336 réponses à ce sujet

[radishson]

Yestare7 wrote...

radishson wrote...

is OP seriously calling people who choose destroy victims of "intellectual cowardice'? LOL. I shoulda gotten in on this thread sooner.

Research the op. You'll find a lot more name-calling.

No better way to judge a stranger's cognitive fortitude than by the endgame choice of a video game!

[Vargeisa]

I don't think of Shepard as being much of an intellectual, so wouldn't the intellectually challenged people that pick destoy actually have it right?

[Argolas]

I'm still waiting for a "your ending choice and your level of education" poll. I believe Auld Wulf has at least as many college degrees as lady friends.

[Pottumuusi]

Just because it's fiction it shouldn't mean anything can happen. Then there is no story.
So yeah, Synthesis was ******* ****. Q.E.D

[Dieb]

Why was the Character Discussion board closed again?

[Argolas]

Baelrahn wrote...

Why was the Character Discussion board closed again?

Because of flamewars between groups. Auld Wulf is not a group.

[Dunabar]

Hmm I picked destroy and see no reason to bash anyone or attempt to lower people to some subhuman form of life simply because I don't share their opinion on the 'believed better ending.'

Am I doing this whole ending extremist thing wrong?

[Ieldra]

@OP:
The dissatisfaction with Synthesis as an ending of a science fiction story can be summarized as follows: For any important fantastic element which isn't believable at first glance, we need some kind of plausible-sounding technobabble that makes sense as an explanation in terms of the science of this fictional universe. Instead, Synthesis gives us mysticism. Symbolism is all very well, but it must be grounded in the universe's own logic. Cases in question:

"Essence". What the hell is that? It is reminiscent of "soul", unfortunately, so are we suddenly, in the last 15 minutes of the game, supposed to believe that souls are real and accessible to technology in this fictional universe? If it's just information, then why not use that term? Why deliberately obfuscate things? The thing is, within the established rules of the universe, there is no such thing as an "essence" of anyone. And if, as I suspect, the obfuscation is deliberate, then that's a storytelling mistake. Where else in the story, if not here, do we need unambiguous clarity in order to make a decision, not cloudy pseudomysticism written in order to appease all possible worldviews but ending up insulting everyone instead. Oh, and don't get me started about the sacrifice theme involved with no respect at all for genre conventions and the established rules of the universe.

"Final evolution": err... are we suddenly supposed to believe that evolution will end, that no more change will occur? Given that "evolution" is often - and incorrectly, as I really shouldn't need to mention - used as a substitute for "advancement", that would be immensely depressing, I'm not willing to follow the writers there. The EC shows that it's not meant that way, so what the hell *is* meant? Throwing out scientific terms while mangling their meaning is bad writing. "Science fiction is fiction" most emphatically doesn't mean that anything goes.

As you know, I like the concept and the outcome of Synthesis. However, its exposition and its rationalization in terms of how the ME universe works are just terrible. The EC added some stuff that makes sense, but unfortunately, it doesn't do away with the nonsense. The problem is not that it's nonsense when you look a little deeper, like many other fantastic concepts in SF. The problem is that it's written as if the story wanted me to accept vitalism and a teleological view of evolution as fact, with no precedence in the story that came before. I'm being hit on the head with concepts taken from religion and expected to take them as factual. That's not just nonsense, that's insulting nonsense. There are SF stories which uses similar themes well, but the defining difference is that they were established as ground rules of the universe early in the story.

The bottom line is, as much as I like the outcome, I feel that with the Synthesis exposition, the writers went to hell and back in order to avoid clarity with no reason at all, and even worse, where we needed it most. Either that, or they were deliberately insulting the players' intelligence or redefining the universe in religious terms. Neither possibility is particularly pleasant, and I will continue to let them know that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 avril 2013 - 10:55 .

[Steelcan]

@Ieldra, don't try and reason with Auld Wolf. It's not possible.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
@Ieldra, don't try and reason with Auld Wolf. It's not possible.

His point is well-made and it's something we should think about. People confining themselves in their thinking too much actually adds to the ending dissatisfaction in various ways. However, the Synthesis exposition is the wrong place to apply that. As an example, I'd rather look at the insistence of some people that it has an objectively bad outcome.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
@Ieldra, don't try and reason with Auld Wolf. It's not possible.

His point is well-made and it's something we should think about. People confining themselves in their thinking too much actually adds to the ending dissatisfaction in various ways. However, the Synthesis exposition is the wrong place to apply that. As an example, I'd rather look at the insistence of some people that it has an objectively bad outcome.

. His point is that people who pick Destroy are intellectually inferior to those who pick Synthesis.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
@Ieldra, don't try and reason with Auld Wolf. It's not possible.

His point is well-made and it's something we should think about. People confining themselves in their thinking too much actually adds to the ending dissatisfaction in various ways. However, the Synthesis exposition is the wrong place to apply that. As an example, I'd rather look at the insistence of some people that it has an objectively bad outcome.

His point is that people who pick Destroy are intellectually inferior to those who pick Synthesis.

From the barrage of last year's hate posts crying "abomination" and "rape" and calling pro-Synthesis people fascists or indoctrinated, and from the number of people expressing the sentiment "Destroy or turn the game off/break my DVDs" while pro-Synthesis/Control people are usually perfectly fine with occasionally choosing Destroy, you can indeed get the impression that there's a higher percentage of mentally inflexible traditionalist rednecks within the pro-Destroy faction.

[Argolas]

You can't seriously draw conclusion about a person's intellect based on the posts on a message board about a game.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

From the barrage of last year's hate posts crying "abomination" and "rape" and calling pro-Synthesis people fascists or indoctrinated, and from the number of people expressing the sentiment "Destroy or turn the game off/break my DVDs" while pro-Synthesis/Control people are usually perfectly fine with occasionally choosing Destroy, you can indeed get the impression that there's a higher percentage of mentally inflexible traditionalist rednecks within the pro-Destroy faction.

. Calling pro-Destroyers, luddites, sociopaths, murderers, and barbarians isn't any better.  

[Steelcan]

Archonsg wrote...

It amazes me just how often pro-synthesis supporters choose to excercise the argument that those who disdain the "Synthesis" ending lack understanding or the faculties to do so when it is really a case of one having weighed, judged and found Synthesis wanting.

If you are happy with it, hey its your game, your Shepard and your perception of what you think is a "good" for your game.

Just don't presume to think that others who do not like Synthesis are of lesser intellect.

. This x10

[Clayless]

TimtheEnchanter wrote...

Why didn't Gandalf just create a magic potion that turned hobbits into 1000 ft. tall super hobbits? He's a wizard after all.
Without limitations there's absolutely no point in telling a story.

What if Gandalf could teleport?

Like he did in The Hobbit when he appeared in the Goblin King scene.

[spirosz]

Steelcan wrote...

Calling pro-Destroyers, luddites, sociopaths, murderers, and barbarians isn't any better.  

Exactly.  Neither side is doing any better though.

[Ecrulis]

It's this sort of faction war that shut down the character forums, thankfully I'm glad we can see people like Ieldra who can be pro-synthesis without insulting pro-destroyers, as I'd hope to see pro-destroyers without insulting pro-synthesis. As I have said before I have no problem with people liking synthesis, I have a problem with people like Wulf and Sevial who seem to make it their mission to attempt to insult pro-destroy in every thread they create.

I have no doubt that synthesis could have been something quite interesting, my personal problem with it is that the way it's explained and the exposition surrounding it makes it seem as if it has no place within the Mass Effect Universe, aside from my general complain with all the endings that they are blatant rip offs, incidentally this is why I use a mod like MEHEM but that's a whole other can of worms.

I feel like the one of the problems with the endings is that they come out of nowhere and all three seem to break narrative cohesion, which I believe stems from the fact that the overarching plot was never concretely planned out before hand, they seemed to make it up as they went and while sometimes this can work when it doesn't the story tends to crash and burn.

The concepts behind the endings are fine and could very well fit if worked differently but as they stand the endings are narrative mess.

Modifié par Ecrulis, 23 avril 2013 - 01:16 .

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

From the barrage of last year's hate posts crying "abomination" and "rape" and calling pro-Synthesis people fascists or indoctrinated, and from the number of people expressing the sentiment "Destroy or turn the game off/break my DVDs" while pro-Synthesis/Control people are usually perfectly fine with occasionally choosing Destroy, you can indeed get the impression that there's a higher percentage of mentally inflexible traditionalist rednecks within the pro-Destroy faction.

. Calling pro-Destroyers, luddites, sociopaths, murderers, and barbarians isn't any better.  

But that comes from about two people, as opposed to fifty or so at least.

[Wayning_Star]

It appears that the game strongly infers/demands? that the harvested races be rescued, and are NOT dead to the MEU. That's is the basis of destroy, to eliminate an enemy that has 'killed' them.

But that overlooks the catalysts' proclamation. that all harvested will be reconnected with the MEU if synthesis is chosen.

Who do we save, the Baatarians, or the harvested? OR do we just wipe the slate clean for the next cycle of build and destroy.. (build and destroy has a ring to it..)

Like in that song The devil went down to Georgia... the kid won the contest but lost the war when risking 'soul' to gain a golden violin...lol

[Argolas]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

From the barrage of last year's hate posts crying "abomination" and "rape" and calling pro-Synthesis people fascists or indoctrinated, and from the number of people expressing the sentiment "Destroy or turn the game off/break my DVDs" while pro-Synthesis/Control people are usually perfectly fine with occasionally choosing Destroy, you can indeed get the impression that there's a higher percentage of mentally inflexible traditionalist rednecks within the pro-Destroy faction.

. Calling pro-Destroyers, luddites, sociopaths, murderers, and barbarians isn't any better.  

But that comes from about two people, as opposed to fifty or so at least.

Sounds like the relative percentage of Control or Synthesis supporters who insult people is actually higher.

[Xilizhra]

Sounds like the relative percentage of Control or Synthesis supporters who insult people is actually higher.

If this is true, it's because we're under constant attack for spurious reasons. And I don't see it as true in any case.

[Wayning_Star]

but, I thought it all was about choices and the meanings of those, how they affect change in the MEU for the MEU, not Shepard, who's just a lowly warrior on a mission to end the reaper threat for good?

Synthesis is the ONLY tool in the chest to complete that mission, the others are definitively projected as inferior to the status of the MEU. Main problem with the destroy option, even militarily, is that it's just not potent enough. The cat and friends have plainly enough, too much power over the physical realm of the MEU, it's based on them, it exists ONLY because of them. You'd have to UTTERLY remove ALL traces of them to accomplish destroy mission statement.

[Wayning_Star]

stupid organic leviathan, always causing trouble for the MEU...

[Wayning_Star]

face it, even the choices are left up to the catalyst.. destroy included. We cannot even refuse without it.

hint right there...