195 réponses à ce sujet

[raist747]

I don't see how they can do so without Eidos Interactive suing their pants off for ripping off Deus Ex.

Bioware dropped the ball on Synthesis' introduction and execution. Its clearly the least developed ending.

[The Spamming Troll]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

 Bioware gets to keep their word to gamers: "None of the three endings are canon"

bioware doesnt care about keeping their word. at all.

where have you been?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

What do you mean by canonized?The choice Default Shep makes?Or is it that no matter what ending you chose,Synthesis will replace it when you import your character into ME4?

"Hi we are currently announcing Mass Effect 4! The game takes place 200 years after Commander Shepard chose Synthesis and created everlasting peace in the Galaxy."

Where's the conflict?

Bingo.

If they are making a game with canon synthesis, then there is going to be a conflict, so you're assumption would be wrong.

You know what they say about assumptions.

[Auintus]

 Synthesis is canon. 

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[someguy1231]

"How would you react if Bioware canonized Synthesis if they made a sequel?"

Make a video of myself smashing my ME1-3 discs with a sledgehammer and upload it to Youtube.

Modifié par someguy1231, 11 décembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Steelcan]

Auintus wrote...

 Synthesis is canon. 

you misspelled crap

[crimzontearz]

my reaction would be not to buy it....duh

[Sejborg]

 I wouldn't mind. 

[Shermos]

I'd much prefer Synthesis be made canon than destroy.

[Pedrak]

raist747 wrote...

Bioware dropped the ball on Synthesis' introduction and execution. Its clearly the least developed ending.

The fact is, the science in  the rest of ME is... not always accurate, sometimes bogus, but at least believable bogus.
Synthesis is  pretty much space magic.

Modifié par Pedrak, 11 décembre 2012 - 12:45 .

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

By laughing evily as I feast on the tears of everyone who tried to ruin my Synthesis games by spouting unfounded nonsense.

Sure, except nobody is trying to ruin your games in any way. Really, your melodramatic bull crap is getting old by this point.

[KillTheWiseOne]

This would kill my interests completely, and at one time ME was my favorite franchise.

[raist747]

Pedrak wrote...

raist747 wrote...

Bioware dropped the ball on Synthesis' introduction and execution. Its clearly the least developed ending.

The fact is, the science in  the rest of ME is... not always accurate, sometimes bogus, but at least believable bogus.
Synthesis is  pretty much space magic.

I'm not refering to science, I'm refering to the complete lack of build up or background into Synthesis. Both destruction and Control have roots to the begining of the game, as well as hints in ME2. Synthesis comes out of left field at the very last second, and is instantly touted as the "best ending". Its has none of the concrete justifcations the other 3 endings have.

Basically, its clear that they came up with it at the last second, and it blatantly rips off another well known game. Synthesis has no business at the same table as the other 3 endings.

[Auintus]

Pedrak wrote...

The fact is, the science in  the rest of ME is... not always accurate, sometimes bogus, but at least believable bogus.
Synthesis is  pretty much space magic.

It's no more believable. You've just been dealing with it for, what, five years? You're used to it. Give Synth some time, you'll come around.

[Auintus]

raist747 wrote...

I'm not refering to science, I'm refering to the complete lack of build up or background into Synthesis. Both destruction and Control have roots to the begining of the game, as well as hints in ME2. Synthesis comes out of left field at the very last second, and is instantly touted as the "best ending". Its has none of the concrete justifcations the other 3 endings have.

Basically, its clear that they came up with it at the last second, and it blatantly rips off another well known game. Synthesis has no business at the same table as the other 3 endings.

Saren and Paul Grayson are very clear examples of Synthesis.
And Refuse is a non-standard game over, not an ending.

[o Ventus]

Auintus wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

The fact is, the science in  the rest of ME is... not always accurate, sometimes bogus, but at least believable bogus.
Synthesis is  pretty much space magic.

It's no more believable. You've just been dealing with it for, what, five years? You're used to it. Give Synth some time, you'll come around.

Biotics, mass relays, and thanix cannons are all bogus in real life. Likewise, Synthesis is bogus in real life. Difference between them is that the former 3 follow the lore presented within the game. Synthesis literally just shows up and concludes as soon as it begins. There is zero scientific explanation offered as to how it works or how it could even remotely be feasible within the game and its universe.

So no, we have not been "putting up with it" for 5 years. The science has been loose in the past, but now it's gone entirely.

[o Ventus]

Auintus wrote...

raist747 wrote...

I'm not refering to science, I'm refering to the complete lack of build up or background into Synthesis. Both destruction and Control have roots to the begining of the game, as well as hints in ME2. Synthesis comes out of left field at the very last second, and is instantly touted as the "best ending". Its has none of the concrete justifcations the other 3 endings have.

Basically, its clear that they came up with it at the last second, and it blatantly rips off another well known game. Synthesis has no business at the same table as the other 3 endings.

Saren and Paul Grayson are very clear examples of Synthesis.
And Refuse is a non-standard game over, not an ending.

So Saren and Grayson achieved "perfection" through synthetic integration? The way I remember it, they both became husks. Because one is literally a synthesis of flesh and machine doesn't make ofthe same as the bad idea presented by the Catalyst.

[Reth Shepherd]

Auintus wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

The fact is, the science in  the rest of ME is... not always accurate, sometimes bogus, but at least believable bogus.
Synthesis is  pretty much space magic.

It's no more believable. You've just been dealing with it for, what, five years? You're used to it. Give Synth some time, you'll come around.

The difference between space science and space magic is that space science has a consistent explanation in-universe. Space magic is unexplained random whatever. For example: Bioware goes to a great deal of trouble to explain why and how biotics work. They also go to a great deal of trouble to detail exactly how indoctrination and/or the husk-ification process works. And for the most part, they don't randomly change up these explanations whenever a new plot idea occurs to Writer Number X. Synthesis, to my knowledge, has no in-universe explanation of how it works, and multiple reasons why it shouldn't.

EDIT: Synthesis as produced by the Crucible is a different process than what happened to Saren and/or Paul Grayson. Unless you're saying that the Crucible wave was made up of nanites and they implanted the entire galaxy.

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 11 décembre 2012 - 01:07 .

[raist747]

Auintus wrote...

Saren and Paul Grayson are very clear examples of Synthesis.
And Refuse is a non-standard game over, not an ending.

Saren is a example of indoctrination, not Synthesis. Grayson is an example why making that desision for other people is a bad idea.

Refuse still shows a ending cinematic and credits. Its clearly a ending in Bioware's eyes. And its the only ending that itsn't a rip off of Deus Ex. Origional content trumps creative stagnation.

Modifié par raist747, 11 décembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[Auintus]

o Ventus wrote...

Biotics, mass relays, and thanix cannons are all bogus in real life. Likewise, Synthesis is bogus in real life. Difference between them is that the former 3 follow the lore presented within the game. Synthesis literally just shows up and concludes as soon as it begins. There is zero scientific explanation offered as to how it works or how it could even remotely be feasible within the game and its universe.

So no, we have not been "putting up with it" for 5 years. The science has been loose in the past, but now it's gone entirely.

They could explain Sythesis, basing it on in-game mechanics and logic that do not have to adhere to reality, but what's the point? If you call Sythesis space-magic, but have nothing to say for biotics, then yes, you are used to it.

[FlyinElk212]

raist747 wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Saren and Paul Grayson are very clear examples of Synthesis.
And Refuse is a non-standard game over, not an ending.

Saren is a example of indoctrination, not Synthesis. Grayson is an example why making that desision for other people is a bad idea.

Refuse still shows a ending cinematic and credits. Its clearly a ending in Bioware's eyes. And its the only ending that itsn't a rip off of Deus Ex. Origional content trumps creative stagnation.

For what it's worth, I believe Saren is an example of Indoctrination with a BELIEF in Synthesis being the correct choice. You're spot on about Grayson though.

[Auintus]

o Ventus wrote...

So Saren and Grayson achieved "perfection" through synthetic integration? The way I remember it, they both became husks. Because one is literally a synthesis of flesh and machine doesn't make ofthe same as the bad idea presented by the Catalyst.

Never played ME1, so I'm kinda guessing on Saren, but Grayson was quite improved. The only problem was that the Reapers controlled his implants, so they wouldn't cooperate if the Reapers didn't want him doing whatever he was doing. When he and the Reapers were on the same wavelength, everything was effortless. Sythesis is that, but you're in control on your own tech, I'd imagine.

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 01:12 .

[Auintus]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

The difference between space science and space magic is that space science has a consistent explanation in-universe. Space magic is unexplained random whatever. For example: Bioware goes to a great deal of trouble to explain why and how biotics work. They also go to a great deal of trouble to detail exactly how indoctrination and/or the husk-ification process works. And for the most part, they don't randomly change up these explanations whenever a new plot idea occurs to Writer Number X. Synthesis, to my knowledge, has no in-universe explanation of how it works, and multiple reasons why it shouldn't.

EDIT: Synthesis as produced by the Crucible is a different process than what happened to Saren and/or Paul Grayson. Unless you're saying that the Crucible wave was made up of nanites and they implanted the entire galaxy.

If they gave an in-universe explanation, would you accept it? My guess is: No.

Point taken, but different methodologies can yield similar results.

[Auintus]

raist747 wrote...

Saren is a example of indoctrination, not Synthesis. Grayson is an example why making that desision for other people is a bad idea.

Refuse still shows a ending cinematic and credits. Its clearly a ending in Bioware's eyes. And its the only ending that itsn't a rip off of Deus Ex. Origional content trumps creative stagnation.

Grayson was far beyond human when he and the Reapers were in sync. Synthesis would have no Reapers behind it.

Meh. Non-standard game overs have ending cinematics. Besides, "I give up"? Original or no, that is not a real ending.

[griot13]

They can't canonized a ending because the point of Mass Effect is choice, so we can just assume that Bio-ware has something coming out to conclude the ending of Mass Effect 3. I still believe there's more to the ending that we know or see, I can't take it at face value it's just to many hints and clues that say other wise. I think Bio-ware intended for the endings to be like this I mean were still talking about it 9 months later, It provokes wishful thinking..