54 réponses à ce sujet

[Vortex13]

Has anyone else noticed this from the ending? 

The Catalyst say that the Crucible is mostly intact, and then proceeds to tell Shepard all about the endings s/he could pick, but never mentions how the Crucible is not at 100% efficientcy apart from that one line. Knowing this, why would anyone pick Synthesis? 

This is not about the ethics behind the choice, but the fact that the device being used to make an atomic level alteration of the entire galaxy is damaged. Would you have eye surgery (or any surgery for that matter) with the operating equipment mostly intact? Obviously, people can point to the end slides and show that everything worked out fine, but how would Shepard (excusing the hand waving done in how Synthesis operates) know that Synthesis would work as advertised if the Crucible is damaged? For all s/he knows it could fuse people to the hulls of spacecraft, or embed toasters in people's faces. Same thing for Control, if the broadcast tower is damaged, how can we be sure a clear signal of Shepard's conciseness is being transmitted?

In fact Destroy is the only ending that seems to take into account that the Crucible is damaged. The Catalyst says that the Destroy wave will not descriminate, is that an intentional part of the design, or damaged subsystems not firing correctly? The Crucible can be damaged further in Low EMS endings, removing ending selections entirely, and the Crucible beam, incinerating the Earth. So if the Crucible is capable of (more or less) destroying Earth because it is damaged why would one pick synthesis with a damaged Crucible?

- Side Note - Its interesting how the Destroy part of the Crucible is the only part that appears damaged in your High EMS endings. The Reapers only damaging the Crucible enough to affect Destroy, but not Control or Synthesis? That's some pretty precise targeting; then again the Catalyst did say that it was aware of the Crucible for several cycles (if not the architect of the device) so maybe it knew where to shoot the thing.

[Enhanced]

Yes. That's one reason why I picked synthesis and control over destroy. The Crucible changed his programming and feeds this information to him. If something else was wrong with it, he would bring it up.

Also, to me, it's a hint from Bioware that destroy isn't the best choice. Synthesis and Control aren't faulty because it's not written to be.

Modifié par Enhanced, 01 mai 2013 - 02:22 .

[Mobius-Silent]

Nonsense: in all 3 endings there is a huge galaxy-spanning wave that performs a massive task (Control shouldn't need one theoretically, but it gets one so we can only assume it was needed), if you don't trust the Crucible to do it's job you can't pick _any_ of the options because any one of them could wipe out everyone on a misfire.

Same with "I don't trust the Catalyst so I pick destroy" it's all faulty reasoning, as an excuse to bash the ending(s) they don't like as a surrogate for resolving their cognative dissonance between loving Mass Effect and despising the endings of ME3.

None of the 3 main endings are worse than the other here, they are all bad.

[KingZayd]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Nonsense: in all 3 endings there is a huge galaxy-spanning wave that performs a massive task (Control shouldn't need one theoretically, but it gets one so we can only assume it was needed), if you don't trust the Crucible to do it's job you can't pick _any_ of the options because any one of them could wipe out everyone on a misfire.

Same with "I don't trust the Catalyst so I pick destroy" it's all faulty reasoning, as an excuse to bash the ending(s) they don't like as a surrogate for resolving their cognative dissonance between loving Mass Effect and despising the endings of ME3.

None of the 3 main endings are worse than the other here, they are all bad.

To be fair, the synthesis operation is far more complex than the others. In destroy, you're just trying to break things. In control, you're hijacking a control system that was already in place. In synthesis you're redesigning all life.

I'd feel more confident about control and destroy working than synthesis.

[Phatose]

"Just trying to break things" is seriously oversimplifying destroy.

The wave has to tell organic from equipment from synthetic life. A broken targeting device could spell death for the entire galaxy.

[dreamgazer]

KingZayd wrote...

In destroy, you're just trying to break things.

I'd say it's probably closer to ...

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

"Just trying to break things" is seriously oversimplifying destroy.

The wave has to tell organic from equipment from synthetic life. A broken targeting device could spell death for the entire galaxy.

This is definitely achievable in the ME universe:
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

Look for the bit about how they detected the Virtual Aliens.

[gisle]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

None of the 3 main endings are worse than the other here, they are all bad.

I agree, and that's what makes the choice good. All endings have some **** attached to them; none are flawless.

Destroy: Shepard kill all synthetics, which is a sad consequence. And useful tools to rebuild with, the Reapers, are killed off when other options like enslaving them are provdied.
Control: Shepard dies, but an AI is constructed based upon the real deal, and that is told beforehand even.
Synthesis: Before Shepard jumps the beam, few details are disclosed about how it will be like for organics. Even after, it's only from EDI's perspective, and we've told remarkably little what happens to the organics.

I personally prefer destroy. Provided trusting the catalyst, the effect of it is made completely clear before the choice is made.

[Mobius-Silent]

KingZayd wrote...
To be fair, the synthesis operation is far more complex than the others. In destroy, you're just trying to break things. In control, you're hijacking a control system that was already in place. In synthesis you're redesigning all life.

I'd feel more confident about control and destroy working than synthesis.

I'd say that destroy is projecting targeted energy directly into specific systems. Synthesis is depositing Nanotech around life (Remember the cinematic shows the synthesis nanotech still working an replicating much later) that then get's on and does its work. Given that one is misusing the relay network as a destructive weapon and the other is transporting stuff, which the relay network is designed to do. I'd say that the point is _very_ arguable, and not at all clear-cut.

[Phatose]

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

"Just trying to break things" is seriously oversimplifying destroy.

The wave has to tell organic from equipment from synthetic life. A broken targeting device could spell death for the entire galaxy.

This is definitely achievable in the ME universe:
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

Look for the bit about how they detected the Virtual Aliens.

It's obviously possible - it works in the destroy ending.  It's a question of what happens if that's part of it is broken?  The wave hits everything in the galaxy.  If it's method of telling one from the other is damaged, setting off destroy could easily become omnicide.  Hardly safer then synthesis with a possibly broken module.

[robertthebard]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
To be fair, the synthesis operation is far more complex than the others. In destroy, you're just trying to break things. In control, you're hijacking a control system that was already in place. In synthesis you're redesigning all life.

I'd feel more confident about control and destroy working than synthesis.

I'd say that destroy is projecting targeted energy directly into specific systems. Synthesis is depositing Nanotech around life (Remember the cinematic shows the synthesis nanotech still working an replicating much later) that then get's on and does its work. Given that one is misusing the relay network as a destructive weapon and the other is transporting stuff, which the relay network is designed to do. I'd say that the point is _very_ arguable, and not at all clear-cut.

It's not misusing it, it is sending a shutdown code, ie transmitting data.  Nothing blows up, barring low EMS Destroy, except parts of the Citadel, and the relays, which happens in all three.  So what's the difference?  Oh, there is one, "but you kill EDI and the geth".  It is, however, amusing that Synthesis requires a higher EMS than most, but I also explained that:  The space magic parts are the first parts to get blown up.

[Argolas]

Phatose wrote...

It's obviously possible - it works in the destroy ending.  It's a question of what happens if that's part of it is broken?  The wave hits everything in the galaxy.  If it's method of telling one from the other is damaged, setting off destroy could easily become omnicide.  Hardly safer then synthesis with a possibly broken module.

Sudden unexpected death versus neverending nightmare? Easy choice.

[Mobius-Silent]

robertthebard wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
To be fair, the synthesis operation is far more complex than the others. In destroy, you're just trying to break things. In control, you're hijacking a control system that was already in place. In synthesis you're redesigning all life.

I'd feel more confident about control and destroy working than synthesis.

I'd say that destroy is projecting targeted energy directly into specific systems. Synthesis is depositing Nanotech around life (Remember the cinematic shows the synthesis nanotech still working an replicating much later) that then get's on and does its work. Given that one is misusing the relay network as a destructive weapon and the other is transporting stuff, which the relay network is designed to do. I'd say that the point is _very_ arguable, and not at all clear-cut.

It's not misusing it, it is sending a shutdown code, ie transmitting data.  Nothing blows up, barring low EMS Destroy, except parts of the Citadel, and the relays, which happens in all three.  So what's the difference?  Oh, there is one, "but you kill EDI and the geth".  It is, however, amusing that Synthesis requires a higher EMS than most, but I also explained that:  The space magic parts are the first parts to get blown up.

Why would "sending a shutdown code" result in emp-style lightening across the reaper. Why would low-ems destroy tear things apart if there wasn't energy being projected. No, I think it's pretty clear that destroy is _not_ a simple shutdown code "all synthetics" is pretty clear, not "all synthetic that are capable of receiving a signal and function on reaper-derived tech", energy gets inside and wrecks them.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 01 mai 2013 - 02:53 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Phatose wrote...

"Just trying to break things" is seriously oversimplifying destroy.

The wave has to tell organic from equipment from synthetic life. A broken targeting device could spell death for the entire galaxy.

This is definitely achievable in the ME universe:
http://masseffect.wi...i/Virtual_Alien

Look for the bit about how they detected the Virtual Aliens.

It's obviously possible - it works in the destroy ending.  It's a question of what happens if that's part of it is broken?  The wave hits everything in the galaxy.  If it's method of telling one from the other is damaged, setting off destroy could easily become omnicide.  Hardly safer then synthesis with a possibly broken module.

My point was, that the Synthesis operation is still far more complex. Yes if there are issues with destroy, then it's not going to be pleasant. There is so much more that could go wrong with the more complex operations though.

[Mobius-Silent]

Argolas wrote...

Sudden unexpected death versus neverending nightmare? Easy choice.

"neverending nightmare"

Because that's precisely what's shown in the ending slides, sheesh,
Like I said "an excuse to bash the ending(s) they don't like as a surrogate for resolving their cognative dissonance"

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 01 mai 2013 - 02:56 .

[Mobius-Silent]

KingZayd wrote...
My point was, that the Synthesis operation is still far more complex. Yes if there are issues with destroy, then it's not going to be pleasant. There is so much more that could go wrong with the more complex operations though.

Which is why you _don't_ get the option at low EMS. At the threshold where you _do_ get the option then there is no reason to assume that any of the options are more likely to go wrong than the other.

[Argolas]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Sudden unexpected death versus neverending nightmare? Easy choice.

"neverending nightmare"

Because that's precisely what's shown in the ending slides, sheesh,
Like I said "an excuse to bash the ending(s) they don't like as a surrogate for resolving their cognative dissonance"

Weren't we talking about what happens if something goes wrong?

[KingZayd]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
My point was, that the Synthesis operation is still far more complex. Yes if there are issues with destroy, then it's not going to be pleasant. There is so much more that could go wrong with the more complex operations though.

Which is why you _don't_ get the option at low EMS. At the threshold where you _do_ get the option then there is no reason to assume that any of the options are more likely to go wrong than the other.

Destroy still goes pretty badly at low EMS doesn't it?

[Mobius-Silent]

Argolas wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Sudden unexpected death versus neverending nightmare? Easy choice.

"neverending nightmare"

Because that's precisely what's shown in the ending slides, sheesh,
Like I said "an excuse to bash the ending(s) they don't like as a surrogate for resolving their cognative dissonance"

Weren't we talking about what happens if something goes wrong?

If thats the context of your comment, mea culpa, however as any geneticist will tell you the if you tamper with a biological system poorly the result is going to be death almost all of the time. I believe the analogy used was "How likely are you to improve the reception on your TV by throwing a spanner in the back while it's on."

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 01 mai 2013 - 03:32 .

[Hadeedak]

Hah, yeah. If something goes wrong, it's pretty much a KO for all life, considering how sensitive things get on a cellular level.

If destroy goes wrong.... Well, you get our old buddy, the vaporize ending.

If control goes wrong, I have no idea. Maybe Shepalyst is suddenly lord of the toaster ovens?

[Phatose]

On a practical level, given the sheer amount of energy necessary for any of these effects to happen at all, if something goes wrong there's a distinct possibility of omnicide.

Ever visit the SCP foundation? There's a bit from there I think applies here.

I watched the world nearly die in a thousand thousand terrible ways. Sometimes we would have had time to scream.

Today,

I'm alive to write about it. You want happy endings? #&^# you.

You're alive to read it.

[Killdren88]

Calling Synthesis correct is like calling the Unitologist from Dead Space correct. They wanted to merge with those monsters just as synthesis is merging with the Reapers who are just as big as monsters.

[SinerAthin]

I never liked synthesis.

Blow stuff up? Yeah, that seems reasonable.
Hijack their control console? Why not?

But a button that can instantly change every living and synthetic creature in the galaxy and mold them into one specie that lives happily ever after?
What kind of chems were the writer on when writing that one o.O

Killdren88 wrote...

Calling Synthesis correct is like calling the Unitologist from Dead Space correct. They wanted to merge with those monsters just as synthesis is merging with the Reapers who are just as big as monsters.

Most of the unitologists were idiots, I'd say.

Very, very stupid, naive idiots

[Phatose]

That's not what it does. It's just not.

[Voodoo2015]

KingZayd wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Nonsense: in all 3 endings there is a huge galaxy-spanning wave that performs a massive task (Control shouldn't need one theoretically, but it gets one so we can only assume it was needed), if you don't trust the Crucible to do it's job you can't pick _any_ of the options because any one of them could wipe out everyone on a misfire.

Same with "I don't trust the Catalyst so I pick destroy" it's all faulty reasoning, as an excuse to bash the ending(s) they don't like as a surrogate for resolving their cognative dissonance between loving Mass Effect and despising the endings of ME3.

None of the 3 main endings are worse than the other here, they are all bad.

To be fair, the synthesis operation is far more complex than the others. In destroy, you're just trying to break things. In control, you're hijacking a control system that was already in place. In synthesis you're redesigning all life.

I'd feel more confident about control and destroy working than synthesis.

And in Synthesis you play god!