370 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

I have a theory (well, it's more of an "I think it'd be interesting if ..." situation) about a fragment of the ending's meaning in terms of showing restraint when presented with the Crucible's technological capabilities, and how it could've applied to something similar to the mass relay / dark energy overuse idea and to the perception of utopias in science fiction---and to the Joker-EDI image.

Having access to bountiful technology that could change everything doesn't necessarily mean that we should change everything; perhaps the decision-maker, even with unlimited capability at his/'her fingertips, needs to show restraint instead of plunging head-first into the drastically-altered picture of perceived "perfection". You played God in the final decision-making process, and making a penultimate alteration to all life rendered a Biblical allusion at the end. As I expressed earlier: that doesn't acknowledge that it's the ideal way of using the Crucible, but one worthy of such an image.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

[garrusfan1]

Kingzayd yeah it was only 4000 ems needed as long as Anderson "lived"

[KingZayd]

Auintus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Auintus wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

Actually I saw somewhere you could get 4100 ems without MP and pre EC but you had to play the whole series error proof (and by error proof I mean to get the most assets) so it was possible but with this it basically made you have no options to do anything besides what you have to do to get these war assets. Also this includes all the ME1 and ME2 dlc that add war assets (example overlord). Oh do not ask me for a link cause I saw this within a month of ME3 being released.

Didn't Destroy/Survive require 5000 ems at first?

I believe it was 4000 if you saved Anderson.

Okay, but I only could only get around 7kish total strength, which results in 3500ish effective strength. Still not enough.

I believe you can get more than enough, it's just tricky?
I know I got above 7k and I missed quite a few of the earlier quests because of the main ones being labelled "priority".

[Auintus]

dreamgazer wrote...
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

If we can, why shouldn't we? It makes no sense to cripple yourself like that.

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

If we can, why shouldn't we? It makes no sense to cripple yourself like that.

Ethics... ever heard of it?

[iSousek]

Its not synthesis, it lacks the green colour. EDI and Joker can have this in Control ending also.

You are jumping to conclusions.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

IT is real. Why? Simply because bioware allows people to use it as a valid interpretation. You see where I'm getting at here? The endings are so open ended that "interpretation" is pretty much what defines it. They want us to make our own conclusions (which I would have been fine with if ME3 was either a standalone book or title).

I can literally pull out an explanation from my ass about how Shepard could survive synthesis or control, because bioware hasn't really released any official "facts" about said endings rather than that they claim to be done with them. And even if they have, their reports are so conflicting that it seems that they don't really know what the hell is going on in the endings either.

So I simply decided to either retcon the undesirable parts of the endings, or just ignore them.

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

Auintus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

If we can, why shouldn't we? It makes no sense to cripple yourself like that.

Ethics... ever heard of it?

Ethics are merely a basis for decision-making. My ethical code has no problem with taking advantage of a technological achievement. Or perhaps you would rather goo back to an outhouse and lack of internet? If so, that is entirely your call.

[Auintus]

KingZayd wrote...

I believe you can get more than enough, it's just tricky?
I know I got above 7k and I missed quite a few of the earlier quests because of the main ones being labelled "priority".

I just calculated the maximum possible war assets(ignoring Omega and Leviathan) from the wiki and I only got 7440, which still wouldn't be enough for the Survival ending.

[KingZayd]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Auintus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

If we can, why shouldn't we? It makes no sense to cripple yourself like that.

Ethics... ever heard of it?

Ethics are merely a basis for decision-making. My ethical code has no problem with taking advantage of a technological achievement. Or perhaps you would rather goo back to an outhouse and lack of internet? If so, that is entirely your call.

I'm guessing the ethics of forcing such a transformation on everyone.

[Auintus]

KingZayd wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Ethics are merely a basis for decision-making. My ethical code has no problem with taking advantage of a technological achievement. Or perhaps you would rather goo back to an outhouse and lack of internet? If so, that is entirely your call.

I'm guessing the ethics of forcing such a transformation on everyone.

It is a good transformation, though. Should he have had the opportunity to ask everyone their opinion, that would have been preferable. Instead, Shepard was given a one-time, immediate-answer choice to make.

Modifié par Auintus, 10 décembre 2012 - 05:37 .

[KingZayd]

Auintus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I believe you can get more than enough, it's just tricky?
I know I got above 7k and I missed quite a few of the earlier quests because of the main ones being labelled "priority".

I just calculated the maximum possible war assets(ignoring Omega and Leviathan) from the wiki and I only got 7440, which still wouldn't be enough for the Survival ending.

I must have been pretty close to maximum then...
I know I did eventually find every hidden object in every system. Even all the fuel.

[Auintus]

KingZayd wrote...

Auintus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

I believe you can get more than enough, it's just tricky?
I know I got above 7k and I missed quite a few of the earlier quests because of the main ones being labelled "priority".

I just calculated the maximum possible war assets(ignoring Omega and Leviathan) from the wiki and I only got 7440, which still wouldn't be enough for the Survival ending.

I must have been pretty close to maximum then...
I know I did eventually find every hidden object in every system. Even all the fuel.

 Dedicated gamers are we.

[dreamgazer]

I'd prefer it if you didn't literally pull that out of your ass, Mr. BG.

Yes, there's such a thing as untethered interpretation, and ME3's ending is guilty of it. The components are there for various readings, but the string attaching them to a perspective is missing.

[dreamgazer]

Auintus wrote...

Ethics are merely a basis for decision-making. My ethical code has no problem with taking advantage of a technological achievement. Or perhaps you would rather goo back to an outhouse and lack of internet? If so, that is entirely your call.

Changing where one defecates and how we communicate information is in no way the same thing as permanently altering the genetic code of all living things.

[Auintus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Ethics are merely a basis for decision-making. My ethical code has no problem with taking advantage of a technological achievement. Or perhaps you would rather go back to an outhouse and lack of internet? If so, that is entirely your call.

Changing where one defecates and how we communicate information is in no way the same thing as permanently altering the genetic code of all living things.

Different extent, but as this weird girl with pigtails once said, "Onward and upward."
Still technological advancement.

[KingZayd]

Auintus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Ethics are merely a basis for decision-making. My ethical code has no problem with taking advantage of a technological achievement. Or perhaps you would rather goo back to an outhouse and lack of internet? If so, that is entirely your call.

I'm guessing the ethics of forcing such a transformation on everyone.

It is a good transformation, though. Should he have had the opportunity to ask everyone their opinion, that would have been preferable. Instead, Shepard was given a one-time, immediate-answer choice to make.

Whether it's good or not is up to those being transformed.

Why not wait until the technology is available on a non-"on-time immediate-answer" basis?

[Auintus]

KingZayd wrote...

Whether it's good or not is up to those being transformed.

Why not wait until the technology is available on a non-"on-time immediate-answer" basis?

When is something like that ever going to happen again? It's one of those "now-or-never" things.

[KingZayd]

Auintus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Whether it's good or not is up to those being transformed.

Why not wait until the technology is available on a non-"on-time immediate-answer" basis?

When is something like that ever going to happen again? It's one of those "now-or-never" things.

Not something like that:

Technology improves. No reason why synthesis wouldn't be possible on a smaller scale for those who wanted it.

It's not a "now-or-never" thing.

[Ryoten]

I cant choose any ending that doesn't involve destroying the reapers.  They must die.  They have to die.  If they don't die, it invalidates everything i strived for over 3 games.

Modifié par Ryoten, 10 décembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Goodness, I wish BioWare had handled these endings differently. Just as so many people feel like BioWare ruined their Destroy ending, I feel like they ruined my Synthesis ending.

Despite the space magic, the weird presentation of the choices from the villain, and the crushing ethical dilemma, I love the idea of Synthesis. I really do. When it was first presented to me, I was certainly confused about the entire situation, but I really liked the idea of Synthesis. I stood there for a while thinking about Synthesis vs. Destroy. I had already written off Control (although I like it more now than I did then), Destroy was the obvious default choice, and Synthesis had its amazing benefits challenged by its ethical problem. And this ethical problem has caused the majority of the fanbase to utterly reject the choice, and I'm sometimes implied to be a vile person for even considering it.

Based on the evidence, Synthesis does not destroy diversity. It doesn't even eliminate organics and synthetics; EDI states that the distinction still exists, and that the line has merely been blurred. The most radical and fantastic aspects of Synthesis won't even occur until a time set in the far future (example: immortality is something that will be achieved later, not now).

The humans are still humans, the krogan are still krogan, the leaves are still leaves. It's not about what your are made of. Rather, it's about who you are. Because I accept that EDI and the geth are actual living beings, I don't care that they are made of non-organic materials. Thus, why should I care if I have a synthetic aspect added to my body? I'm still me, and all the evidence indicates that my mind is intact. I'm not less of a person all because I have nanites wrapped around my DNA.

I also believe that we should "ascend". We should change. We should embrace the unknown. We should explore new frontiers. That's what Synthesis represents to me. By choosing Synthesis, you almost literally vanquish the impossible. You dismantle the Lovecraftian mystique of the Reapers; they can be known and understood. You embrace the "other", and become a part of the "other".

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 10 décembre 2012 - 07:48 .

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'd prefer it if you didn't literally pull that out of your ass, Mr. BG.

Yes, there's such a thing as untethered interpretation, and ME3's ending is guilty of it. The components are there for various readings, but the string attaching them to a perspective is missing.

I'm simply saying that I am treating the endings like Diana Allers.

As in, them not being existant, or being thrown out the airlock. 

[Mcfly616]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'd prefer it if you didn't literally pull that out of your ass, Mr. BG.

Yes, there's such a thing as untethered interpretation, and ME3's ending is guilty of it. The components are there for various readings, but the string attaching them to a perspective is missing.

the perspective is your own. That was the whole point of the choice placed before you. Unless you just don't have a perspective, then it'd be "missing".

[Kataphrut94]

The idea behind it is that destroy is technically a loss for the galaxy since we wipe out synthetics, control depends on Shepard and synthesis has the galaxy actually gaining something. In addition to synthetics surviving and the Reapers ceasing hostilities, everyone benefits from the synthetic improvements and a new age of peace, utopia and candybars is ushered in. Still not ideal, but considering we were in a war with the fate of all organic life at stake and everyone assured that they would not live to see the dawn, a glowing green upgrade is a pleasant surprise.

[Eterna]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Goodness, I wish BioWare had handled these endings differently. Just as so many people feel like BioWare ruined their Destroy ending, I feel like they ruined my Synthesis ending.

Despite the space magic, the weird presentation of the choices from the villain, and the crushing ethical dilemma, I love the idea of Synthesis. I really do. When it was first presented to me, I was certainly confused about the entire situation, but I really liked the idea of Synthesis. I stood there for a while thinking about Synthesis vs. Destroy. I had already written off Control (although I like it more now than I did then), Destroy was the obvious default choice, and Synthesis had its amazing benefits challenged by its ethical problem. And this ethical problem has caused the majority of the fanbase to utterly reject the choice, and I'm sometimes implied to be a vile person for even considering it.

Based on the evidence, Synthesis does not destroy diversity. It doesn't even eliminate organics and synthetics; EDI states that the distinction still exists, and that the line has merely been blurred. The most radical and fantastic aspects of Synthesis won't even occur until a time set in the far future (example: immortality is something that will be achieved later, not now).

The humans are still humans, the krogan are still krogan, the leaves are still leaves. It's not about what your are made of. Rather, it's about who you are. Because I accept that EDI and the geth are actual living beings, I don't care that they are made of non-organic materials. Thus, why should I care if I have a synthetic aspect added to my body? I'm still me, and all the evidence indicates that my mind is intact. I'm not less of a person all because I have nanites wrapped around my DNA.

I also believe that we should "ascend". We should change. We should embrace the unknown. We should explore new frontiers. That's what Synthesis represents to me. By choosing Synthesis, you almost literally vanquish the impossible. You dismantle the Lovecraftian mystique of the Reapers; they can be known and understood. You embrace the "other", and become a part of the "other".

Maybe you should sit back and enjoy them for what they are instead of over thinking them for months. You're only making yourself jaded and I can't help but feel your letting other people dictate what you like. 

What do you like? If you like Synthesis, pick it, and to hell with everyone else.