286 réponses à ce sujet

[Rothgar49]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Who cares either way? It's your game and your choice at the end of the day.

This. So very much this. Why should there be conflict over this issue?

[Hadeedak]

@Melt
Well, if you really wanted to, sure, you could say that.

I'm just saying being able to say that has very little meaning, because it's general enough in its outlines so that you can put whatever you want for symbolism into that ending. Your constraints are pretty much that it's a transmutation and death. If it has the most meaning to someone personally as a Christ analogy, more power to them, I guess.

@ den

At first blush, I thought synthesis was a Nirvana analogue: a perfect moment of self-anihilation with profound consequences for the outer and inner world, erasing the boundaries of other and self.

That's a lie. At first blush I was like "What. No. This isn't how things work." But once I abstracted myself a bit, while it annoyed me scientifically, it has some appealing and horrific potential implications. Which is the fun of it. 

Modifié par Hadeedak, 22 janvier 2013 - 09:34 .

[clennon8]

Mother Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, right? I think there's more to it than that. The Mass Effect series borrows an enormous amount from religion, Christianity in particular. Granted, some of it is kind of garbled, obligatory, and not always perfectly allegorical.

[Nightwriter]

Hadeedak wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I guess this:

"Or it could be a standard ascension of the hero, a common artifact of human mythology that has staying power across cultures with a fair amount of dramatic symbolism. It shows in both how we portray important historical and political figures and in what stories we choose to tell."

-- sounds like a positive value judgment to me. Seemed like you were comparing it to traditional and historical examples of the trope. The importance being that most traditional and historical examples did it well.

Well, I could compare it to the 'death' of Silver Age Superman, if that'd make you feel better. Not all ascensions are well written or moving. I'm going to stay out of whether this one is one of them, and just say that it has its pros and cons. I just felt comparing it to the Passion was oddly and unnecessarily specific. It's not like "Hero dies through self destruction to bring about change/save others" is unusual.

The trope isn't unusual. This level of bad execution is. Synthesis is no more or less valid than the other choices, but it's equally as poor imo.

Typically when a hero "ascends," he needs to not leave behind friends or lovers, or else I really won't like it. This is because my idea of wellbeing for the hero is strongly rooted in the continuance of his most meaningful relationships. Wind back the clock to pre-ME3 and ask any fan what their idea of a good epilogue for Shepard is, and most of them will describe Shepard with his/her LI or his/her friends. Synthesis ascension ends that, leaving players only the option to headcanon fantasy worlds were Shepard's consciousness lives on and is downloaded into a new body.

I guess a good example of the trope might be Dragonheart, where we're talking about a lonely dragon, the last of his breed, who only wanted to ascend so he could be with the rest of his kind. Things were set up better. The dragon was dying for a problem introduced early on. The dragon's need to make a sacrifice and ascend was introduced early on. It felt right.

Shepard sacrifices himself to solve a problem that is introduced literally in the last few minutes of the series, and which is presented by an untrustworthy source. Shepard leaves friends and lovers behind. And Shepard was definitely not a character who walked around going "oh if only I could die and join the stars with the other space champions." In fact I'm pretty sure my Shepard walked around saying stuff like "suicide mission? I'LL PROVE YOU WRONG" and "I plan to make it out of here alive" and stuff.

All I am saying is that there comes a point where a trope delivery is so warped and distasteful that it doesn't feel right to even call it an example of that trope.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 22 janvier 2013 - 09:38 .

[ghost9191]

eh only been off and on for the last couple months but i do not recall seeing any threads like what you describe. there are some ppl that are that way , but same can be said for pro synthesis and control folks... not just destroyers

not saying there are no hate threads or pro threads like that. usually ppl will try to justify their choice by proving another wrong



so in short it is not just pro destroyers... as for the indoctrinated part. well most are IT believers that say that or someone just joking around ... that or actually believes it


kinda like does this prove IT?

[Nightwriter]

clennon8 wrote...

Many of your arguments boil down to "At first blush, this thing that you're saying didn't occur to me. Therefore I reject it."

That is because you keep saying that these things are loudly, obviously, criminally, and instantaneously observable.

[FlyingSquirrel]

3DandBeyond wrote...
 It also (if true), puts those poor souls within the reapers at peace and removes this abhorrent abomination from existence. Had this been a choice that people had decided to become one with machines, that might have been a different thing, but those "people" within reapers, didn't want to be there. In strictly humanitarian terms, knowing what has happened, Destroy could be the only thing that frees them.

I have a problem with this, because it's assuming that, if free of the Catalyst's control, whatever is left of the harvested civilizations would still want to die. Who's to say they do? Presumably they are no longer the same "people" that they were and are merged into some sort of collective consciousness, but that collective consciousness might in fact want to survive to help rebuild the galaxy and preserve whatever is left of their civilizations. In fact, it seems that they are doing just that in Synthesis. Even though the process by which that consciousness was created was horrific, we are still dealing with what may be a sapient life form capable of adapting to its present form.

We really know very little about what it is like to be a Reaper, or how exactly the harvested civilizations are preserved. All the arguments based around "But Sovereign said..." or "Harbinger said..." really don't hold much water for me, because they were under the Catalyst's control at the time.

[Applepie_Svk]

Meltemph wrote...

They offered irrational choices, with room to headcannon for a reason, I'm assuming for the prupsoe of being able to be vague.  I'm guessing they wanted people to be able to envision the ME setting heading in any direction they wanted.  The reason, I think, there are some people who are are really angry, at these choices(perhaps not realizing it) is becuase if these endings stand, as is, the setting is essetnially done(Post ME3 events), which means the setting is stuck in prequels, without a handwave/retcon/picking a canon.

Either way, there is no point in attacking the moral validity to an ending, becuase they are so open ended and vague nothing of any significance can be attached to the endings.  Hell, destroy is the only ending where we actually understand the full implications, and refuse is the only ending we SEE the full implciations of our choice.  

With that in mind, I'm not sure they originally planned on having any ME's after 3, and jsut wanted the story open ended enough so people could land mentaly where they wanted, with their own gymnastics(which is unfortunate for those of us who dont have a particular attachment to any of the "themes" in any of the endings).  

Choices are crapy because they don´t belongs to the ME but Deus EX, but what is more insulting is the path to those choices the way that they are presented, it´s not just an insult to writing but also intelligence, previous ME team and all the work for 5 years.

You know what is more insulting ? It´s the IT... not because of its meaning but of its existence.
Not because fans did it but because BioWare din´t realizing what are they really doing, that they made so vague ending that they actually made part the lore iteself outside of lore. They´ve tried something so irrational, so out of their prievous job with ME that disbelief forced people to rather believe that it wasn´t truth but just a dream or halucination, people denying that BioWare could screw so much...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:14 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
 It also (if true), puts those poor souls within the reapers at peace and removes this abhorrent abomination from existence. Had this been a choice that people had decided to become one with machines, that might have been a different thing, but those "people" within reapers, didn't want to be there. In strictly humanitarian terms, knowing what has happened, Destroy could be the only thing that frees them.

I have a problem with this, because it's assuming that, if free of the Catalyst's control, whatever is left of the harvested civilizations would still want to die. Who's to say they do? Presumably they are no longer the same "people" that they were and are merged into some sort of collective consciousness, but that collective consciousness might in fact want to survive to help rebuild the galaxy and preserve whatever is left of their civilizations. In fact, it seems that they are doing just that in Synthesis. Even though the process by which that consciousness was created was horrific, we are still dealing with what may be a sapient life form capable of adapting to its present form.

We really know very little about what it is like to be a Reaper, or how exactly the harvested civilizations are preserved. All the arguments based around "But Sovereign said..." or "Harbinger said..." really don't hold much water for me, because they were under the Catalyst's control at the time.

Agreed 100% on the bolded part. They are an unknown entity. The people are dead and long gone, instead replaced by something new. We don't know what it wants.

[Hadeedak]

clennon8 wrote...

Mother Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, right? I think there's more to it than that. The Mass Effect series borrows an enormous amount from religion, Christianity in particular. Granted, some of it is kind of garbled, obligatory, and not always perfectly allegorical.

Not to be nasty, but yeah, I think it's just a face-shaped burn. Shepard is a savior. Shepard is a hero. Shepard dies through self sacrifice for the good of the galaxy in a straightforward synthesis. I'm not sure that makes Shep unusually messiah-like, unless that's what you're inclined to see. And if that's what you want, that's fine. But Christianity isn't the only one to follow that structure, and it's certainly not unique to religious hero tales.


And yeah, Nightwriter, the presentation and foreshadowing, especially for synthesis, especially pre-EC and Leviathan, is.... weak, and it suffers badly as a coherent narrative, video game or not.

[78stonewobble]

Ewrgh... For my part it's because the Catalyst's arguments crumble under closer scrutiny. If analysed I simply have little to no reason to believe what the Catalyst says.


Control seems good with the following assumptions:

That Shepard is wholly uncorruptable.

The Catalyst is honest about leaving in the essence of Shepard.

The Catalyst or Reapers wont, in time, undermine Shepards influence.

That "magically" or forcibly people will stop inventing AI's that supposedly get so
advanced / weird enough to wipe all organics.

Though the EC expands and improves on this I don't find enough evidence to support all of these assumptions that should allow me to pick control.

The major detractions of control are. Implausibility, potentially enforcing a will on someone, a certain big brother aspect, a lack of IMHO "genuine" change, continued existance of the Reapers and thus a scewed power balance in the forseeable future.

The major upside is that noone dies except Shepard and those who are allready dead (billions?).



Synthesis seems good and like a sort of nirvana. However I find the following problematic.

Does it somehow also prevent the new organics/synthetics from creating the supposed "now pure" AI's that will get powerfull / weird enough to wipe out all organics or now organics/synthetics?

Does it somehow also prevent the evolution of new "pure" potentially warlike organics?

The only way I see this as possible is everyone knowing what everyone is doing all the time, a complete understanding of one another and continued "reapings" of every planet, moon, comet, asteroid and flake of space dust where some ignorant cell dared take root and must be incorporated into this "paradise" at all cost.

Like the Geth I also view forced with a bit of scepticism. Either you learned something yourself (which is a reward in itself) or you "cheated" and looked up the answer or an answer.

The major detractions of synthesis are. Implausibility, enforcing a will on someone, a certain big big brother aspect, a lack of IMHO "genuine" change, continued existance of the Reapers and thus a scewed power balance in the forseeable future.

The major upside is that noone dies except Shepard and those who are allready dead (billions?).



Destruction seems "bad" (though depending on your unique point of view it can be viewed as good).
The major detraction is that it kills off 2 entire species (Geth and EDI) so billions more die. In addition to the billions allready dead and possibly Shepard.
On the other side it has some positives that are not available elsewhere:
The Reapers are destroyed and everyone left is relatively balanced.

The species of the galaxy is free to choose it's own fate.

There is more potential/room for species whether they are organics/AI. No matter how it will end.



From my subjective point of view on the delicate balance of selfpreservation and that
not all life is worth living (quality of life matters) I find the destroy ending the only one acceptable.
EDIT: Destroy ending is the only ending which destroys the Reapers (so that they cannot be misused by anyone) and it has the (for god knows what reason) cost/sacrifice of EDI and the Geth. They are the arbitrarily enforced cost of victory and I would have used the "draw straws" approach if I had the choice. Still it gets the job done with the least amount of casualties. The only alternative, to me, is refuse and that has more casualties and looses the war.



However, with an undermined plot (due to the catalyst and his logic) and combined with the fact that I care little about faceless strangers, as evidenced by the fact that I bought a computer+game rather than using the money to save x number of people from starving to death, all 3 endings feel empty and quite a bit less emotionally engaging.

There is no death or sacrifice of the people I cared most about in the universe or survival with these people.

None of the endings leave me feeling the bitter and the sweet. Overly sad or even happy.

There are three grey area compromise wins that me leave me with a little less of everything.

Reducing life, good and bad even in war, to an simplistic distanced middleground. A war story with too little victory and too little tragedy to be engaging. I wanted a war story with the option for epic win or epic tragedy. Not the anonymous draw and haggling over the negotiating table. There are (presumably) good documentaries on the Potsdam conference but it makes for very poor emotional engaging entertainment.


Bioware doesn't owe me a new ending or an ending that fits me specifically. I'm just one guy. 

The EC improved the ending we did get by quite a lot.

I just think that the ending(s) could have been alot better had they been quite fundamentally different from the start and that something as good as the mass effect series deserved something that I could classify as mindblowingly good.



All of the above is just my oppinion and you don't have to agree with it. I might seem overly harsh on bioware and that isn't the intention. Bioware have done alot of stuff right, which is why I like the games. Here bioware and me are just disagreeing.

PS: Normally I'm quite inclined to go "suspend my disbelief" to go along with something because it's irrelevant. I'm incapable of doing this with the Catalyst. Maybe it's because it tries to present something as logical and/or irrefutable and my mind protests. It's an unbreakable mental wall for me here. And realistically how could bioware know I'm weird like that.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 22 janvier 2013 - 03:20 .

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
Mother Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, right? I think there's more to it than that. The Mass Effect series borrows an enormous amount from religion, Christianity in particular. Granted, some of it is kind of garbled, obligatory, and not always perfectly allegorical.

Well yes, it does, unfortunately. But that doesn't mean we have to take it that way. Your insistence that certain choices are religious is belied by the fact that most people who choose them aren't religious at all. Also, while the symbolism exists, the actual values underlying Synthesis, for instance, are opposed to those of most established religions, which promote the idea of a "sacred nature".

[CosmicGnosis]

I think the perception that Synthesis is an "abomination" of nature is actually inspired by religion and traditional beliefs about life.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:42 .

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I think the perception that Synthesis is an "abomination" of nature is actually inspired by religion and traditional beliefs about life.

Or just a belief in free will

[Sejborg]

I guess they enjoy being part of a group. And picking on people give them the feeling of being empowered.

And the mods don't care by the way.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...
I think the perception that Synthesis is an "abomination" of nature is actually inspired by religion and traditional beliefs about life.

Or just a belief in free will

There are two aspects here:
(1) The outcome of Synthesis, meaning the integration of technology and the change in physical nature in itself. This goes very much against most traditional beliefs about life, and people influenced by those - whether through religion or being otherwise culturally conditioned - are most likely to call Synthesis an "abomination".
(2) The means of achieving Synthesis, meaning making the decision for everyone, giving nobody a choice in the matter. This goes against most established systems of ethics, whether inspired by religion or not.

I take offense with Synthesis being called an abomination because I don't subscribe to the belief systems that embrace the idea of a sacred nature. I don't think the idea of  sacred nature has any validity at all, and thus I have no problem at all with the outcome of Synthesis. A religious person would be more likely to see Synthesis as an abomination.

On the other hand, I accept the ethical problem of the way used to achieve Synthesis.

In other words, when I choose Synthesis, I accept a problem recognized by most ethical systems and reject a "problem" based on traditional beliefs, and I think it's the same way for most people who choose Synthesis. The claim that those who choose Synthesis tend to have a religious mindset cannot be upheld.   

----

BTW, free will - the idea that you have the intrinsic ability to make any choice whatsoever, regardless of circumstance or predisposition - is not an issue touched by Synthesis, only the freedom to make a choice about yourself without being unduly restricted by others is. They are different. I don't think such a thing as a free will exists, nonetheless I count freedom desirable. Also Synthesis *destroys* neither, it just restricts your freedom in a matter which would be considered extremely important by anyone. 

[LTKerr]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I think the perception that Synthesis is an "abomination" of nature is actually inspired by religion and traditional beliefs about life.

Wait... what?  I'm a hardcore atheist and for me Synthesis is absolutely disgusting; it's basically a huge "synthetics and organics cannot coexist so let's merge them and create something definitely alive". Synthetics ARE alive, are life without that green abomination, and it gets worse when you realize you have been playing a game where synthetics like Legion or EDI are treated as life, as sentient beings, as people like everyone else, just until EDI's speech in Synthesis. This option is also an abomination because it goes against EDI and Legion characters (EDI says on Earth she feels alive -just an hour before that f**** speech- and Legion always said the Geth want their own future -even if they merged with the Reapers... awful writting-), against Mass Effect lore (this option is no longer ME's science fiction, is just pure fantasy) and it's more unbelievable than a flying unicorn mounted by a pink vorcha. It also condemns the whole galaxy to stagnation and it brainwashes every sentient being to make them feel creepy-happy.

So if you want to talk about religion or traditional beliefs, I think it's the opposite: a religious person would hardly see a synthetic being as life, even if it's sentient. Traditional beliefs tend to marginalize or exclude what is different (in this case, synthetic life). The more religious a society is, the more intolerant it becomes.

Modifié par LTKerr, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:37 .

[Ieldra]

LTKerr wrote...
So if you want to talk about religion or traditional beliefs, I think it's the opposite: a religious person would hardly see a synthetic being as life, even if it's sentient. Traditional beliefs tend to marginalize or exclude what is different (in this case, synthetic life). The more religious a society is, the more intolerant it becomes.

Which points, yet again, to Destroy being the preferred choice for those with traditional beliefs, since they wouldn't care about the death of the synthetics, which according to those beliefs would not be true life anyway. 

The unpleasant theme of "co-existence is only possible if you're similar" is unrelated to any religious symbolism, and it is only related to Synthesis as a means of solving the conflict, rather than to the desirability of the outcome as such.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

each ending suck, better way is to leave BioWare sooner then they trick you to bought of another false advertised game...

I'm in support of this statement
RAAAGGHH, WE KNOW BIOWARE'S TRICKS, WE LEAVE!

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:47 .

[LTKerr]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LTKerr wrote...
So if you want to talk about religion or traditional beliefs, I think it's the opposite: a religious person would hardly see a synthetic being as life, even if it's sentient. Traditional beliefs tend to marginalize or exclude what is different (in this case, synthetic life). The more religious a society is, the more intolerant it becomes.

Which points, yet again, to Destroy being the preferred choice for those with traditional beliefs, since they wouldn't care about the death of the synthetics, which according to those beliefs would not be true life anyway. 

The unpleasant theme of "co-existence is only possible if you're similar" is unrelated to any religious symbolism, and it is only related to Synthesis as a means of solving the conflict, rather than to the desirability of the outcome as such.

Destroy only kills synthetics because the writters couldn't think anythink better to sell the other two options. It's a punishment caused by awful writting to prevent the player to chose the most evident option. Chosing destroy is not about killing synthetics because they are not alive, it's about destroying the Reapers without brainwashing or destroying the soul of anyone. At least Geth and EDI die free and being treated as people. In Synthesis you prove coexistence is impossible and it's definitely not a viable option to show synthetics should be treated as life at the same level as the organics. Peace must be achieved in their terms, that means synthetics must be synthetics and organics must be organics, and they must coexist peacefully being different. It doesn't solve anythink, you just destroy EVERYTHING (organics and synthetics no longer exist), condemn everyone to stagnation, another synthetics can be created again so it doesn't solve Catalyst problem at all and you brainwash everyone without at least asking them if they want to become a cyborg.

Applepie_Svk wrote...

each ending suck, better way is to leave BioWare sooner then they trick you to bought of another false advertised game...

I'm in

Modifié par LTKerr, 22 janvier 2013 - 02:25 .

[jtav]

Religious person here:

Synthesis is gravely contrary to Catholic teaching, at the very least. It says that humanity is flawed at the root, that it must change into something else in order to thrive. Correcting defects through genetic engineering/cybernetics/green space magic is fine. Altering healthy tissue to become "more than human" is not, because it flies in the face of the notion that we are created in the image of God.

Synthesis borrows some symbolism from religion and myth, but the idea itself is your standard secular utopianism.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

Religious person here:

Synthesis is gravely contrary to Catholic teaching, at the very least. It says that humanity is flawed at the root, that it must change into something else in order to thrive. Correcting defects through genetic engineering/cybernetics/green space magic is fine. Altering healthy tissue to become "more than human" is not, because it flies in the face of the notion that we are created in the image of God.

Synthesis borrows some symbolism from religion and myth, but the idea itself is your standard secular utopianism.

. Synthesis also acknowledges humanity is inherently flawed, not because of original sin, but because we are organics seeking perfection 

[Ieldra]

LTKerr wrote...
Destroy only kills synthetics because the writters couldn't think anythink better to sell the other two options.

You didn't see the thematic balance then? That Destroy is thematically pro-organic, Control thematically pro-Synthetic, and Synthesis attempting to overcome the dichotomy? I'm not saying it's all well-written, but the death of the synthetics fits Destroy like a glove, thematically. In fact, the permanent destruction of the relays fits it as well. Bioware just chose to compromise their artistic integrity in the latter for the sake of the majority of players who chose Destroy, while keeping the main pro-organic theme intact.

[Argolas]

Steelcan wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I think the perception that Synthesis is an "abomination" of nature is actually inspired by religion and traditional beliefs about life.

Or just a belief in free will

That is true beyond the possibility of Synthesis altering minds.

Free will does not come without a price, and that price is uncertainty. We don't know if catastrophes, like synthetics killing organics, may happen in the future, but that's kind of the point: We are free, so we don't know what happens. Completely eliminating the possibility of future catastrophes is by definition not possible without removing free will.

[dorktainian]

synthesis is reaperisation. seriously listen to mordins explanations of the collectors origins.