Aller au contenu

Photo

Did this DLC disenchant anyone else with Synthesis?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
202 réponses à ce sujet

#151
RiptideX1090

RiptideX1090
  • Members
  • 14 658 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...
Had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong.

A similar rationale makes me choose Synthesis. The sacrifice only makes sense if within the constraints set by the Catalyst, Synthesis unfolds according to how Shepard envisions it. If your Shepard thinks Synthesis has fundamentally undesirable results, then he shouldn't choose it or those will manifest. My Shepard envisions Synthesis as the path to a hyper-advanced future where tech integration empowers individuals with new possibilities, and beings of organic and synthetic origin have enough in common not to be doomed to conflict. Not a future free from conflict, not even from conflict between organics and synthetics, but those will all be rooted in regular conflicts of interest and competition rather than a "creator vs. created" dynamic, and the increased interdependence of everything will create a natural preference for nonviolent solutions.  

So...yeah. Someone else might have gotten it wrong.


While I respect your decision, I can't look at Synthesis without looking at everything the Catalyst has done, everything the Reapers have done, and think what Mordin might have said had he been there at the beam. All those talks about replacing everything with tech in the Collectors, and how it took away their very souls, and how Synthesis causes EDI's personality to change. I don't know, I'm not a fan of indoctrination Theory, but linking everyone's minds to the Reapers? That's just too much of a risk, after everything I've seen from Saren all the way to Project Overlord and beyond. And I don't believe that we need Synthesis to achieve peace or happiness for the future. I believe we've earned it on our own terms, without the Reapers being able to stomp around.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate of Destroy vs. Synthesis. I answered the OP's question. I chose Destroy to start, and every DLC that has come out has only re-enforced that decision.

#152
almondroy

almondroy
  • Members
  • 326 messages
This DLC had no effect on me not liking or choosing Synthesis; it's the one ending that in its current form, I would never pick.

#153
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 183 messages
@RiptideX1090:
It was never my goal to establish Synthesis as the best ending, just as one of three ending choices which are all viable, good from a certain perspective, depending on how you experienced the story and personal ideology. I may not like Destroy for thematic reasons, but it's a pretty straightforward choice based on sound military rationale.
Also, I don't think "the civilizations stored in their forms will be connected to all of us" means anything like a permanent mindlink. That would drive people insane, given Legion's experience of a Reaper mind. As I see it, it just means they're now part of civilization. That is a risk, yes.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mars 2013 - 12:33 .


#154
dorktainian

dorktainian
  • Members
  • 4 410 messages
loads of nudges right throughout the DLC that destroy is the best ending. Nice one Bioware :)

#155
MattFini

MattFini
  • Members
  • 3 571 messages

cerberus1701 wrote...

Destroy Pre-EC.

Destroy Post-EC.

Profoundly, happily, enthusiastically Destroy post-Citadel.



#156
RiptideX1090

RiptideX1090
  • Members
  • 14 658 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

@RiptideX1090:
It was never my goal to establish Synthesis as the best ending, just as one of three ending choices which are all viable, good from a certain perspective, depending on how you experienced the story and personal ideology. I may not like Destroy for thematic reasons, but it's a pretty straightforward choice based on sound military rationale.
Also, I don't think "the civilizations stored in their forms will be connected to all of us" means anything like a permanent mindlink. That would drive people insane, given Legion's experience of a Reaper mind. As I see it, it just means they're now part of civilization. That is a risk, yes.


Which highlights my biggest problem with the ending, too much is left open to interpretation. Do the geth get rebuilt in destroy? Do the Reapers remain as a police force in Control or do they eventually retreat to Dark Space and Shepard only intervenes when there is a crisis? Are people linked to Reapers in Synthesis and subsequently indoctrinated or do they maintain free will?

You can make cases for all of these, either for or against, and that, I feel, is the biggest failing. I mean, taken at their best, each ending has some positives over the others, taken at their worse, they're all nihilistic and depressing, and some are outright pointless in regards to others.

I just wish we got some more answers, is all. I love Destroy for the most part, but as you say, the thematics of it make it a tough pill to swallow because it wipes out the Geth and EDI. You can interpret that as anti-synthetic or as sacrifice, and it being left up in the air like that... well, kind of sucks.

#157
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages
Was never enchanted in the first place.

#158
jtav

jtav
  • Members
  • 13 965 messages
I'm actually leaning more towards Control. Minimum disruption of civilization and no one dies but me. My friends will live their lives and be safe and happy. EDI and Joker will be okay. I can live with that.

#159
Dr_Extrem

Dr_Extrem
  • Members
  • 4 092 messages

jtav wrote...

I'm actually leaning more towards Control. Minimum disruption of civilization and no one dies but me. My friends will live their lives and be safe and happy. EDI and Joker will be okay. I can live with that.


well .. except that 2km tall killerrobots are still in london ...


civilisation should choose its own path - without outside influence.

#160
RiptideX1090

RiptideX1090
  • Members
  • 14 658 messages

jtav wrote...

I'm actually leaning more towards Control. Minimum disruption of civilization and no one dies but me. My friends will live their lives and be safe and happy. EDI and Joker will be okay. I can live with that.


As much as I absolutely love EDI and Joker, I can't live with the idea of my Shepard becoming the Catalyst. That's just...

I mean, I see the appeal and why others might, but I could never do it.

#161
ElSuperGecko

ElSuperGecko
  • Members
  • 2 314 messages

Knight of Dane wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Destroy Pre-EC.

Destroy Post-EC.

Profoundly, happily, enthusiastically Destroy post-Citadel.

This

And It's extemely simple for me.
Shep lives.


My all-three-games playthrough Paragon MaleShep Infiltrator chose Red.

My all-three-games playthrough Renegade FemShep Adept choose Red.

Whether I saved the Geth, saved the Quarians or made peace, whether I reactivated Legion or sold it to Cerberus, whether I cured or sabotaged the Genophage, whether I destroyed the Collector base or handed it to TIM, I chose red.

Every single playthrough has had a red ending.  Every single playthrough will have a red ending.  And why?  Because it's the only logical decision.

I don't believe I'd fare any better than TIM did in tyrying to control the Reapers.

I don't buy into the Catalyst's disingenuous assertations.

I don't pretend I can make nice with the Reapers, when they've never made nice with anything or anyone.

I certainly don't accept that all evolutionary life is fundamentally flawed and in need of "perfecting".

And I don't think that obstinately sitting on my hands and refusing to do anything helps, either.

So I shoot the tube.  Every single time.

#162
RiptideX1090

RiptideX1090
  • Members
  • 14 658 messages
What Gecko said, more or less.

#163
RiptideX1090

RiptideX1090
  • Members
  • 14 658 messages
However, I WILL say that it's nice to see people discussing this like mature adults for a change.

#164
Liamv2

Liamv2
  • Members
  • 19 039 messages

RiptideX1090 wrote...

However, I WILL say that it's nice to see people discussing this like mature adults for a change.


Auld wolf has yet to arrive i see Image IPB

#165
hermiona15

hermiona15
  • Members
  • 45 messages

cerberus1701 wrote...

Destroy Pre-EC.

Destroy Post-EC.

Profoundly, happily, enthusiastically Destroy post-Citadel.



#166
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 183 messages

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@RiptideX1090:
It was never my goal to establish Synthesis as the best ending, just as one of three ending choices which are all viable, good from a certain perspective, depending on how you experienced the story and personal ideology. I may not like Destroy for thematic reasons, but it's a pretty straightforward choice based on sound military rationale.
Also, I don't think "the civilizations stored in their forms will be connected to all of us" means anything like a permanent mindlink. That would drive people insane, given Legion's experience of a Reaper mind. As I see it, it just means they're now part of civilization. That is a risk, yes.


Which highlights my biggest problem with the ending, too much is left open to interpretation. Do the geth get rebuilt in destroy? Do the Reapers remain as a police force in Control or do they eventually retreat to Dark Space and Shepard only intervenes when there is a crisis? Are people linked to Reapers in Synthesis and subsequently indoctrinated or do they maintain free will?

You can make cases for all of these, either for or against, and that, I feel, is the biggest failing. I mean, taken at their best, each ending has some positives over the others, taken at their worse, they're all nihilistic and depressing, and some are outright pointless in regards to others.

The imagery of the Extended Cut suggests that the high EMS endings are good (possible exception: Renegade Control) from some reasonable point of view. I don't think it needs to be mentioned that Synthesis doesn't indoctrinate people or take away their free will. For me, that goes without saying, just as much as it goes without saying that "Control!Shepard becomes consumed by their own power and creates an oppressive empire lasting forever" doesn't happen in Paragon Control. It's the way stories work, actually. If one thing was always clear to me, it was that the endings were intended to be good. Even in the case of the original endings, I think the writers were just blinded by their own Romanticism - the dark age and the reset of civilization was seen as good, as "uplifting in the context of sacrifice" (Casey Hudson). Thus, I take the EC scenarios at face value and take the best interpretation tempered by a little realism given that they're like a five-minute newspiece covering 200 years. Synthetics can be built in Destroy of course, but they won't be the geth, just like if I kill you and rebuild a human from your DNA, the result won't be you. If you want to save the geth in Destroy, you need more serious headcanon, just as if you want to save Shepard in Synthesis. As you might know, I have absolutely zero compunctions against such headcanon. Whatever results in a story you like. I would only care about a convincing, reasonably lore-friendly rationale.

I don't necessarily see the openness as a weakness. It requires that you add things with your own imagination. For some, that may not be enough. For me, it's great. I love to extend stories, and I love that this way, the end of ME3 appears like a new beginning. 

I just wish we got some more answers, is all. I love Destroy for the most part, but as you say, the thematics of it make it a tough pill to swallow because it wipes out the Geth and EDI. You can interpret that as anti-synthetic or as sacrifice, and it being left up in the air like that... well, kind of sucks.

I don't think it sucks. If it's a sacrifice or an anti-synthetic choice depends wholly on you, or rather, the Shepard you're playing. That's as it should be - you are limited by the game in the actions you can choose, but you are free to set the motivations of your protagonist.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mars 2013 - 03:55 .


#167
ruggly

ruggly
  • Members
  • 7 561 messages

Liamv2 wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

However, I WILL say that it's nice to see people discussing this like mature adults for a change.


Auld wolf has yet to arrive i see Image IPB


No, he was here earlier.

Anyways, the EDI scene may have pushed me more towards control at one point.  But I have my endings all set up now with this fanfiction mod.  Okay, so it may be fanfiction, but it makes me happy, just as others have endings that make them happy.  The party fits perfectly post-ending for me, just tune out the bits about the war, and get that true bitter sweet feeling with "the best."

I just don't like the idea of turning my Shepards into an AI "god" and watching over the galaxy for the rest of eternity, nor do I like forcibly "ascending" every single species in the galaxy for, what is my opinion, some problem that I never really saw as the main problem.  Shepard finally has something to live for, and I'm going to make damn sure she's coming home.

Just my two cents.

#168
Boondoxx

Boondoxx
  • Members
  • 31 messages

Han Shot First wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Destroy Pre-EC.

Destroy Post-EC.

Profoundly, happily, enthusiastically Destroy post-Citadel.


Pretty much this.

The Citadel DLC perhaps makes it more painful to lose EDI, but the life of one squadmate (or even all of them) is inconsequential when weighed against the fate of an entire galaxy. So long as the Reapers continue to exist, they'll loom as a threat over the continued existence of galactic civilization.

Can the Catalyst be trusted to remain at the helm even after Synthesis? Can Cayalyst 2.0 (a.k.a. Control Shep) be trusted not to one day reach the same conclusions as the Catalyst replaced? Those aren't isn't risks my Shepard would be willing to take. He was also unwilling to fundementally alter the very nature of life and the galactic civilizations he had fought to save, for all time.

 

QFT

#169
Sporozoa

Sporozoa
  • Members
  • 34 messages
Any ending doesnt make sence after that DLC. Citadel dlc is the ending. I will just think about it as it takes place 1-5 years after the ending. And Shepard on shore leave just from one random adventure mission till another but without reapers at all. Just last adventure. No closure. And so then they all running to something new at last 5 sec (in docking bay) - but we dont need to see it at all.

What happens to shepard next? That, is another story entirely.

#170
XxBrokenBonezxX

XxBrokenBonezxX
  • Members
  • 398 messages

PainCakesx wrote...

From a more "selfish" point of view, I think Shepard's earned the right to live on, enjoy the fruits of his labor, and continue his life with those he cares about.


Damn right he has. It's unbelievable that he never gets a chance in game to do so.

#171
RiptideX1090

RiptideX1090
  • Members
  • 14 658 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't think it sucks. If it's a sacrifice or an anti-synthetic choice depends wholly on you, or rather, the Shepard you're playing. That's as it should be - you are limited by the game in the actions you can choose, but you are free to set the motivations of your protagonist.


Yes, but context is missing outside of the player's own head here, I feel. Do I know my Shepard didn't choose destroy because he hates synthetics, instead seeing it as a final sacrifice to end the war? Damn straight. But it would have been good to be able to voice that properly. With Mordin's Death, Legion's, Thane's, I feel like I got closure, I got to say my goodbyes. I didn't get that with EDI nor the geth. Which is yet another thing I dislike about the endings. Shepard is making a decision in a vacuum, neither recieving input from the people his choices will affect nor actually experiencing the consequences of those actions, at least not to an appreciable degree.

Now, before you or someone else notes that there ARE consequences or that Shepard DOES experience some degree of consequence in each choice, let me elaborate, so as not to have my words confused. Yes, there are consequences and yes, Shepard and the people of the galaxy do react to them in SOME manner in the EC, but it's very, VERY small.

In Destroy, you have Hackett giving his speech, and Shepard bloodied but potentially alive, but that's it. Ideally, I would have wanted a chance to reconcile with Joker over the loss of EDI, or Tali over the loss of the geth as Shepard. Hell, you get NO mention of the loss of the geth from Hackett or anyone, only the implication they will be rebuilt. Possibly.

For Control, I would like to hear what the Council thinks of having giant enslaved AI's effectively running the galaxy (or at the very least running around), how the other governments look at it as well. You get Reaper Shepard's view on things, but what do your squadmates think of this decision?

And Synthesis, yes, EDI is clearly happy about it (though I can never understand why when it goes against her stated values and goals), but what about everyone else? What's the story with that woman Jacob is consoling in the wreckage of London? How do people feel about Shepard's decision? How does Javik? How do they feel to have Reapers stomping around? How do they react to having husks walking around? How do the husks feel?

For some, headcannon is enough, but I'm a firm believer that when you close a story, you need to have more questions answered than not. And while this is not the end of Mass Effect, it is the end of Shepard, and I feel like there were too many questions left up in the air at the end.

#172
RustyMcBlade

RustyMcBlade
  • Members
  • 248 messages
destroy yesterday, destroy today, destroy tomorrow.

#173
FlyingSquirrel

FlyingSquirrel
  • Members
  • 2 105 messages

HJF4 wrote...
Basically what Bioware seems to be going for with the synthesis ending is the notion that if people are given the means to understand each other in a deeper manner, they will tend towards peace rather than conflict. The dialog said if Wreav instead of Wrex is alive implies that some people are slower to accept peace and harmony than others, which again shows that synthesis wouldn't make everyone "the same" or brainwash them into the thinking the same things.


This is pretty much what I see as the main selling point of Synthesis, and why my canon Shepard ended up choosing it. Though I also have a headcanon bit where she gains some control over the "dispersal" when she jumps into the beam and makes sure it happens in a way that's reversible for people who don't want the upgrades.

#174
Auld Wulf

Auld Wulf
  • Members
  • 1 284 messages

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

This is pretty much what I see as the main selling point of Synthesis, and why my canon Shepard ended up choosing it. Though I also have a headcanon bit where she gains some control over the "dispersal" when she jumps into the beam and makes sure it happens in a way that's reversible for people who don't want the upgrades.

Huh. It's rare to see an intelligent person around these parts. I've gotten so used to seeing people making hilariously crazy excuses for their pettiness that ... I'm not sure how to react to you. I think I'm happy. Yes, let's call it that.

Though Synthesis is optional. I know that there are Destroy fans out there who (in their pettiness) will argue that "canon isn't canon," but if you don't cure the genophage, EDI tells you that the krogans didn't opt into Synthesis, that Synthesis is an optional thing that the individual has to choose. She even goes on to say something along the lines of 'maybe some day they'll be ready,' just to emphasise the opt-in nature of it.

But yes, this is the truth of it. Synthesis is all about empathy, and considering the Destroy fans who seem to hate the geth, hate Joker, hate EDI, and hate all enhanced people enough to see them die horrible deaths? I think we need it. If nothing else, Mass Effect proves that humanity needs a good dose of empathy. Otherwise most humans are selfish, petty creatures, and barely intelligent biological automatons. That upgrade is damn near necessary. They need the empathy that comes standard for more intelligent people.

I do think you have to have a sufficient lack of overall intelligence and emotional maturity to pick Destroy considering all the death and misery it causes, all so that the petty ones can have their 'breath scene' (which is just the clone, anyway). And that's what I tend to see around BSN, a lot of sociopathy and a lack of overall intellect. And the absolute bitter hatred that Destroy fans tend to usher unto Synthesis and Control fans is further proof of this.

I don't hate 'em, myself. I just don't think they're particularly bright or emotionally mature. The emotionally mature person looks at what each ending would do to all of the characters. And with something like Destroy, my heart just goes out to Joker. Joker has learned to love life and tolerate his sickness because of EDI, because of his love of EDI. If you kill EDI in cold blood (for no good reason other than pettiness), then you're basically going to leave Joker alone with his sickness. You're going to have a very suicidal Joker who's likely going to end it all.

This is what Destroy fans can't understand. They can't emotionally feel their way around something as complex as that, as the ripples and effects that Destroy would have on the Universe. They've proved time and time again that they are physically incapable of showing emotion for anyone but themselves. They won't care about Joker because they can't care about Joker. And therein lies the rub.

Synthesis would be needed for humanity to fix people like that. To fix people who can't feel for anyone other than themselves. Those who have such an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance that the pain and suffering of other people is completely irrelevant. All I can think of when I get to the end is how much I'd completely eff people up by doing this... how much I'd make Joker suicidal, and the harm I'd do to the quarians (by taking away the geth after finally making peace between them). That's because I do feel. And emotional maturity takes an enhanced degree of intellect which I can see now that not everyone has.

So Synthesis is necessary. People need that boost. They need that upgrade. They need to be able to understand things both emotionally and intellectually. They need to be able to relate, to empathise, to put themselves in the shoes of other people. It's the one thing humanity desperately needs. I've always had a feeling that that was the case, but Mass Effect proves it. Apparently there's always going to be a non-trivial amount of people who aren't intelligent enough to have full emotional maturity otherwise, who can't empathise, who can't feel for other people.

The simple truth is is that we need to fix them. They need to be fixed. And in my canon, they are fixed (thank goodness).

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 08 mars 2013 - 06:00 .


#175
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages
Out of curiosity, Auld Wolf, are you Bizarro Rifneno? You have the exact same manner but the exact opposite opinions.