889 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Seival wrote...

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

You have a decidely depressing view of the human condition.  You see people as incapable of imagining new and original things; most of us see the opposite.  You believe hope is a delusion.  This is so dementedly sad.  Hope is the human condition.  It is the crux of the matter.  Hope determines our ability to decide to face a problem or even a fear.  If we don't have it and consider it merely delusional, we have lost before we've begun.  No one thinks that merely hope solves everything and that's a total misrepresentation of things said.  But without hope, you lose.

I know of what I speak, because I've lived the alternative.  It's a lesson that I often preach to friends that struggle and especially when worried that someone I love may die.  My mother was not well most of my life-dad died when I was 16 and it fell on me mostly to take care of her.  I lived a lot of my life worried that I'd come home and she'd be dead, so I lived her death day after day.  I finally decided that I could live like that or I could live with good thoughts about it all, and live with her alive.  That is hope.  It's believing and living a good thing because you don't know which will come true, and it's deciding which one will be a part of your life.  I believe in hope and I believe it is hope that encourages us to do better things, to find solutions, to rely upon ourselves because we believe in ourselves and we don't believe that bad will always win out, even though we know it sometimes will.

I am sorry you can see only the opposite.  I believe in the ability of people to decide to do good things, though I know many will not always do good things.  You believe they need to have it all controlled for them. 

I take heart from the good things people do-you don't seem to think they are capable of such things.  Hope exists as a delusion.

In the face of Hurricane Sandy and a public outcry the New York Marathon (rightly so) was cancelled.  Runners showed up anyway.  They gathered up supplies and ran them out to people in need and then stayed and helped clean up debris.  And in the face of Hurricane Sandy, those places hard hit will recover because the people hope for a better tomorrow than what they have today.  And it is that hope that will drive them to make it so.  I so wish you could see that, Seival.  Hope is one of the most important things a person has.

[Seival]

dreamgazer wrote...

Seival wrote...

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

None of the options are a "permanent solution" to all problems. 

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending is not about solving all problems, it is only about solving one particular major problem.

Modifié par Seival, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[dreamgazer]

Seival wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Seival wrote...

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

None of the options are a "permanent solution" to all problems. 

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending was not about solving all problems, it was only about solving one particular major problem.

Then nobody's reached "the" destination.

Therefore, hope---this presupposed "condition" that you believe fades at some given point---will persevere.

[3DandBeyond]

Seival wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Seival wrote...

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

None of the options are a "permanent solution" to all problems. 

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending was not about solving all problems, it was only about solving one particular major problem.

Synthesis solves nothing permanently.  And this so-called problem is one major ignorant view of things.  You might as well say that solving the conflict between men and women or any such conflict is best handled by creating one conjoined being.  It's ignorant.  Especially if you believe that post-synthesis these new people still have individual personalities.  As such, that means that conflicts will still arise.

Do synthetics still exist-we are not told they don't.  We are told they are given full understanding of organics (but organics no longer exist).  And there is nothing to stop someone from creating new life, either fully organic or fully synthetic, or both.

The only reason synthesis is seen by the kid as solving the problem is because the organic component of the equation no longer exists-in place is a new hybridized being.  That means that synthetics cannot fight with organics because there aren't any.  That doesn't stop conflict-it only makes one form no longer possible temporarily.


The ending was supposed to be about solving one particular problem, the reapers and not this particular problem that was not an insurmountable one.  The question of synth vs. organics was not the problem.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:31 .

[Redbelle]

dreamgazer wrote...

Refuse seems to be the most Paragon option to me as it is the option where Shep doesn't comprimise his integrity even when the stakes are at there highest.

And I disagree with that, too, since it's an act of moral selfishness that (presumably) comdemns everyone to death, but all the endings are open to personal viewpoints that work to both sides. Noble, sure; Justified, sure; "Paragon"? Eh.

I agree that it is morally selfish. In fact I'd go further and say that Shepard's moral stand is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Every advanced race get's destroyed? The Reaper's continue? Definitely not paragon.

...............Waaaaaaaitaminute.

Ghandi refused to fight and suffered as a result. In a movie depicting his life there is a scene of non violent protest where they attempt entry to a camp. The men line up. Walk towards the gate, and are brutally beat down by the British guards. So what happens next?

Another line of men who saw what happened repeat the march. The same thing happens. And as it does a third line witness the brutality. And the fourth lione behind the third. And the fifth. And one after the other, they all march.

The consequences of refuse are harsh. This is a fact there is no escaping from. However, our own history has shown that there are causes in which self preservation take a back seat to defiance of power.

I think in the same film there was a mother weeping after her son who went to join the non violent movement who, like you, says that the son is being selfish for thinking about the movement more than her own peace of mind of her sons well being. She had a point.

The son replied that it is his countries future is his to mold and shape and he cannot do that with taking a moral stand against oppression. He had a point.

There is no easy answer to the moral stance of refuse. Shep is given back his backbone but at the cost of everything. But the upside?.................

The upside is that the next cycle is given the information they require to stand up to the oppression of the Reapers. That moral stand of Shepards? It didn't pay off for him or his cycle but it paid off the next cycle.

Small comfort perhaps. But paragon.

Self destructively paragon. For Shepard's cycle.

But not the next one

If you tolerate this your children <cough>, cycle <cough> will be next.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Seival wrote...

Hope is a delusion which vanishes once you reached the destination. You can't solve the problem only by hoping it will be resolved. To solve a problem you create/sustain a temporary solution hoping it would last long enough, or create a permanent solution which will last forever, without any hopes.

None of the options are a "permanent solution" to all problems. 

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending is not about solving all problems, it is only about solving one particular major problem.

That the Reapers and Catalyst exacerbate into that major problem.

[3DandBeyond]

Refuse can be seen from another point of view other than the idea it is some selfish adherence to morality. It can be considered the one thing that may well doom the galaxy to be destroyed, but does not doom the galaxy to perhaps an even worse life. There are fates worse than death. That sounds so like a platitude, but consider the actions of freedom fighters, today and throughout history. Are the odds stacked against them? Yes, always. How many die knowing they are practically fated to do so, when they could just go home, ignore it all, and live? The life they live is weighed in the balance against the almost certain death they may face, but that life is a fate worse than death.

I don't view it as a moral issue in this sense.  I view it as rather more practical.  I've argued the moral aspects of the choices, but there are also pragmatic ones.  If you are the "giver of life" to others, then you better damn well be sure that you are not consigning them to a fate worse than death.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[dreamgazer]

Seival, you're making your viewpoint sound more and more like the foundation for utopia.

And there are many, many classic science-fiction works---and authors---that have a thing or two to say against that notion.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:54 .

[ld1449]

Seival wrote...

(1) "I'll give you my conclusions," Jason said, twisting in the chair, trying to find a comfortable position for his aching bones. "I've been doing a lot of thinking the last day or two, searching for the answer. The very first thing I realized, was that the perfect and logical solution wouldn't do at all. I'm afraid the old ideal of the lion lying down with the lamb doesn't work out in practice. About all it does is make a fast lunch for the lion. Ideally, now that you all know the real causes of your trouble, you should tear down the perimeter and have the city and forest people mingle in brotherly love. Makes just as pretty a picture as the one of lion and lamb. And would undoubtedly have the same result. Someone would remember how really filthy the grubbers are, or how stupid junkmen can be, and there would be a fresh corpse cooling. The fight would spread and the victors would be eaten by the wildlife that swarmed over the undefended perimeter. No, the answer isn't that easy."

Though I can vaguely see the paralells here, this really just invalidates control and synthesis further if you consider the Lion as the Reapers and the Lamb as us. I'm really not seeing how exactly this helps your argument at all.

Seival wrote...

(2) "If we're going to find a decent plan for the future, we'll have to take inertia into consideration. Mental inertia for one. Just because you know a thing is true in theory, doesn't make it true in fact. The barbaric religions of primitive worlds hold not a germ of scientific fact, though they claim to explain all. Yet if one of these savages has all the logical ground
for his beliefs taken away—he doesn't stop believing. He then calls his mistaken beliefs 'faith' because he knows they are right. And he knows they are right because he has faith. This is an unbreakable circle of false logic that can't be touched. In reality, it is plain mental inertia. A case of thinking 'what always was' will also 'always be.' And not wanting to blast the thinking patterns out of the old rut.

Again, not seeing how exactly this helps you.

"Just because you know a thing is true in theory doesn't make it fact"

'Just because you know Control/synthesis/destruction can work in theory doesn't make it fact.

Or taken a bit more literal. "Just because you know any genius sci-fi writer would "love" ME3's ending in theory does not make it fact."

So no matter what is said or unsaid in this thread you have an unbreakable circle of false logic based on the notion that this ending is "good" and nothing will break you out of it. So how does that make you any different from the barbaric religions he mentions???

If you're trying to draw paralells between the people who dislike the ending with the "mental innertia" tid bit, and saying that we'll always fall into the pattern, you'd be wrong. That Ending Mod that just remade the catalyst to be a prothean VI proves such. People don't hate that one even though it offers the same outcome and the same alternatives because the key piece that makes the ending ultimately revolting (Catalyst) has been removed.

If you're going to answer that people will fall into the mental inertia bit because they hate on the Catalyst, that would be an ass backwards answer. Its like saying I don't want to put my hand back in the fire because I know fire burns. "Mental inertia"

In this case we don't wan't to swallow the Catalyst because its a disgusting character all round.

Seival wrote...

(3) "Mental inertia alone is not going to cause trouble—there is cultural inertia, too. Some of you in this room believe my conclusions and would like to change. But will all your people change? The unthinking ones, the habit-ridden, reflex-formed people who know what is now, will always be. They'll act like a drag on whatever plans you make, whatever attempts you undertake to progress with the new knowledge you have." "Then it's useless—there's no hope for our world?" Rhes asked.

...Harry Harrison, "Deathworld", 1960.

Again, if you're trying to draw paralells with the anti enders and the habit ridden people described here, its highly innacurate, draws uppon gross assumption and tries to paint everyone here with the same brush stroke.

And also truth be told makes me want to simply tell you to "**** off" so its not doing you any favors.

[HellbirdIV]

Seival wrote...

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending is not about solving all problems, it is only about solving one particular major problem.

How?

How does Synthesis prevent one species, organic, synthetic or cyborg, from attaining the power and immorality to choose all non-them life must be annihilated?

How does Synthesis prevent new, pure organic life from evolving? Do the cyborgs just assimilate/annihilate any new life-forms that are wholly organic, thereby committing the very act that synthesis allegedly prevents?

How does Synthesis prevent new, pure synthetic life from being constructed? The technology is still very much present and, unless Synthesis completley brainwashes everyone afflicted - thereby being one of the most despicably horrific things imaginable to inflict on the universe - the desire to create synthetic life must still exist.

If you want to argue that we are to presume a level of sophistication and meaningful thought to the endings, then you must provide an answer to questions that challenge the ending's alleged sophistication beyond "The brainwashed EDI in the epilogue says it's all good so it is".

[3DandBeyond]

ld1449 wrote...

Seival wrote...

(3) "Mental inertia alone is not going to cause trouble—there is cultural inertia, too. Some of you in this room believe my conclusions and would like to change. But will all your people change? The unthinking ones, the habit-ridden, reflex-formed people who know what is now, will always be. They'll act like a drag on whatever plans you make, whatever attempts you undertake to progress with the new knowledge you have." "Then it's useless—there's no hope for our world?" Rhes asked.

...Harry Harrison, "Deathworld", 1960.

Again, if you're trying to draw paralells with the anti enders and the habit ridden people described here, its highly innacurate, draws uppon gross assumption and tries to paint everyone here with the same brush stroke.

And also truth be told makes me want to simply tell you to "**** off" so its not doing you any favors.

This is the thing.  Apparently we are all supposed to have a hive mind, according to the OP, but need to adopt a different hive mind.  We supposedly don't have any independent thought and are reacting to what others think, but then he himself makes every attempt to sound like he's been indoctrinated because others helped him see the light.  Makes me want to vomit.

I have my own brain and I knew nothing of this controversy upon playing ME3.  I was aghast after my initial WTF moments began to wear off.  I got the gasp ending because I'd played some MP before getting to the ending.  I searched the web to see what I'd done wrong and saw some people's post that there was a best ending.  Surely I had not gotten that so I wanted to find out how to get it and I found these forums.  Again, I was aghast and figured something else was in the works.  Then I read that I got the best I could hope to get.  I contributed my own individual thoughts on the matter.  And the EC failed to come through.  I've formed my own opinions on the endings and didn't need anyone's help to have them-my opinions existed on their own.

The OP apparently needed help to understand the endings.  I didn't.  I fully understand them and I don't like them.  I have my own brain.  I'm an adult, capable of making it up all on my own and have never followed a crowd. 

[DrGunjah]

Seival wrote...
Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending is not about solving all problems, it is only about solving one particular major problem.

How can an one time event lead to a permanent solution?
The beam can't affect any life that isn't yet there. New organic life will arise someday, just like "your children will build new synthetics" after choosing destroy. So either you will have to fire your green beam again every X years or find another way to "assimilate" new organic life.

[3DandBeyond]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending is not about solving all problems, it is only about solving one particular major problem.

How?

How does Synthesis prevent one species, organic, synthetic or cyborg, from attaining the power and immorality to choose all non-them life must be annihilated?

How does Synthesis prevent new, pure organic life from evolving? Do the cyborgs just assimilate/annihilate any new life-forms that are wholly organic, thereby committing the very act that synthesis allegedly prevents?

How does Synthesis prevent new, pure synthetic life from being constructed? The technology is still very much present and, unless Synthesis completley brainwashes everyone afflicted - thereby being one of the most despicably horrific things imaginable to inflict on the universe - the desire to create synthetic life must still exist.

If you want to argue that we are to presume a level of sophistication and meaningful thought to the endings, then you must provide an answer to questions that challenge the ending's alleged sophistication beyond "The brainwashed EDI in the epilogue says it's all good so it is".

+100

The only thing that provides any clue as to the choices being good ideas are the slides and some of the narration.  But none of that is known to Shepard nor is it evidence.  It's perception.  And it's the writers trying to gloss over the glaring errors of the original endings.  Many fall for the trick.  It's cognitive dissonance at its most ridiculous.  You are told nothing fundamentally that should make the choices palatable.  But, some think because there are pretty slides and cool eyes and great narratiion, that all is well.  Sophistication is so not in existence here.  These are the tricks and attempts to fix the depressing nature of the original endings, and nothing more.

What it all comes down to is if you do ask someone to truly consider the choices, they cannot usually take each one and describe the good it does.  It comes down to the need for balance or to make tough choices because it's war, man.  Or to disallow an easy way out or to show this was a dark game.  But eventually it all comes down to "of course we won, look at the slides, listen to the narration, view the cutscenes.  We won."  That's not proof of anything.

Synthesis either creates a Stepford galaxy where even fish and ferns are fully integrated and directed by some tech from some mysterious source, or it leaves all as autonomous, fully individual personalities fully capable of re-imagining new as well as the same old conflicts.  And, neither one even is a good thing.


These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 novembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[dreamgazer]

3DandBeyond wrote...

These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

No, it's pretty obvious they could've gone a simpler route to just "end" this, complete with explosions and LI kisses and fist-pumps.

And they did put rational and intellectual thought into the choices, evidenced by how they conflict with the story's themes and precedents, how they play into the characters' alignments, and how the audience views science-fiction as a genre---as well as the meta perspective of the implications. They just didn't didn't put enough into it to focus the perspective, and they weren't thorough with the practicality of their execution.

[Kabooooom]

Uhhh OP, the issue is NOT the concept of the ending - it could have worked just fine. The issue is how it was handled. It is horrible, horrible writing. There is a deus ex machina in the last ten minutes, which is caused by simultaneously introducing a brand new character that wasn't even foreshadowed in the original game, which is accompanied by reversing the potential goal of the protagonist via a sudden "reveal", which is followed by the protagonist almost completely going out of character.

It could have worked fine, but I have a hard time believing that any writer would think that the ending was good from a literary perspective.

So I don't really know what point you are trying to make. Would other sci-fi writers accept the idea? Certainly, since the ending is pretty much a sci-fi cliche. But they wouldn't accept the way that it was handled.I think you've somewhat missed the point. 

Modifié par Kabooooom, 05 novembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[dreman9999]

Redbelle wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Refuse seems to be the most Paragon option to me as it is the option where Shep doesn't comprimise his integrity even when the stakes are at there highest.

And I disagree with that, too, since it's an act of moral selfishness that (presumably) comdemns everyone to death, but all the endings are open to personal viewpoints that work to both sides. Noble, sure; Justified, sure; "Paragon"? Eh.

I agree that it is morally selfish. In fact I'd go further and say that Shepard's moral stand is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Every advanced race get's destroyed? The Reaper's continue? Definitely not paragon.

...............Waaaaaaaitaminute.

Ghandi refused to fight and suffered as a result. In a movie depicting his life there is a scene of non violent protest where they attempt entry to a camp. The men line up. Walk towards the gate, and are brutally beat down by the British guards. So what happens next?

Another line of men who saw what happened repeat the march. The same thing happens. And as it does a third line witness the brutality. And the fourth lione behind the third. And the fifth. And one after the other, they all march.

The consequences of refuse are harsh. This is a fact there is no escaping from. However, our own history has shown that there are causes in which self preservation take a back seat to defiance of power.

I think in the same film there was a mother weeping after her son who went to join the non violent movement who, like you, says that the son is being selfish for thinking about the movement more than her own peace of mind of her sons well being. She had a point.

The son replied that it is his countries future is his to mold and shape and he cannot do that with taking a moral stand against oppression. He had a point.

There is no easy answer to the moral stance of refuse. Shep is given back his backbone but at the cost of everything. But the upside?.................

The upside is that the next cycle is given the information they require to stand up to the oppression of the Reapers. That moral stand of Shepards? It didn't pay off for him or his cycle but it paid off the next cycle.

Small comfort perhaps. But paragon.

Self destructively paragon. For Shepard's cycle.

But not the next one

If you tolerate this your children <cough>, cycle <cough> will be next.

Your comparing Ghandi  situation to Shepards?......
Oh my god thatis grasping for straws.

There situations are no where near the same. The british empire was open to statement form their citazensand werenotabout to kill off everyone in india.Ghandi 's situation was not one of fighting or dieing, just independemdence through non violence insted of violence. And the only reason it work is because Britten was hammered in ww2 and sawit point less to hold on to a region that did nothing.

[ld1449]

dreamgazer wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

No, it's pretty obvious they could've gone a simpler route to just "end" this, complete with explosions and LI kisses and fist-pumps.

And they did put rational and intellectual thought into the choices, evidenced by how they conflict with the story's themes and precedents, how they play into the characters' alignments, and how the audience views science-fiction as a genre---as well as the meta perspective of the implications. They just didn't didn't put enough into it to focus the perspective, and they weren't thorough with the practicality of their execution.

So...according to you...a ****up means its well thought out?

Why didn't I have you as my Literature teacher in college. My life would have been so simple.

[Davik Kang]

Kabooooom wrote...
Uhhh OP, the issue is NOT the concept of the ending - it could have worked just fine. The issue is how it was handled. It is horrible, horrible writing. There is a deus ex machina in the last ten minutes, which is caused by simultaneously introducing a brand new character that wasn't even foreshadowed in the original game, which is accompanied by reversing the potential goal of the protagonist via a sudden "reveal", which is followed by the protagonist almost completely going out of character.

It could have worked fine, but I have a hard time believing that any writer would think that the ending was good from a literary perspective.

So I don't really know what point you are trying to make. Would other sci-fi writers accept the idea? Certainly, since the ending is pretty much a sci-fi cliche. But they wouldn't accept the way that it was handled.

I disagree that it's a Deus Ex Machina...

[3DandBeyond]

dreamgazer wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

No, it's pretty obvious they could've gone a simpler route to just "end" this, complete with explosions and LI kisses and fist-pumps.

And they did put rational and intellectual thought into the choices, evidenced by how they conflict with the story's themes and precedents, how they play into the characters' alignments, and how the audience views science-fiction as a genre---as well as the meta perspective of the implications. They just didn't didn't put enough into it to focus the perspective, and they weren't thorough with the practicality of their execution.

Agreed and I will admit to being somewhat hyperbolic here.  I meant their execution of all of this was not intellectual and was juvenile, it was not rationally given cohesion with what came before.  It could well work as an ending to some story, but not this one and not in this way.  That's the problem.  I could no more see the show "Six Feet Under" ending with everyone skipping through a field of daisies and meeting God and sipping margaritas while discussing Kierkegaard than I could see these endings fitting here.  That show had endings appropriate to the nature of the show, character based and in keeping with what the show was about.  It made them smart and sophisticated.

I just mean that they slapped this stuff onto ME3 in order to end it (the original endings were abrupt and lacking of any exposition).  But, all they really had to do was to end it-create a rational follow through for all the events that occurred.  It almost seems like the EC was always planned, but the original endings were just to get the thing out the door.

[dreamgazer]

ld1449 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

No, it's pretty obvious they could've gone a simpler route to just "end" this, complete with explosions and LI kisses and fist-pumps.

And they did put rational and intellectual thought into the choices, evidenced by how they conflict with the story's themes and precedents, how they play into the characters' alignments, and how the audience views science-fiction as a genre---as well as the meta perspective of the implications. They just didn't didn't put enough into it to focus the perspective, and they weren't thorough with the practicality of their execution.

So...according to you...a ****up means its well thought out?

Why didn't I have you as my Literature teacher in college. My life would have been so simple.

Did I ever say a "**** up"? No.  I said how choosing between the options creates a conflict with the story's themes and precedents.

You don't have to pick any specific choice.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 05 novembre 2012 - 04:36 .

[dreman9999]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synthesis is permanent solution to organic-vs-synthetic problem. And the ending is not about solving all problems, it is only about solving one particular major problem.

How?

How does Synthesis prevent one species, organic, synthetic or cyborg, from attaining the power and immorality to choose all non-them life must be annihilated?

How does Synthesis prevent new, pure organic life from evolving? Do the cyborgs just assimilate/annihilate any new life-forms that are wholly organic, thereby committing the very act that synthesis allegedly prevents?

How does Synthesis prevent new, pure synthetic life from being constructed? The technology is still very much present and, unless Synthesis completley brainwashes everyone afflicted - thereby being one of the most despicably horrific things imaginable to inflict on the universe - the desire to create synthetic life must still exist.

If you want to argue that we are to presume a level of sophistication and meaningful thought to the endings, then you must provide an answer to questions that challenge the ending's alleged sophistication beyond "The brainwashed EDI in the epilogue says it's all good so it is".

The issue here is not the state of synthetic life that is the problem. It about the state of both synthtic and organic life. Both equal case the problem on hand. Organics by their starting acting and synthetic by their reaction.

After that each attemt to impose order make things worse. The only way to stop the conflict is if organic and synthetic life colaberate.

Synthesis does that.....But by controling every thing. Not one side has the advantade, but both comrimises there free will.

[Kabooooom]

Davik Kang wrote...

I disagree that it's a Deus Ex Machina...

From your thread:

But the StarKid is not a DEM.  It is presented as one, if you take what he says as true.

The fact that it is presented as one is pretty much all that matters from a literary perspective. It is one, at least superficially, and was handled just as bad as DEM's typically are. Could the concept have been modified such that it absolutely would not be a DEM, based on similar logic to your own, had it been done better? Yes, absolutely.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

These are extremely juvenile choices, derived from other stories, taken out of context and slapped into this game with no rational or intellectual thought attached.  They were simply a way to end this.

No, it's pretty obvious they could've gone a simpler route to just "end" this, complete with explosions and LI kisses and fist-pumps.

And they did put rational and intellectual thought into the choices, evidenced by how they conflict with the story's themes and precedents, how they play into the characters' alignments, and how the audience views science-fiction as a genre---as well as the meta perspective of the implications. They just didn't didn't put enough into it to focus the perspective, and they weren't thorough with the practicality of their execution.

Agreed and I will admit to being somewhat hyperbolic here.  I meant their execution of all of this was not intellectual and was juvenile, it was not rationally given cohesion with what came before.  It could well work as an ending to some story, but not this one and not in this way.  That's the problem.  I could no more see the show "Six Feet Under" ending with everyone skipping through a field of daisies and meeting God and sipping margaritas while discussing Kierkegaard than I could see these endings fitting here.  That show had endings appropriate to the nature of the show, character based and in keeping with what the show was about.  It made them smart and sophisticated.

I just mean that they slapped this stuff onto ME3 in order to end it (the original endings were abrupt and lacking of any exposition).  But, all they really had to do was to end it-create a rational follow through for all the events that occurred.  It almost seems like the EC was always planned, but the original endings were just to get the thing out the door.

The original excution was. This time they put more though. It's not bad because the questionisextreme and thechoice they have you don't like.