639 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

Scary thing is, how do we know Synthesis does not alter perspective, thereby making it readily accepted because their ability to envision anything else has been changed? The Reapers have certainly not been shy about exposing their manipulation tools. Just one more issue I have with the writing, especially when they attempt to paint this as some idyllic utopia.

I am by no means saying this does happen but, it makes you wonder.

[Xilizhra]

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 in the past, and the assurances and platitudes of a being that has no emotions, no compassion, no pity and no remorse whatsoever.

True, but we also have no guarantee that shooting the tube will do anything the Catalyst said it would either. Again, the only way to make a real decision here is to assume it's a hallucination or to believe everything that the Catalyst says about the outcomes.

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 his entire body together with microchips to grow him a new one.

Really? Shepard's brain, eyes, skin, muscles and bones are all explicitly partially synthetic, and the latter three become steadily more synthetic as the game goes on. Her digestive system is also partially synthetic, given her surviving drinking a previously 100%-fatal poison on Omega, and that probably extends to other parts of her body too. You just don't want to admit that there are other forms of synthesis beyond the Reapers' excessively crude ones to create disposable soldiers.

[Ieldra]

@ElSuperGecko:
Now we're talking about a different thing. Previously, you made the assertion that there lies a secret, bad reality under the pretty pictures the Synthesis epilogue shows us. I maintain that based on what we're shown, Synthesis is a good ending and that your assertion doesn't have much ground to stand on. The question you're raising now is: can we know about it in advance and in sufficient detail to make an informed decision?

Well no, we can't. There, I admitted it. But that also applies to Destroy. If the Catalyst isn't trustworthy, I know nothing. For all I know, shooting the tube will destroy the Crucible. In fact, that's a rather more plausible assumption than to accept that that the Catalyst will let you destroy it and all its Reapers, even more so since you'll be damaging a part of your superweapon.

The problem is that the ending doesn't let us forget that we're in a story. I can't roleplay the Catalyst conversation because the whole scene is too loaded with symbolism and it doesn't give me the opportunity to ask the questions I need to ask in order to make a more informed decision. About any of the endings. I can't even ask the most obvious question: why would you let me destroy you? The plain fact is that I'd need a two-page exposition and that goes against the cinematic design of the game scenes. Bioware sacrificed roleplaying for artistic considerations. Thus, thematic considerations become important - and that and the symbolism are intentionally put in to show players, not the character, what the endings are about without having to put in a two-page exposition. Bioware confirmed it: there are elements in the ending we're not supposed to take literally. It's not designed for pure roleplaying because for that you need to take everything literally. Thus, I know in a general sense what Synthesis is supposed to be - among other things, that none of the (high EMS) endings is supposed to be bad - and take it that way.

Is this bad design? Yes of course it is. It's as if back in the days of BG2/TOB, we'd been told about what it would mean for us - and Faerun - if we ascended by Amelyssan instead of a neutral party, the solar. Nonetheless, I recognize what it's all supposed to mean, and if infusing that knowledge into my character seems unsatisfying, well, it's still better than to simply stop playing.

In the end, you can either reject the whole ending scenario and use an ending mod where the Catalyst doesn't appear, or choose one of the endings, but if you take one at face value, you must also take the others at face value, including the thematic considerations and the symbolism because they convey relevant information. If you believe that shooting the tube will Destroy the Reapers, there's no reason not to believe that Synthesis will have a good outcome.

(BTW, this exchange reminded me again how the the Catalyst taints the complete ending scenario. Bioware, how could you make such an epic blunder...it beggars comprehension. Did you think we'd accept it for no better reason but its pretensions to divinity and the according presentation?)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 novembre 2012 - 02:28 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
True, but we also have no guarantee that shooting the tube will do anything the Catalyst said it would either. Again, the only way to make a real decision here is to assume it's a hallucination or to believe everything that the Catalyst says about the outcomes.

That's a very black-and-white, either-or viewpoint, and one that few on this board would agree with.  Why are you assuming that I'm saying the Catalyst is lying?  I'm doing no such thing.  The Catalyst can be telling the explicit truth and not trying to influence your decision in any way whatsoever (hint - it is) and I still wouldn't trust it or accept it's logic and conclusions.

As stated earlier - the Catalyst is an AI, it is so far removed from the races of the galaxy that it has no understanding of the value of organic life, and has shown this by arbitarily deciding for every living being that their best chance of survival comes from it wiping them out.  Again, it shows no remorse for it's actions, other than for the fact that they didn't succeed.

I'm certainly not going to accept it's new "perfect solution", given how disasterously the previous one failed, and how horrific the effects were on the population of the galaxy.

Saying "YES!  Good idea!" to the Catalyst (which is what you are effectively doing in Synthesis) is the in-game equivalent of giving Dr. Frankenstein a job at the local hospital.

Really? Shepard's brain, eyes, skin, muscles and bones are all explicitly partially synthetic, and the latter three become steadily more synthetic as the game goes on. Her digestive system is also partially synthetic, given her surviving drinking a previously 100%-fatal poison on Omega, and that probably extends to other parts of her body too. You just don't want to admit that there are other forms of synthesis beyond the Reapers' excessively crude ones to create disposable soldiers.

...which is still an entire quantum leap away from arbitarily, permanently and irrervocably fusing all organic life with synthetics at a genetic level.  The synthetics Shepard has are nothing like what the galaxy will be undergoing in Synthesis.

And I'm more than willing to discuss anything regarding the game, the endings and the lore, so long as it can be backed up by evidence presented within the game, the endings and the lore and not just wishful headcanon.  I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore speculation and questions because they make me doubt my interpretation of the endings (which is just one of many, I'm aware, comfortable and happy with that).

[Xilizhra]

Saying "YES! Good idea!" to the Catalyst (which is what you are effectively doing in Synthesis) is the in-game equivalent of giving Dr. Frankenstein a job at the local hospital.

Well, you have to admit, he's very, very good at medicine. I mean, resurrection, even imperfect resurrection, is an amazing accomplishment. But as for the rest of your post, I don't personally pick Synthesis, but don't blame those who do.

...which is still an entire quantum leap away from arbitarily, permanently and irrervocably fusing all organic life with synthetics at a genetic level. The synthetics Shepard has are nothing like what the galaxy will be undergoing in Synthesis.

For that, I just wanted to show you that the symbolism you mentioned only applies if people don't think about it. Sure, synthesis has been used for bad things, but also for good things.

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...which is still an entire quantum leap away from arbitarily, permanently and irrervocably fusing all organic life with synthetics at a genetic level.  The synthetics Shepard has are nothing like what the galaxy will be undergoing in Synthesis.

Well, yes. For one, Shepard's Lazarus implants are comparably crude and inelegant, as well as much *more* intrusive than changes on the cellular level could ever be, because those will feel as natural as if they'd always been part of you (again, given what we're shown in the epilogue). That doesn't remove the moral problem of making such a fundamental change on such a scale, but yet again, there is no reason to believe the outcome is bad. No more, at least, than to believe shooting the tube won't destroy the Reapers.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Now we're talking about a different thing. Previously, you made the assertion that there lies a secret, bad reality under the pretty pictures the Synthesis epilogue shows us.

I don't believe I've made that assertation.  I have stated that from my point of view, everything we've experienced within the games themselves would lead us to the conclusion that Synthesis could well lead to horrific effects for the surviving population of the galaxy.  That by choosing Synthesis, we're essentially jumping into bed with the enemy.

I've never argued that the scenes we see in Synthesis are anything other than what they are, however.  Just that they're completely irrelevant when it comes to Shepard having to make the final decision.

Well no, we can't. There, I admitted it. But that also applies to Destroy. If the Catalyst isn't trustworthy, I know nothing. For all I know, shooting the tube will destroy the Crucible. In fact, that's a rather more plausible assumption than to accept that that the Catalyst will let you destroy it and all its Reapers, even more so since you'll be damaging a part of your superweapon.

There's the trustworthy argument again.  Lying =/= trustworthy.  Is the Catalyst lying?  I don't know, but I don't think so.  Is it telling the truth?  I don't know, but I don't believe it has any reason to lie to us.  Is the Catalyst trying to influence our decision?  Definitely.

I can believe the Catalyst is telling the truth, and still believe it would be a bad idea to accept it's logic and conclusions.  Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.  I don't know if a technological singluarity is a threat to all life in the galaxy or not, what I do know is I would not EVER choose to harvest all life in order to save it.

Maybe the problem the Catalyst faced existed once, billions of years ago.  Maybe it will again, sometime in the future.  Neither are my concern.  My concern is for the millions of lives at risk due to the Catalyst's actions and the cycle it set in motion.  I do not see handing the decision for what happens to them back over to the Catalyst (because that's what you're doing in Synthesis) as an acceptable solution.

In the end, you can either reject the whole ending scenario and use an ending mod where the Catalyst doesn't appear, or choose one of the endings, but if you take one at face value, you must also take the others at face value, including the thematic considerations and the symbolism because they convey relevant information. If you believe that shooting the tube will Destroy the Reapers, there's no reason not to believe that Synthesis will have a good outcome.

However you're ignoring the fact that you can also use the lessons you have learned and the evidence you have found throughout the trilogy in making the final decision.

Let us say for a fact that all three choices are to be taken at face value.  That the Catalyst is not lying to us when it offers us the choices, or trying to influence our decision in any way (it is, but let's ignore that for now).  It tells us to choose - Destroy us, Control us, or Synthesis.

The Catalyst is the part at fault here.  It is responsible for the cycle of extinction, and the Reaper harvest, and the desperate bloody battle your friends are fighting.  It is the reason the Protheans were wiped out.  It is the reason Anderson died.  It is the reason Earth lies in ruins.  All of this resulted from it's initial solution of creating the Reapers and starting the cycle of extinction.

Synthesis is it's "new solution".  It is not Shepard's idea, or Andersons, or Hacketts, or Liara's, or any being from this cycle.  It is the Catalyst's solution.

Choose Synthesis, and you are handing the decision for what happens to this cycle back to the Catalyst.  You are saying "OK, have another try".

This is unacceptable to me, on many levels.

(BTW, this exchange reminded me again how the the Catalyst taints the complete ending scenario. Bioware, how could you make such an epic blunder...it beggars comprehension. Did you think we'd accept it for no better reason but its pretensions to divinity and the according presentation?)

Personally I think it's compelling.  The fact that the endings are still causing this much debate and discussion 6 months after release is extraordinary.  The clues to the endings are all there.  The inferences are present throughout the game - throughout the series, even.  So what if they're not immediately obvious?  So what if you have to search for the meanings?  That's kind of the point. 

If Bioware had said:  Option 1:  YOU WIN!  Option 2:  YOU LOSE!  Option 3:  IT'S A STALEMATE!  There'd be little to no discussion, little to no controversy, and people certainly wouldn't be left wondering... and waiting...

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 15 novembre 2012 - 03:03 .

[Xilizhra]

If Bioware had said: Option 1: YOU WIN! Option 2: YOU LOSE! Option 3: IT'S A STALEMATE! There'd be little to no discussion, little to no controversy, and people certainly wouldn't be left wondering... and waiting...

Hah. I'd like to see what would have happened if Destroy had been the "you lose" option.

[Mathias]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

Scary thing is, how do we know Synthesis does not alter perspective, thereby making it readily accepted because their ability to envision anything else has been changed? The Reapers have certainly not been shy about exposing their manipulation tools. Just one more issue I have with the writing, especially when they attempt to paint this as some idyllic utopia.

I am by no means saying this does happen but, it makes you wonder.

That's the other thing i wanted to mention, but yeah. Synthesis is one of those things that the more you think about, the more questions that are raised and the scarier it becomes.

[Restrider]

Please participate in the BSN Consesus thread and let us know what you think about the endings to ME3!

Modifié par Restrider, 15 novembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
Hah. I'd like to see what would have happened if Destroy had been the "you lose" option.

We might find out in about 6-12 months or so.  One way or another. 

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Maybe the problem the Catalyst faced existed once, billions of years ago.  Maybe it will again, sometime in the future.  Neither are my concern.  My concern is for the millions of lives at risk due to the Catalyst's actions and the cycle it set in motion.  I do not see handing the decision for what happens to them back over to the Catalyst (because that's what you're doing in Synthesis) as an acceptable solution.

The thing is, I've never seen it as "handing the decision over to the Catalyst", because of "the Crucible changed me". There's confusion about the origins of the ending options because of the contradiction with "it's just a power source", but I'm every bit as justified to assume that this particular variant of Synthesis doesn't originate with the Catalyst. It's just the choice it prefers. Also, since "similar solutions" failed in the past, assuming that this Crucible-engineered variant will result in something different is not far-fetched. There's even a good in-world rationale as for why any species would create such a solution (see my Synthesis compendium thread). As for why I think this is the more likely scenario, well, then I admit meta-level reasoning about the symbolism in the endings comes into it.

Personally I think it's compelling.  The fact that the endings are still causing this much debate and discussion 6 months after release is extraordinary.  The clues to the endings are all there.  The inferences are present throughout the game - throughout the series, even.  So what if they're not immediately obvious?  So what if you have to search for the meanings?  That's kind of the point.

There are contradictory elements, one sending a message this way, one sending a message that way, and you can select those that work best for you. That's absolutely fine with me. What's not fine is to have the enemy leader present your options to you, without any previous attempt at making him a little more neutral. 

If Bioware had said:  Option 1:  YOU WIN!  Option 2:  YOU LOSE!  Option 3:  IT'S A STALEMATE!  There'd be little to no discussion, little to no controversy, and people certainly wouldn't be left wondering... and waiting...

As Xilizhra says....it would be interesting to see the reaction had Destroy been presented as "you lose". BTW, if you're implying that Control is "you lose", I couldn't disagree more. Refuse is the only "you lose" ending. It's rather "Organics win", "Synthetics win" and "Everyone wins".

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Hah. I'd like to see what would have happened if Destroy had been the "you lose" option.

We might find out in about 6-12 months or so.  One way or another. 

???

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
???

Whether you follow any particular ending or ending theory or not, we're going to be getting single player DLC for ME3 for some time yet.  We'll be in a better position to judge the merits of each of the endings when it's all been released.  There's time for twists and turns in the story yet, regardless of what Bioware's saying regarding the actual endings being finished.

And no, I wasn't referring to any of the endings in particular when I said YOU WIN/YOU LOSE/STALEMATE.

I was saying if the endings had been that obvious and that simple, there would have been no room for debate.

[Ieldra]

That's true of course. As a rule, I like debates about such things. But I'd have preferred it had things been a little less divisive. Debate is one thing, fragmenting the fanbase quite another. The endings were like a grenade tossed into the forums, and the thrice-damned dark age in the original ones was like fuel poured on the fire. Hopefully Bioware has learned that there is a limit to playing with the emotions of the fans. As far as I'm concerned, I'll be very careful before I'll ever let myself get emotionally invested again as I did with ME.