188 réponses à ce sujet

[HiddenInWar]

Synthesis and Control to me, is a mix of both. In Control, Shepard has both renegade and paragon dialogue (Renegade Control being the most bleak). Destroy to me is renegade. So synthesis ultimately seems paragon-ish.

[TheWerdna]

Synthesis is far too stupid to be considered either paragon or renegade.

[tholloway93]

well everyone lives and the universe is rebuilt to probably a better standard than before so on that basis, its paragon..

but thats no better an option than paragon control, where people get to stay machines or organic. Synthesis solves the problem the reapers were trying to eradicate; so i see synthesis as the starchilds option...

[sammysoso]

Neither, it's just stupid.

Shooting a big green beam across the galaxy making everyone BFFs? That's a child's fantasy.

It's also bad science: Evolution doesn't have some arbitrary endpoint

Modifié par sammysoso, 12 septembre 2012 - 11:39 .

[Reorte]

sammysoso wrote...

Neither, it's just stupid.

Shooting a big green beam across the galaxy making everyone BFFs? That's a child's fantasy.

It's also bad science: Evolution doesn't have some arbitrary endpoint

Yep. It's a revolting idea combined with such a complete and utter lack of anything remotely approaching plausibility (even in a fictional universe with biotics in it) that I'm amazed that anyone could tolerate it, even if they like the idea.

[Tronar]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Consent isn't on the side of any endings, you're going to ****** some people off no matter what. So you have to choose what's best.

This is true, but Synthesis changes a lot more beings than the other two options.

If consent is a legitimate issue to you, then you're typically going to believe that even 1 violation is too much. So in that way, every solution is going to commit too much anyway. The scale basically becomes irrelevant.

How do you offset it? IMO, by choosing what does the most good. To me, that's Synthesis.

Sorry, I can't agree. How is synthesis doing the most good?

If that is your way of measuring the "success"- or "Paragon"-level of an ending, control should be your choice. Because nobody has to die and nobody (except for the reapers of course) gets forced a choice onto him or her.
I am not saying that this would be my preferred choice, though. But less damage?

You are forcing all synthetics to become part organics and all organics to become part synthetic. In my book, that's even worse than just killing off all the synthetics by choosing the destroy ending.

Plus the absolute silliness of the synthesis ending becomes obvious, if you start thinking about the time after the green light space magic has somehow implanted organics with synthetic parts:
suddenly your former human neighbor now looks like a husk. And maybe your Asari wife now looks like a Banshee. And even worse, maybe the other neighbor turned into a cannibal had just killed your kids in front of your eyes before the green light hit all of you.

And now you are supposed to go back into your homes, mow your lawns and have a BBQ together, because you have all become half organics / half synthetics and suddenly all is well?

I think you'd need a lot of follow up mind control to make that work.

Would you want to have the Banshee-wife of your neighbor look after your kids?

Synthesis is the most stupid and not-thought-through ending of all the choices. Compared to that the refusal ending actually makes the most sense. I mean from a consistent in-game logic point of view.

[Pokemario]

It's Paragade!!!! XD

[Someone With Mass]

It's more stupid than anything for me.

[Chashan]

Reorte wrote...

sammysoso wrote...

Neither, it's just stupid.

Shooting a big green beam across the galaxy making everyone BFFs? That's a child's fantasy.

It's also bad science: Evolution doesn't have some arbitrary endpoint

Yep. It's a revolting idea combined with such a complete and utter lack of anything remotely approaching plausibility (even in a fictional universe with biotics in it) that I'm amazed that anyone could tolerate it, even if they like the idea.

I have grown to become one of that group, to be had.

But in light of what the visual presentation of Green looks like in the end...to put it bluntly, it just looks ugly, and it is not exactly helped by the Reap-hurrs mingling with everyone else, and the sadface-husk being all sad.

But alignment-wise, I would have to say that Green is somewhat more in the Paragon-ish department. Does not mean its issues are non-existant, however.
And that it is just a no-choice due to its horrid execution.

[guacamayus]

The problem with synthesis resides in how little effort they put on explaining the concept, which is disgraceful specially on a game with a codex that takes care of even the smallest of things within this universe that bioware created.
Anyway, if I had to associate synthesis to a profile I'd say paragon, to me it's all about ideals. A utopian society in which people live side by side, synthetic and organic, with an unprecedented level of knowledge aswell, to me it's as paragon as it gets...

Why? to answer this let me go back a couple of years to some of the decisions we encountered along the way; the Rachni queen for example - paragon shepard is willing to risk another rachni war only to give this dead race a chance while renegade shepard would never take that chance; it's an alien species that pose a huge risk, the renegade way would be to kill the queen to prevent a great war.
Let's not forget that here Shepard is imposing his view of things on the rest, specially when choosing the paragon responses, letting the queen live is a decision made by shepard alone, and the implications are huge. The same could be said about the collector base, paragon shepard acts following a moral code while renegade shepard is just being practical.

I realize synthesis is a bigger and more complex change but the rewards of such change are huge too, the next evolutionary step, overcoming our grey filter with total success without having to sacrifice almost anything or anyone...

[Biotic_Warlock]

Sauruz wrote...

Chaotic alignment.

Near to that, neutral can choose too. Break the laws of nature and create synthesis would only be done by those who aren't paladins or lawful. I think lawful wouldn't allow the reapers to live at all, or would refuse.

Conrol ending can make sense for any evil alignment, as well as chaotic neutral, true neutral and chaotic neutral.

Destroy ending would make sense for any good and evil, as well as and chaotic neutral.

Refuse ending would mainly be for lawful good and any neutral.

But that isn't a law, so any character can do anything; that's why it's an RPG.

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 13 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[TheJediSaint]

TheWerdna wrote...

Synthesis is far too stupid to be considered either paragon or renegade.

^ This.  Sythesis was the nonsense cherry on top of the big bannana chocolate nonsense sundae that was the ending to ME3.

[guacamayus]

Well that depends on what you consider the laws of nature to be, in this case is the environment forcing change upon us. Conflict between organics and synthetics may be the event that forces us to adapt or become extinct, according to the catalyst the act of creating sentient life is been part of the evolutionary process of every sentient species, overcoming the problems created by those synthetics is a part of the process aswell.

[SlyTF1]

Synthesis isn't paragon or renegade. It's just STUPID. So stupid, I will never chose it.

[mechalynx]

According to Yahtzee's excellent analogy, Renegade = Dirty Harry and Paragon = Picard.

Therefore, Synthesis = the true face of Communism.

[Hydralysk]

Renegade. Shepard forces everyone in the universe to become partly synthetic even though he has first hand experience with individuals who want nothing to do with synthetics.

Building your own utopia without consulting whether or not others even want it isn't something paragon Shepard would allow.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Rommel49 wrote...

Except consent is on the side of Destroy, that was always the mission and it's the only one that has the implied or explicit consent of everyone involved. It's what the commander's friends, crewmates, and superiors want. It was known throughout the war the Crucible could have unintended consequences if fired by both Hackett and Anderson - they built it anyway. Javik says it explicitly: the Reapers need to be extinct, even subjugating them isn't enough (nevermind singing kumbaya around the campfire), Ashley calls them monsters that need to be put down, etc.

EDI herself makes it clear, that the Reapers are only interested in self-preservation and how she's different, the Geth themselves set the tone when they willingly allied with the Reapers for just a hope at saving themselves despite knowing full well that the Reapers' mission was the extermination of all advanced organic life, not just the Quarians

1.) I just explained how "consent is on the side of Destroy" - implied or explicit - is false. Go back and read it.
2.) ^^^ that also doesn't account for the fact that mission objectives can change on a dime if the man-in-charge says so.
3.) Javik was wrong, like Shepard (who admits as much at the end).
4.) EDI was wrong.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:14 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

[quote]Tronar wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
Consent isn't on the side of any endings, you're going to ****** some people off no matter what. So you have to choose what's best.
[/quote]

This is true, but Synthesis changes a lot more beings than the other two options.

[/quote]


If consent is a legitimate issue to you, then you're typically going to believe that even 1 violation is too much. So in that way, every solution is going to commit too much anyway. The scale basically becomes irrelevant.

How do you offset it? IMO, by choosing what does the most good. To me, that's Synthesis.[/quote]

Sorry, I can't agree. How is synthesis doing the most good?[/quote]

It benefits the galaxy more than the others.

Destroy goes as far as to end the war only, at the cost of much of your own technology (F that). Control seeks to use the Reapers positively with some risk of Catalyst!Shep overstepping his bounds more times than one.

Synthesis frees the Reapers from catalyst control (thereby ending the war sans technological wipeout) and the Reapers help as they would in control without running the risk of them all going bad. It also helps organics integrate with technology and lets synthetics gain understanding. If they don't want to utilize that, they don't have to. If they don't like green eyes and glowing skin, tough. It's a small price to pay for victory. Besides, maybe someone will come around and find a way to conceal those ultimately superficial issues.

To be clear, I wouldn't choose synthesis in a bubble. It's only the circumstances at hand that make me choose it.

Those circumstances being the war and everything.


[quote]If that is your way of measuring the "success"- or "Paragon"-level of an ending, control should be your choice. Because nobody has to die and nobody (except for the reapers of course) gets forced a choice onto him or her.

I am not saying that this would be my preferred choice, though. But less damage?[/quote]

I don't see Synthesis as paragon, I see it as both.

Control would be my second choice. To me, it's a lesser Synthesis. I'd use the Reapers to help rebuild, bestow their knowledge onto the galaxy, then kill them all before I overstep my bounds.

But that's not as good as Synthesis because I'm apt to commit more "violations" than just one, and the Reapers are forced to some likely unfortunate death. Synthesis accomplishes the same stuff (spreading Reaper knowledge, rebuilding) but lets people decide things themselves, not Catalyst!Shep. Where Destroy and Synthesis are a 1-time violation, Control continues to uphold the catalyst's violation of the harvested civilizations and runs the largest risk of interfering too much more than once.


[quote]You are forcing all synthetics to become part organics and all organics to become part synthetic.[/quote]

Actually, nobody is becoming part-anything. They just gain new capabilities. It's possible that the green circuitry glowing inside organics is made entirely of organic components like flesh/blood/tissue.


[quote]In my book, that's even worse than just killing off all the synthetics by choosing the destroy ending.[/quote]

I reject your book. I gave people the same freedom of choice as Destroy, and then some. Organics can live as they did before, and probably even better. And synthetics can... actually live.


[quote]Plus the absolute silliness of the synthesis ending becomes obvious, if you start thinking about the time after the green light space magic has somehow implanted organics with synthetic parts:[/quote]

In this story, a giant spike in the gut has the same affects (turning organic parts into cybernetics). I accepted that a long time ago. So did you. So why not a beam?

A beam is actually more plausible to me if it's a radiation-wave.


[quote]suddenly your former human neighbor now looks like a husk. And maybe your Asari wife now looks like a Banshee.[/quote]

Synthesized organics do not look like husks.

If you think as much, you need glasses.

Make sure they're the 54 mm+ kind.


[quote]And even worse, maybe the other neighbor turned into a cannibal had just killed your kids in front of your eyes before the green light hit all of you.[/quote]

So?

If my kids were killed, the pain of their loss isn't erased by their killer being dead. I'm not for capital punishment either.

Destroy and Control don't fix that. It sucks no matter what.


[quote]And now you are supposed to go back into your homes, mow your lawns and have a BBQ together, because you have all become half organics / half synthetics and suddenly all is well?

I think you'd need a lot of follow up mind control to make that work.[/quote]

All is not suddenly well. But that's not true of Destroy/Control either so your point is moot.

EC didn't show negative things because it was supposed to be mostly positive. That doesn't mean negative stuff doesn't exist in the post-war galaxy. That is a leap being made by you (and just about everyone else).

It would be like arguing Destroy brainwashes all of Wrex's political opponents to his obedience because the EC slides don't show them causing trouble at all in this ending.


[quote]Synthesis is the most stupid and not-thought-through ending of all the choices. Compared to that the refusal ending actually makes the most sense. I mean from a consistent in-game logic point of view.[/quote]

An explosion affecting synthetics but not organics is a stretch as well. So are lots of canon things like Project Lazarus. If you can tolerate those things, then this is really not a big deal.

[fchopin]

Very simple question, only renegades force people, nothing more to say.

[Chardonney]

TheJediSaint wrote...

TheWerdna wrote...

Synthesis is far too stupid to be considered either paragon or renegade.

^ This.  Sythesis was the nonsense cherry on top of the big bannana chocolate nonsense sundae that was the ending to ME3.

Well said.

[Pokemario]

fchopin wrote...

Very simple question, only renegades force people, nothing more to say.

But in ME2 the option of controlling the Geth was paragon

[Pokemario]

Why do I think that
Destroy=What Adm. Gerrel wants to do with Geth
Control=What Adm. Xen wants to do with Geth
Synthesis=What Adm. Koris wants to do with Geth


Strange...

[Volc19]

Paragon. Although, unlike how it's portrayed in-game, Paragon isn't always the 'right' choice. It's well-meaning, idealistic, gives the Reapers a second chance, and no one really 'dies' in a physical sense, which are very Paragon intentions and outcomes.

Not to say that I like it, or that it is even close to the best thing for everyone (internally, I liken Synthesis to the origin story of the Antispirals (Halt evolution to stop the spiral nemesis/technological singularity)), although, for the purposes of this thread, it's Paragon.

Also, I know everyone gets all jumpy whenever it's said that Destroy is Renegade, because Renegade is usually linked to evil/malicious/synonyms for bad/hateful emotions, but it really is Renegade. You sacrifice allies in order to secure against the Reapers, and it has a bit of selfish self-preservation if you meta-game (although it's just a little bit).

Control's morality is directly linked to Shepard's morality. Shepard's choices and personality give an effective model for how the Shepalyst will act. And, seeing as the catalyst is still completely functional after a massive amount of time being active, to assume Shepard will lose control is less than likely. Control is only based on Shepard and how Shepard would tackle being in control of a near-unstoppable army of killbots. Para!Shep would use them to protect and rebuild, and Rene!Shep may or may not end up ruling the galaxy on a massive power-trip.

Although, ending alignment should matter little in the descision making process. Each ending has it's own merits and detriments based on the facts of the situation. Destroy kills allies and leaves us prone to the Leviathans, yet it kills the Reapers and lets Shepard live. Control kills Shepard and is basically telling us that we should have signed on with TIM on mars, although it retains most of what the Galaxy once was while providing a Reaper army to them. Synthesis gives us new tech and... er... i guess green is a nice color, while at the same time we become the antagonists from TTGL.

[thearbiter1337]

It's not even Renegade or Paragon

It's just Chaotic