639 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

fr33stylez wrote...

Then what's the point of synthesis? What did it change? Was it simply a brainwash of everyone in the galaxy?

That's the thing it really needed to answer and never did (it possibly needed to answer that question even more than "How is something that ridiculous-sounding supposed to work?" and "Isn't that the most gross violation of privacy ever imagined?")

[Nerevar-as]

What A Boshtet wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Destroy ending headcanons.
1. people are okay with no longer having synthetics.
2. all of your squadmates approve of it, joker fine with losing edi, quarians fine with losing geth.

But it's not /just/ synthetics. They basically go way back technologically and it doesn't solve the "chaos" issue. Also, i don't remember Joker saying he was fine about losing EDI and the Quarians are only okay with losing the Geth because they're being attacked. After you make peace, they use the Geth to rebuild. 

Pure order is as bad as pure chaos (which isn´t the case). Catalyst represents ultimate order/law, and will eventually reduce the galaxy to charred planets and a reaper coded from those self aware species it deemed worthy. Uncontable plant and animal life destroyed, everyplanet that ever evolved sapient life bombed to destruction.

I´m not getting something that caused such thing around.

[Nerevar-as]

Reorte wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Then what's the point of synthesis? What did it change? Was it simply a brainwash of everyone in the galaxy?

That's the thing it really needed to answer and never did (it possibly needed to answer that question even more than "How is something that ridiculous-sounding supposed to work?" and "Isn't that the most gross violation of privacy ever imagined?")

God did it. Really, all the things it must change in every kind of life, in an instant and flawlessly. Space magic falls very short.

[Bill Casey]

drayfish wrote...

I was saying that the metaphor of organic and synthetic growing beyond an irrational fear of each other, learning to respect one another as disparate races with much to offer and learn, is rather severely undermined when you arbitrarilly synthesise the two races together.  No one learns anything, they are just homogenised into a samey oneness:

'Okay people - rather than black and white coming together, respecting each other and celebrating our diversity, we're just going to make everyone green.'

There's no ideological growth; division isn't transcended, it is ignored and erased.  No one learns anything - just like each of the other endings.

"We have tried... a similar solution in the past"




I'm not kidding when I say the artbook uses the term synthesis to describe brutes...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[RogueBot]

David7204 wrote...

Is 'headcanon' really the most mature term to use for this sort of thing?

"I have one simple request, and that is to have fans with frickin' canons attached to their heads!"

-Casey Hudson

[SeptimusMagistos]

fr33stylez wrote...

So? The Catalyst's logic was based on the 'morals' of stopping conflict between organics and synthetics, which is a pretty noble cause.

No. It was based on the task of doing that.

fr33stylez wrote...
Shepard's morals has nothing to do with the methods ShepAI will use to achieve such goals.

Pretty sure that's exactly what morals are for.

fr33stylez wrote...
There's nothing stopping ShepAI from create a Reaper-like solution (or any seemingly distasteful solution) if it concludes this is the best way to achieve its objective.

Sure there is. Concern for well-being and dignity of sapient individuals.

fr33stylez wrote...
To simply think that another AI, bounded by a mandate, in control of the Reapers will turn out OK just because it came from Shepard to me is naive, especially based on what the narrative up until now has explained.

But the Shepard AI isn't bounded by a mandate.

fr33stylez wrote...
The Catalyst came to the conclusion to make Reapers not because it's evil, so that's not really relevant. What exactly is so different about ShepAI taking over the reigns from the Catalyst?

Not being shackled by a mandate.

fr33stylez wrote...
How will ShepAI enforce galactic peace, with the threat of violence?

Mostly the upper left dialogue choice. Selective violence against the evil people. Close cooperation with the Council.

fr33stylez wrote...
What will ShepAI conclude when wars break out over the next millenia and people continue to fight as they have doen since the beginning of time?

Absolutely nothing since he knew all this from the first nanosecond of being an AI and is evidently fine with it?

fr33stylez wrote...
The narrative of ME clearly shows what happens the first time.

That's like saying that because Saren was a bad Spectre no one should be a Spectre.

[MassEffect23]

Is it just me or did someone not care at all when they looked at the ednjng and said well this sucks but are fans are so loyal they wont(artist integrity be damned)

[Nerevar-as]

MassEffect23 wrote...

Is it just me or did someone not care at all when they looked at the ednjng and said well this sucks but are fans are so loyal they wont(artist integrity be damned)

I´m afraid you can only get something this bad by believing it was utterly brilliant, so much that they didn´t even bother to check with the rest of the team.

[Steelcan]

MassEffect23 wrote...

Is it just me or did someone not care at all when they looked at the ednjng and said well this sucks but are fans are so loyal they wont(artist integrity be damned)

Pretty much

[Bourne Endeavor]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Bourne Endeavour:
I concede the point that the story does not properly lead up to some of the endings as they are presented. Destroy and to some degree Renegade Control are the only options that naturally fit, without re-interpreting previous events. However, I find it rather obvious how the other options were meant to come across, and I take them that way regardless of their less than satisfactory representation in the story. Is it a big storytelling flaw? Yes of course it is. It a really epic failure on Bioware's part, very likely the result of not enough advance planning, and I think they know it. But I play as if I'm writing the story of my Shepard with my game, not reading it. Which means I can supply the missing details myself and make it all make sense.

That is a fair assessment, and itself how I am able to accept the endings with any sort of rationality. Once broken down to their core or even the perceived concept, then built back up with our own interpretation of them, do they work, at least to an extent. I readily admit Destroy is not problem free. Ironically, it is technically the "worst" of all four endings, not due to the Geth or anything, but because the Catalyst is who presents it. Were it lying, then it just invoked suicide, yet if not, it has allowed Shepard to undo a billion year cycle and the countless lost lives were for nothing. Likewise, it only delays the purported conflict, not that I believe there ever were any.

What it essentially boils down to is all the endings are horribly flawed due to horrendous execution but not necessarily their design. Control and Synthesis possess far too much skepticism because of their source, while Destroy is illogical to even be an option.

What I find almost comical, is if we omit the "I'm the Reaper hivemind" remark and instead assume the Catalyst is some form of VI/AI to the Crucible, comparable to say, Vigil. It goes a long way to help all the endings.

In the end, it's a matter of preference. I thematically associate Destroy with a Romantic and Lovecraftian attitude to things, the idea that there are things we aren't meant to know, that we'll lose our humanity if we embrace the unknown and that it's best that we stick with the traditional and fight the "other" if it comes knocking at our door because it's likely to be horrific and do horrific things to us anyway. It's an ideological stance I despise like no other, and as a result I'm almost physically unable to choose Destroy. As soon as I do, the Shepard who did immediately ceases to be "my" Shepard and I lose all identification. Others may feel the same about, say, Synthesis. The difference is, unlike some others here on BSN I don't go on anti-Destroy crusades because I know and accept that others don't share my ideological stance.

I'll grand you, that is an interesting interpretation to the foils of Destroy. I tend to view Destroy as the ultimate form of pragmatism. What the unknown is becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, for to assure our survival, we must eliminate the galaxy's greatest adversary once and for all. Saren and TIM stood has prior own pseudo-avatars and embarked on a different path, which cost them everything. Despite the unfortunate loss, we cannot take this risk.

That is my perspective toward Destroy. I normally ascribe to "filling the blanks" as you mentioned. In some instances, I will substitute Koobismo's comics, others I drop the Geth sacrifice because it is so poorly written. I have even canonized Control, albeit my own variation of it. And for that reason I will clarify my stance is not to say Control or even Synthesis are necessarily wrong. Just from a purely factual point, where we are not "headcanoning" stuff the narrative failed to address. They pose a number of issues, but then again, as mentioned, so does Destroy.

[Shaigunjoe]

drayfish wrote...

Again, not sure that this is really related to the point that I was making. 

I was saying that the metaphor of organic and synthetic growing beyond an irrational fear of each other, learning to respect one another as disparate races with much to offer and learn, is rather severely undermined when you arbitrarilly synthesise the two races together.  No one learns anything, they are just homogenised into a samey oneness:

'Okay people - rather than black and white coming together, respecting each other and celebrating our diversity, we're just going to make everyone green.'

There's no ideological growth; division isn't transcended, it is ignored and erased.  No one learns anything - just like each of the other endings.

To clarify, you are saying synthesis ends diversity.  I am saying that it doesn't end diversity physically, and idealogically we don't really know.  Yes, they are green, but are they pure green?  No, they are not.  Synthesis suggestes the merging of ideas, which is exactly how we learn and grow anyway.

The game was never about everyone elses idealogies anyway.  It was about Sheps,  and over the course of the game he/she shapes the universe in his/her idealogy.  Honestly, my Sheps idealogy never changed, there was nothing that really challenged it, Mass Effect was never a game, like say The Walking Dead, that would toy with your idealogies and force you to question them, you could pretty much keep the same throughout without any issues.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

I'll grand you, that is an interesting interpretation to the foils of Destroy. I tend to view Destroy as the ultimate form of pragmatism. What the unknown is becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, for to assure our survival, we must eliminate the galaxy's greatest adversary once and for all. Saren and TIM stood has prior own pseudo-avatars and embarked on a different path, which cost them everything. Despite the unfortunate loss, we cannot take this risk.

This might be where you differ from those who pick something other than destroy. I've been taking risks all game and so far it's worked out fabulously. I'm not going to reverse the course at this point. I'm not going to sacrifice countless individuals and permanently cut down on the diversity of sapient life in the galaxy just because I'm afraid of what might happen at some point in the future.

[macrocarl]

There are plot points in the game that were written to be open to interpretation. The devs have said that over and over. So since that was intentional, how can any of it be 'head cannon'? It's there to be interpreted not ignored and imagined as something it is not. And so since the endings fall under the 'open to interpretation' category as long as you're using info within the game, you can't be wrong.

[CosmicGnosis]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

In the end, it's a matter of preference. I thematically associate Destroy with a Romantic and Lovecraftian attitude to things, the idea that there are things we aren't meant to know, that we'll lose our humanity if we embrace the unknown and that it's best that we stick with the traditional and fight the "other" if it comes knocking at our door because it's likely to be horrific and do horrific things to us anyway. It's an ideological stance I despise like no other, and as a result I'm almost physically unable to choose Destroy. As soon as I do, the Shepard who did immediately ceases to be "my" Shepard and I lose all identification. Others may feel the same about, say, Synthesis. The difference is, unlike some others here on BSN I don't go on anti-Destroy crusades because I know and accept that others don't share my ideological stance.

I'll grand you, that is an interesting interpretation to the foils of Destroy. I tend to view Destroy as the ultimate form of pragmatism. What the unknown is becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, for to assure our survival, we must eliminate the galaxy's greatest adversary once and for all. Saren and TIM stood has prior own pseudo-avatars and embarked on a different path, which cost them everything. Despite the unfortunate loss, we cannot take this risk.

That is my perspective toward Destroy. I normally ascribe to "filling the blanks" as you mentioned. In some instances, I will substitute Koobismo's comics, others I drop the Geth sacrifice because it is so poorly written. I have even canonized Control, albeit my own variation of it. And for that reason I will clarify my stance is not to say Control or even Synthesis are necessarily wrong. Just from a purely factual point, where we are not "headcanoning" stuff the narrative failed to address. They pose a number of issues, but then again, as mentioned, so does Destroy.

Yes, Ieldra's interpretation of Destroy is what has moved me away from it. The endings make some sense when you view them like this:

Destroy - The organic choice.
Control - The synthetic choice.
Synthesis - The organic-synthetic choice.

I know Synthesis has some rather twisted implications, but that applies to every choice.

[AdmiralCheez]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I know Synthesis has some rather twisted implications, but that applies to every choice.

Psst.  Hey, Cosmic.

*points to link in signature*

A little rough around the edges due to it being made by amateurs with limited resources, but the only unpleasant implication it contains is the fact that fan material is better than the professional stuff once you remove the million dollar production values.

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Then what's the point of synthesis? What did it change? Was it simply a brainwash of everyone in the galaxy?

That's the thing it really needed to answer and never did (it possibly needed to answer that question even more than "How is something that ridiculous-sounding supposed to work?" and "Isn't that the most gross violation of privacy ever imagined?")

The EC explains: organics will gain the ability to seamlessly integrate technology, which will bring them to be up on par with synthetics regarding speed of advancement. Thus, organics will no longer be outpaced and out-evolved by synthetics, which was the reason for the extinction scenario. This is really the only change needed, but since it would be thematically unbalanced to only change organics synthetics gain "full understanding of organics". 

For more details, read the Synthesis Compendium OP and JShepppp's excellent thread "Why the Catalyst's logic is right II"

Granted, this is insufficiently explained in the ending, but the leaked script and JShepppp's analysis are good evidence that that's the logic behind it.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The EC explains: organics will gain the ability to seamlessly integrate technology, which will bring them to be up on par with synthetics regarding speed of advancement. Thus, organics will no longer be outpaced and out-evolved by synthetics, which was the reason for the extinction scenario. This is really the only change needed, but since it would be thematically unbalanced to only change organics synthetics gain "full understanding of organics". 

For more details, read the Synthesis Compendium OP and JShepppp's excellent thread "Why the Catalyst's logic is right II"

Granted, this is insufficiently explained in the ending, but the leaked script and JShepppp's analysis are good evidence that that's the logic behind it.

That's certainly one interpretation of Synthesis.

See my sig for another, equally valid interpretation.

[Ieldra]

Except that IT has no positive evidence going for it, there isn't even a hint about it in any of the known material, published or not, and it must assume that the epilogue slides have some different underlying reality which isn't shown. I'd say this is a rather long stretch.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Except that IT has no positive evidence going for it, there isn't even a hint about it in any of the known material, published or not, and it must assume that the epilogue slides have some different underlying reality which isn't shown. I'd say this is a rather long stretch.

OK, ignoring the selective blindness regarding IT for a moment, I'll try and be clearer.  I wasn't referring to the IT.

I was referring to Synthesis being foreshadowed throughout the Mass Effect series, in the rather disturbing visions and warnings given to you by the Prothean beacons.



Synthesis is also foreshadowed by the very enemies you fight throughout the Mass Effect series.  Namely, the Husks, the Banshees, the Brutes, the Cannibals, the Marauders, the Collectors, Saren, the Reapers themselves.  Three games, Ieldra2.  Three games worth of desperate fighting against organic/synthetic hybrids.  That's not exactly a stretch, is it?

[Ieldra]

Except.....that doesn't happen, ElSuperGecko. Even in the original endings it's very clear that the results of the Synthesis are nothing like that.

The EC shows that people are still themselves. Both species and characters act in accordance with what we know of them, with only the krogan under Wreav being a problem. There is no shred of positive evidence for any kind of Reaper control.

I concede that the associations you're making are not entirely implausible, but they're just that - associations. I never made them, not even for a moment and not even after the original endings. In fact, I was totally flabbergasted when people associated Synthesis with "everyone is turned into a husk". Not just because it doesn't happen, as we clearly see, but also because I always separate the workings of a technology from the goals it is put to. Even, and especially, Reaper technology. I've done so since the start of the ME trilogy. The association "Reaper tech = evil" is something that never took hold. Technology is just that: a tool. My stance has been consistent throughout the trilogy.

Now you're going to ask: how then is it plausible to assume that the Catalyst will use the technology for a better outcome, given its history? And yet again, my answer is: (1) "The Crucible changed me". It is a plausible assumption that the Crucible initiates the transformation, not the Catalyst. Yes, there's "little more than a power source", which results in a contradiction, but if I must reject one side in order to make sense of it, I see no reason to reject the former instead of the latter. (2) it has already won. If it wanted just more Reaperization-analogues, it could've left Shepard to die at the elevator platform. Also, there are the thematic considerations. Yet again, I concede those may be a little thin as a rationalization for roleplaying, but they nonetheless exist.

For all those reasons and in the light of what the EC shows and tells us, I find it a very long stretch to assume that there is some secret underlying reality which is bad. Add the meta-level reasons and the assumption becomes completely unbelievable.

Edit:
As opposed to IT, I find your association chain plausible enough to concede that "Too much Reaper influence" may be a plausible reason to reject Synthesis as an ending. However, I maintain that this is not a moral consideration, and I would like to stress that different players have different associations with what we're shown, according to our different personalities and ideological stances. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:14 .

[ElSuperGecko]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
Except.....that doesn't happen, ElSuperGecko. Even in the original endings it's very clear that the results of the Synthesis are nothing like that.[/quote]
And therein lies the problem, Ieldra2 - you cannot decide Synthesis is a viable solution based upon what you see in the endings (let alone the Extended Cut endings, as they were not part of the original game and only released afterwards to quell discontent).

Picking Synthesis because you know what happens afterwards is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket because you know for sure what the numbers will be.

It's a Schrodinger's Cat situation.  When Shepard is in the decision chamber, confronted by the Catalyst, you have to forget everything you already know about the endings because unless your Shepard is clairvoyant and can accurately predict the future, they will have no idea of what the end result of their decision will be.  You can use the endings to justify your decision if you like, but you can't use them to quantify it.

The Catalyst tells us very little about Synthesis.  It advocates it, it clearly prefers it to the other options, it calls it the "perfect solution", but gives us very little to go on when making our decision.  All we can do is draw upon the empirical evidence we have ALREADY seen - throughout the Mass Effect Trilogy - to determine what the best course of action will be.

And with regards to Synthesis... well, you already have my conclusions. 

The message from the Prothean beacon was a warning.  And it very clearly shows organic and synthetic parts being merged.  It does not look like a pleasant process.

Saren was also a warning.  He truly believed that he was a "vision of the future".  His arguments are stirringly similar to those employed by the Catalyst.  And yet - he was indoctrinated, he was being manipulated, and ultimately was a traitor to his own kind.

The Collectors were also a warning.  The Catalyst tells us that it is trying to preserve life.  What has it preserved of the Protheans?  Their culture, their history, their society - they are all gone, extinguished forever.  They were not given Reaper form.  They were turned into a organic/synthetic hybrid slave race.  How many other races have suffered a similar fate?

But the ultimate decider for me, the key element in my dislike for Synthesis, is that it is not our own solution.  Not a single one of our friends, allies, team mates or love interests considers it for a second.  It is the Catalyst's solution, the Catalyst's idea, the Catalyst's plan - all we do is put it into motion, with very little understanding of the consequences.  We do so on trust - on the word of the being that created this entire nightmare the galaxy is facing.  And we do so despite knowing the Catalyst's arguments are flawed, despite knowing that the Catalyst is an unfeeling, emotionless machine with understanding of the concept of life, and we do it despite knowing and experiencing first-hand what horrors the Catalyst unleashed upon the galaxy with it's original solution.[/quote]

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 15 novembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

I'll grand you, that is an interesting interpretation to the foils of Destroy. I tend to view Destroy as the ultimate form of pragmatism. What the unknown is becomes irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, for to assure our survival, we must eliminate the galaxy's greatest adversary once and for all. Saren and TIM stood has prior own pseudo-avatars and embarked on a different path, which cost them everything. Despite the unfortunate loss, we cannot take this risk.

This might be where you differ from those who pick something other than destroy. I've been taking risks all game and so far it's worked out fabulously. I'm not going to reverse the course at this point. I'm not going to sacrifice countless individuals and permanently cut down on the diversity of sapient life in the galaxy just because I'm afraid of what might happen at some point in the future.

Fair enough, my issue with that, as mentioned earlier, is the narrative not providing any evidence or exposition regarding the Catalyst's rationale and essentially saying, "it's right because" Sort of like a frustrated parent's response to "why?" The concept is not flawed, just the execution.

What I find terribly ironic were if they omitted the Catalyst as ReaperGod and made it similar to Vigil; a VI of the Crucible. They would have eliminated one of the biggest problems.

[Mathias]

The Catalyst said Synthesis cannot be forced, but that's exactly what ended up happening. Shepard jumped into a beam of light, melted and a green beam of magic spread across the galaxy and turned every organic into half synthetic without their knowledge or consent. And then the game tries to show us that organics are IMMEDIATELY ok with this.

Sorry but no. People are not that simple and to be frank it's a bit immature of the writers to think like that. If something like this happened in the real world, there would be mass panicking across the globe. You can't just completely alter everybodies genetic structure without warning, explanation or consent and expect them to say,
"Thanks Bro! "

If Synthesis is truly inevitable then it's something that should occur naturally. The problem is since Reapers wipe out civilization every 50k years, it never had the chance to. But with Destroy and Control, it now becomes a possibility in the future. Where it can gradually happen. Where people are aware it's gonna happen. Where people can get an explanation on it before it happens. But most importantly, where people can be given the choice to have it happen to them if and when it becomes a possibility.

[Xilizhra]

The message from the Prothean beacon was a warning. And it very clearly shows organic and synthetic parts being merged. It does not look like a pleasant process.

That's because that's the "forced" version, the attempt to graft parts together without an altered matrix to hold them. That's why the solution failed.

Synthesis is also foreshadowed by the very enemies you fight throughout the Mass Effect series. Namely, the Husks, the Banshees, the Brutes, the Cannibals, the Marauders, the Collectors, Saren, the Reapers themselves. Three games, Ieldra2. Three games worth of desperate fighting against organic/synthetic hybrids. That's not exactly a stretch, is it?

And two games of you playing as an organic-synthetic hybrid.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
That's because that's the "forced" version, the attempt to graft parts together without an altered matrix to hold them. That's why the solution failed.

Indeed.  And we have no guarantees that the Synthesis ending will be any different, any less monstrous.  All we have is evidence that it has failed quite horrifically in the past, and the assurances and platitudes of a being that has no emotions, no compassion, no pity, no remorse and no concept of the value of life whatsoever.

And two games of you playing as an organic-synthetic hybrid.

No, two of the games have us palying as an organic with synthetic implants.  There's an entire world of difference between giving someone a prosthetic arm and fusing their entire body together with circuitry and synthetics at a genetic level to grow them a new one.

Honestly Xilizhra, you sound like you're trying to convince yourself.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 15 novembre 2012 - 02:20 .