organic and synthetic blur" from what i got it just seems like they make the two more like the other in order to remove differences. and make peace

but this is just about the catalysts problem, that the only way to make peace is to remove what makes them different or whatever, or so i got ., or by making them more alike idk. just what i thought synthesis did. But again this is mainly about how this fixes the catalyst problem. not so much the choice itself. Just how it fixes synthetic organic disagreements

One can make organics and synthetics similar without removing the base characteristics of what makes them organics and synthetics.

About his problem, I give teh middle finger to his problem. He can tell me destroy solves his problem and brings eternal utopia, I'd still stick with synthesis:O But giving it somethought, how making us similar to each other results in less war, is a long process. Long story short, organics create synthetics to do what they cannot, because their physical bodies are imperfect. Then they go to war because they don't understand each other; they view synthetics with fear. Synthesis grants organics means to develop beyond their physical limitations and synthetics an understanding of prganic nature, thus reducing the chances of war.

But as I said, this is not my motivations to pick synthesis. And according to a poll I saw, alot of synthesizers don't buy the catalyst's reasoning either. They pick synthesis for its own benefits, not to solves its little "problem."

yeah , which i was just trying to figure out why it would solve the catalysts problem. And i know they can still retain what they were in some way, but it does seem to make them less human or asari. well more then human anyways. kinda like a cybord is not very human anymore . i get the reasons though, heard that brat say them. humans seek perfection through machines and synthetic seek understanding and all,  But i just feel like to do that kinda changes what organics and synthetics are.  Takes away what makes them unique , i mean organics and synthetics, not races and stuff

or something like that. just me though

actually, it's NOT the catalyst's problem, he/it is just a byproduct of 'organics' problems. Those that pick that are evading the thrust of the message about creating mechanical "life" without liscense...ulp.(i.e. looking for someone to blame for their distressing urge to creat chaos..

[ghost9191]

@Waayning_Star

yeah well same for me. was one reason i didn't pick it, because without metagaming there was way too many unknowns with it. idk might be the "best" option but just not for me. safer to just blow the bastards up i guess, too much risk in other, still risk in destroy but ends the immediate threat

that is if i followed you. at first u seemed against it, but then for it so yeah

[ghost9191]

sorry for double post, or will use this to address waying other post

i know , just easier to say then , the problem that the levis noticed the lesser organic races to have . faster.

and it was just about earlier post that i honestly forget lol. just made it first to guess how it would solve the problem as said.

well i just have hope with destroy that A) ppl will not be so quick to destroy ai life, like the quarians tried. or will not create synthetics, which kinda don't want but understandable, they are a species and life on their own,. But will still blow them the f*ck up

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 septembre 2012 - 02:16 .

[Wayning_Star]

ghost9191 wrote...

@Waayning_Star

yeah well same for me. was one reason i didn't pick it, because without metagaming there was way too many unknowns with it. idk might be the "best" option but just not for me. safer to just blow the bastards up i guess, too much risk in other, still risk in destroy but ends the immediate threat

that is if i followed you. at first u seemed against it, but then for it so yeah

that is, I am not 'against' it as much as I am 'for it, sythesis that is. The other choices,for some reason, have their risks printed out plainly, one actually has a big 'bewary' posted just on top of it.  To me, synthesis is merely a sharing, not a demand, so much as detractors insist it 'controls',eventhough it does to some extent. I would gather it to be more in the trend of guiding by inclusion. Makes a lessor of four evils for synthesis. I'm not of the opionion that it is 'oppressive', no more than a better idea would be. But it's not totally acceptable, but then the dying by degrees instituted by a super power is totally oppressive,eventually for everything concerned in the MEU. Down to that last molecule of resources, demanded by all races. So it's in the best interest for all concerned to share reality, rather than fight over it.
 

[guacamayus]

I think synthesis just needed to be explained in greater detail, as far as who represents each choice you have to remember both Anderson and Hackett did not talk to the catalyst, they didn't actually know there was other options available it's only natural they kept talking about destroying the reapers through the course of the game, when presented with new information, specially when that information potentially changes everything, any rational person would consider changing their mind.