195 réponses à ce sujet

[in it for the lolz]

Auintus wrote...

in it for the lolz wrote...

dirtdiver32318 wrote...

in it for the lolz wrote...

I gave M.E the finger back in July. So no, I really don't gave a damn about M.E what so ever. So go ahead Bioware and EA, destory what is left of M.E.

 
Yet your on here talking about mass effect? Uhhh so you care a little bit..

I'am here to mock Bioware at their failings.

Kick 'em while they're down. Way to be a man.
And not everyone considers it a failing.

1. They deserve no less.
2. Were did I say that "everyone considers it a failing."

[Bullets McDeath]

o Ventus wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Really? How? Last I knew it involved bending spacetime, but they couldn't explain how it accomplished that bit.

The theory of relativity involves the bending of space/time. Gravity is a component of the theory of relativity, but they aren't the same thing. I've never heard or read that gravity involves bending space/time.

Huh, I'm just missing all sorts of information today, aren't I?...So who's Mike Gamble?

One of the producers at Bioware. He worked on the core game, the EC, and Leviathan. Not sure about Omega or the upcoming DLC.

Edit: Note to self:  don't try to reformat a quote on the iPhone.

From my limited understanding, I think it's actually mass that can "bend", well, curve, really, spacetime. Hence why time would essentially stop in the center of a black hole. It works in conjuction with gravity in the sense that an object with more mass or density is going to have a larger gravity as well, but it has also been observed that time actually moves slower near large objects on much smaller scales as well. It's so micro as to be insignifigant, but time is passing slower near an enormous building than it is out in an open field. Or near planets and other formations than it is out in empty space, I guess. 

I like to think of it as the universe's version of "lag". It may even be what "causes" gravity, I might be way off base with that though. I hope I am explaining the idea clearly.

But if you buy into "biotics" and element zero, you really have no leg to stand on for calling out Synthesis. It is no sillier than any of the other space magic throughout the story.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:25 .

[clennon8]

I would respond by not buying the game.

[Reth Shepherd]

outlaworacle wrote...

I keep seeing people saying that Bioware has, apparently, released internal documents revealing "Synthesis" as the one true ME3 ending. Which would be... weird, but fine with me, I chose it my first play-through and was fine with it. ::ducks::

Not that I don't believe what I read on the internet, or anything... but can anyone provide a source for this idea that Synthesis is somehow Bioware's "pet" ending?

Well, several Bioware employees have Tweeted that it was their favorite. And it was stated that whether or not Synthesis was caused by the Crucible, it was "inevitable". (Somebody help me, who said that? All I can bring up is Jess Merizan, but that doesn't sound right.)

EDIT: As for biotics vs Synthesis, the difference is that biotics have a VERY detailed in-universe explanation that Bioware has kept fairly consistant. Synthesis, as produced by the Crucible, does not.

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:27 .

[Auintus]

Reth Shepherd wrote...
And how does it do this? We've not seen anything in the ME universe that can cause anything even close to what you're describing. (In case you're not aware, current ME lore involves nanoites and quantum entanglement. Rather like the Borg, when you think about it.)

Easy, your body is made of chemicals and elements, which react differently to different levels and forms of energy. With sufficiently advanced technology, an energy wave could set off a series of chemical changes that would result in a fundamentally restructured body and genetic code. The tech would have to be organic in nature, since it's made out of your own body, but we've used bacteria to store data so I don't think there would be much difficulty.
Depending what the nanites are made out of you could probably synthesize a few from trace elements in the body, with the right levels of energy. Considering that they reproduce themselves, you would only need a couple to get the ball rolling. Those elements may need to be replenished, but I don't think it'd be that big a deal. The same wave could include a change to the genetic code that results in natural synthesis of these nanites.

[chidingewe8036]

If they make synthesis canon i am going to be beyond pissed and I will make a full fledged effort to make sure they know it not just through the great vine.

[Auintus]

in it for the lolz wrote...
1. They deserve no less.
2. Were did I say that "everyone considers it a failing."

1. Personal belief, but okay.
2. Very true

Carry on, sir.

[clennon8]

They have to know that canonizing Synthesis is the absolute worst possible thing they can do.

Which doesn't give me confidence they won't do it.

[Auintus]

outlaworacle wrote...

From my limited understanding, I think it's actually mass that can "bend", well, curve, really, spacetime. Hence why time would essentially stop in the center of a black hole. It works in conjuction with gravity in the sense that an object with more mass or density is going to have a larger gravity as well, but it has also been observed that time actually moves slower near large objects on much smaller scales as well. It's so micro as to be insignifigant, but time is passing slower near an enormous building than it is out in an open field. Or near planets and other formations than it is out in empty space, I guess. 

I like to think of it as the universe's version of "lag". It may even be what "causes" gravity, I might be way off base with that though. I hope I am explaining the idea clearly.

But if you buy into "biotics" and element zero, you really have no leg to stand on for calling out Synthesis. It is no sillier than any of the other space magic throughout the story.

Yeah, I believe I reclarified that. Gravity is the result of the bending. The bending itself is caused by mass.

Woah, the universe is a computer program. Star Ocean was right!

Technically element zero does exist. It's a neutron. Seriously. Atomic number 0=No protons  Atom with no protons=neutron. And neutrons don't allow telekineses...yet.

[Shinobu]

I'd be okay with ME4:Synthesis AS LONG as I knew that eventually we'd get sequels based on Destroy, Control and Successful Refuse, +/- IT. Bioware would have to announce that up front, though, because if Synthesis is the one and only ending, I'm not really interested.

If ME4 is a sequel, I think it SHOULD pick an ending as a starting point and go with it, because otherwise we'd have resentment because "the big choice at the end of ME3 didn't matter." Making something canon doesn't mean it is the only option, though. ("Canon" just means "officially sanctioned by the creator," NOT "the one true path," so simultaneous alternate realities can all still be "canon.")

I think it would be interesting to explore how the different colors create different realities. Destroy would be more of a postapocalyptic survival tale, while Synthesis would be a " now defeat the Leviathans" space opera. Control could be a philosophical experiment with Shepard as the final antagonist, while Successful Refuse is a conventional war story. The ME universe is rich enough to contain multiple alternate paths.

Personally, I believe ME4:Synthesis has already been in the works since before ME3 launched, because Bioware expected us to choose Synthesis ("the best ending"). The problem is that a large number of people despise it and won't want to buy ME4 if Synthesis is going to be the only choice ever given a sequel.

Modifié par Shinobu, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:41 .

[Auintus]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

Well, several Bioware employees have Tweeted that it was their favorite. And it was stated that whether or not Synthesis was caused by the Crucible, it was "inevitable". (Somebody help me, who said that? All I can bring up is Jess Merizan, but that doesn't sound right.)

EDIT: As for biotics vs Synthesis, the difference is that biotics have a VERY detailed in-universe explanation that Bioware has kept fairly consistant. Synthesis, as produced by the Crucible, does not.

The "best" ending(pre EC) was said to be attainable without multiplayer. Synthesis was just under the maximum EMS with 50% readiness. So that's where the logic comes from, I think.

Synthesis has no explanation whatsoever. If it did, even if it were based on the same fictional mechanics as biotics, would that make you feel better?

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[Auintus]

Shinobu wrote...

I'd be okay with ME4:Synthesis AS LONG as I knew that eventually we'd get sequels based on Destroy, Control and Successful Refuse, +/- IT. Bioware would have to announce that up front, though, because if Synthesis is the one and only ending, I'm not really interested.

If ME4 is a sequel, I think it SHOULD pick an ending as a starting point and go with it, because otherwise we'd have resentment because "the big choice at the end of ME3 didn't matter." Making something canon doesn't mean it is the only option, though. ("Canon" just means "officially sanctioned by the creator," NOT "the one true path," so simultaneous alternate realities can all still be "canon.")

I think it would be interesting to explore how the different colors create different realities. Destroy would be more of a postapocalyptic survival tale, while Synthesis would be a " now defeat the Leviathans" space opera. Control could be a philosophical experiment with Shepard as the final antagonist, while Successful Refuse is a conventional war story. The ME universe is rich enough to contain multiple alternate paths.

I don't think that would happen. They'd need to make 4 new games and most players wouldn't buy all of them. I know I'd only buy Synth. The cost/payout balance wouldn't be worth it.

[Bullets McDeath]

Reth Shepherd wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

I keep seeing people saying that Bioware has, apparently, released internal documents revealing "Synthesis" as the one true ME3 ending. Which would be... weird, but fine with me, I chose it my first play-through and was fine with it. ::ducks::

Not that I don't believe what I read on the internet, or anything... but can anyone provide a source for this idea that Synthesis is somehow Bioware's "pet" ending?

Well, several Bioware employees have Tweeted that it was their favorite. And it was stated that whether or not Synthesis was caused by the Crucible, it was "inevitable". (Somebody help me, who said that? All I can bring up is Jess Merizan, but that doesn't sound right.)

EDIT: As for biotics vs Synthesis, the difference is that biotics have a VERY detailed in-universe explanation that Bioware has kept fairly consistant. Synthesis, as produced by the Crucible, does not.

Word, general tweetage would be explanation enough for me. I was just wondering if I missed a statement from Mac or Casey or the Doctors or something saying only suckers don't choose Synthesis .

As for a Synthesis explanation, I concede that it is left unexplained in comparison to biotics and shields and some of the other stuff they made up. Although there is still alot of mystery behind element zero, but you kinda have to just suspend your disbelief in that for anything in Mass Effect to work at all. I can see why they didn't pontificate at length on the subject IN-GAME, given where it is brought up (although one would think Shepard would maybe want to know more, given the weight of the decision, but that's speaking to a different problem I think, which is having to accept the Catalyst 100% at face-value and as the word of God, when really my first reaction was "KILL IT WITH FIRE NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO", but I digress).

They could have stuck it in the codex, though, for those that were curious.

Auintus' explanation is pretty close to what I imagined. If you can believe that the Relay Network can be rigged to simultaneously explode everywhere at once, then emitting a space ray that alters all living things into slightly different living things... for me, I don't find it out of the bounds of the universe, given the crazy technological feats the Reapers were already capable of. What we understand as synthetic or machine, artificial intelligence issues aside, is not so different from the stuff of organic life in function, only in form. Setting aside also any kind of spiritual discussion, you can make a very persuasive case for the human body as organic machine system. Gene therapy and DNA modification is discusses seriously in the real world and are a definite reality in Mass Effect, so having a way to permanently fuse organics and synthetics into hybrids... sure, man, whatever.

The real issue it doesn't address is the fact that it won't stop future organic life from eventually evolving millions or billions of years down the line (unless it does, cause, space magic) which would leave you with the same dilemma you had before, just with a very looooooong pause.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[BuzzShepardN7]

They better acknowledge the most important choice the player made in the series whether it is Synthesis, Destroy, or Control. Otherwise I have just wasted my time. I am a Destroy person.

[Urazz]

Synthesis seemed to make the galaxy a happy and peaceful kind of place. Control is also possible but Shepard controls the reapers and can end any kind of conflicts so that makes it less likely in my opinion. Destroy makes for the best choice for a sequal as that leaves the most open room for a new game with conflict in it

[Celtic Latino]

Honestly at this rate I don't care anymore. No matter WHAT you do, there is going to be a canon for every series that is published and character retcons either to please a fanbase or further a story.

As long as they don't canonize Shepard into Sheploo (at least, in the games) they could do what they like.

I'm more concerned with ME4 being a standalone offline single player game that keeps character creation and goes back to being an rpg (like Mass Effect 1) instead of a shooter with rpg elements (Mass Effect 2 & 3).

[Auintus]

Celtic Latino wrote...

I'm more concerned with ME4 being a standalone offline single player game that keeps character creation and goes back to being an rpg (like Mass Effect 1) instead of a shooter with rpg elements (Mass Effect 2 & 3).

This, I can agree with, though I think there is a balance between shooter and RPG that can be achieved.

[Bullets McDeath]

Auintus wrote...

Technically element zero does exist. It's a neutron. Seriously. Atomic number 0=No protons  Atom with no protons=neutron. And neutrons don't allow telekineses...yet.

YET. Or FTL travel... yet.

[raist747]

I'm more concerned with ME4 being a standalone offline single player
game that keeps character creation and goes back to being an rpg (like
Mass Effect 1) instead of a shooter with rpg elements (Mass Effect 2
& 3).

As much as I would like Mass Effect to go back to its RPG roots (good Sci-Fi RPGs are rare as hell), EA is is more concerned with turning a quick buck than producing quality offline games. Multiplayer shooters with DLCs is what makes the most bang for the buck right now.

[Shinobu]

Auintus wrote...

Shinobu wrote...

I'd be okay with ME4:Synthesis AS LONG as I knew that eventually we'd get sequels based on Destroy, Control and Successful Refuse, +/- IT. Bioware would have to announce that up front, though, because if Synthesis is the one and only ending, I'm not really interested.

If ME4 is a sequel, I think it SHOULD pick an ending as a starting point and go with it, because otherwise we'd have resentment because "the big choice at the end of ME3 didn't matter." Making something canon doesn't mean it is the only option, though. ("Canon" just means "officially sanctioned by the creator," NOT "the one true path," so simultaneous alternate realities can all still be "canon.")

I think it would be interesting to explore how the different colors create different realities. Destroy would be more of a postapocalyptic survival tale, while Synthesis would be a " now defeat the Leviathans" space opera. Control could be a philosophical experiment with Shepard as the final antagonist, while Successful Refuse is a conventional war story. The ME universe is rich enough to contain multiple alternate paths.

I don't think that would happen. They'd need to make 4 new games and most players wouldn't buy all of them. I know I'd only buy Synth. The cost/payout balance wouldn't be worth it.

Mass Effect games are some of the best games out there. I hate Synthesis, but I'd go with it IF (and ONLY IF) I knew eventually I'd get "my" ending (Successful Refuse). I think it would be hard to not buy any ME games for 6 years while I waited for my specific ending, so I'd play the others in the meantime. On  the other hand, I'd probably pass if all I knew I was getting is ME4 Synthesis, part 1, ME5 Synthesis part 2, ME6 Synthesis part 3...

I think Bioware can increase sales of "less popular" choices by packing them with favorite squadmates from previous games. If Synthesis has Garrus, Tali, EDI, Miranda and Legion Mk II, while Destroy has Garrus, Wrex, Liara, VS and Jack, there would be some pick up in sales. There are more than enough extra squaddies lying around to make 4 games without doubling up too much for the permanent squad. The others can make cameos.

Modifié par Shinobu, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:59 .

[Ithurael]

I would laugh...I would laugh so very hard.

Then return to playing far cry 3 or another good game.

[survivor_686]

In response to OP: I would be rather nonplussed if Bioware decided to canonize the "mass-genetic-rape" option or the "forcefully ascend every species cos it worked so well with the Krogan last time".

[Auintus]

outlaworacle wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Technically element zero does exist. It's a neutron. Seriously. Atomic number 0=No protons  Atom with no protons=neutron. And neutrons don't allow telekineses...yet.

YET. Or FTL travel... yet.

But eezo effects work by utilizing spin or something, right? I think we've done that to neutrons by now. Hell, we're smashing them to bits, we probably did everything else first.

[AsheraII]

clennon8 wrote...

I would respond by not buying the game.

This. I wouldn't be interrested in a canonized sequel anyway. Even less in a Synthesis canon sequel.

[Lunch Box1912]

Stab myself in the eyeball and then throw up, this followed by a brief moment of silence for the official death of the Mass Effect RPG universe.