326 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

Omega Torsk wrote...

As detailed as it was, anyway... but it could have been rectified by showing us the consequences of such an action!

You misunderstand me. I meant that sarcastically.

Synthesis isn't described in any meaningful detail whatsoever. The dialogue that the Catalyst says amounts to "it takes STUFF, and does STUFF with it!"

[Bionuts]

ruggly wrote...

Bionuts wrote...
understanding, etc.

You can't force understanding.

Not on a personal level, but you can still learn to understand someone else's persective even if you disagree.

If synthesis accomplishes this:

1. Healthier organics
2. Rise in intelligence
3. Phyisically more able
4. Shared perspectives

then I'm all for it.

However, if it simply neuters organics (which is the impression I get many believe), then yeah it's pretty bad.

[Redbelle]

Synthesis is just to badly explained.

It's supposed to conform to some idea of a modern utopia.

But the entire game's narrative thrust is to learn what makes a species unique. To learn this through your squad mates. To embrace their uniquness and build your response to the Reaper's on this. A tactic that even Javik endorses as his cycle went the other way. And suddenly synthesis get's drops on us?

It's entirely out of context with the gritty nature of the game in that blood sweat and a few good men are all it takes to win the day. Not space magic saving throws.

And synthesis really was badly explained. (Catalyst, I'm looking at you). It explained it while filling in the role as the enemies end of level boss. The fans have pointed out the numerous fundamental flaws in it's thinking. And the real rub......

We're talking to the lynchpin of the Reaper's and we have to either agree with it's genocidal insane plan or reject it and be destroyed anyway?

Who thought that up? It's daft to talk to the head of the serpent when your mission is to cut it off.

Whoever broke the mold of video gaming convention on this one obviously didn't put enough time into thinking this through. If they had they'd have realised that the Catalyst has blood on it's hands. Is parading it's Reaper forces around like head's on spikes. And is trying to get the player to agree to a purely logic based rational when ever moral fibre in a person ought to be screaming. This is the genocidal megalomaniac that ended more lives than we can count and need's to be judged accordingly by those it now seeks to harm.

There is no justice at the end of ME3. Just the same kind of cold logical based calculation I once saw in a Torchwood episode where they decided to sacrifice all the children to an alien species that were at the bottom of the school grading tables. All so they could rebuild their society with the smartest ones.

ME3's ending tried for epic and ended up falling on its face. Bad writing is the real culprit here.

Modifié par Redbelle, 02 août 2013 - 10:04 .

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Shall I get my popcorn already?

Anyway, here's my two cents:

Reapers should die anyway, the Geth are purged and I don't give a damn about EDI. Hey, Shep even has a chance of survival! Thus: Destroy > everything else

As a destroyer, I'm going to say that this argument falls woefully short. I concur, though I think that if this is your reasoning....

The Quarians will probably end up starting the cycle again.

Unless a little accident happens to Xen...

Jokes aside, I don't pick destroy because Shep lives, I pick destroy because out of all the endings, it sucks the least.

[jtav]

Synthesis is supposed to be the salvation of synthetics and organics, but the story fails to support that we need saving. I understand the singularity but what the story actually gives me is a very humanlike EDI whose romance has less drama than mine and the main organic-synthetic conflict being tentatively solved by the participants. So a player is going to wonder why Synthesis is necessary until and unless something with more narrative weight comes along to *show* Catalyst has a point.

[dorktainian]

you want groundhog day in the mass effect universe? pick synthesis.

[Zaalbar]

The problem with Synthesis is it's execution was terrible and it's not very interesting story materiel, it effectively ends the Mass Effect universe.

Bioware has left little room for future story's in a post ending universe, especially Synthesis.
Take the Star Wars Trilogy, the ending to Return of the Jedi closed off the story arcs and for better or worse they left it open for future story's, Hence Episode VII.

Mass Effect has effectively ended and the only likely path is prequels which I for one is not a huge fan of.
That is partly the reason why I don't like ME3's ending especially Synthesis, It's the worst way to end an epic trilogy with little room for sequels.

Destroy = post apocalyptic Fallout type setting.
Control = Reapers policing the galaxy ending conflict before they start... Lame!
Synthesis = Stupidity
Refusal = End

[ruggly]

Bionuts wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Bionuts wrote...
understanding, etc.

You can't force understanding.

Not on a personal level, but you can still learn to understand someone else's persective even if you disagree.

If synthesis accomplishes this:

1. Healthier organics
2. Rise in intelligence
3. Phyisically more able
4. Shared perspectives

then I'm all for it.

However, if it simply neuters organics (which is the impression I get many believe), then yeah it's pretty bad.

And we need to force synthesis to do these things because we are somehow unable to do it on our on, at our own pace?  I don't see why we can achieve synthesis on our own.  It will be a bumpier road, but that's far more preferable to me than saying "all you organics are awful, you need to be saved right now."

I don't like the destruction of synthetics in destroy, since I see it as tacked on to make it look real bad.  But there's no reason post-destroy that we can't achieve all of that, and go hand-in-hand with new synthetics to a better future.

[Nightwriter]

jtav wrote...

Synthesis is supposed to be the salvation of synthetics and organics, but the story fails to support that we need saving. I understand the singularity but what the story actually gives me is a very humanlike EDI whose romance has less drama than mine and the main organic-synthetic conflict being tentatively solved by the participants. So a player is going to wonder why Synthesis is necessary until and unless something with more narrative weight comes along to *show* Catalyst has a point.

^

Breaks the whole ending, if you ask me. Why does Synthesis require the most EMS when it's a solution to a non-problem? Why is Shepard's death meaningful in Control if it's for the sake of a non-problem? Why's Destroy below Synthesis? Why's Destroy my only option if I acknowledge the glaring lack of a problem? If you don't believe in this cycle, you have multiple options, but if you do believe in it you have one.

[jtav]

In fairness to Control, Shepalyst's interests need not be limited to the cycle. I choose it as a check on what I believe is widespread oppression and an inability for the other species to be left to their own devices.

[Ieldra]

You do not need to believe in its necessity to find Synthesis a desirable outcome.

Also, people do not reject Synthesis because they cannot believe in the problem. They choose not to believe the problem because the games have conditioned them to hate the Reapers and they want to destroy them rather than integrate them into civilization. The problem is indeed insufficiently supported by the story, but it's not all that implausible to start with. The idea that our nature prevents us from achieving certain things is completely plausible, it's just that people don't want to hear that message, and since the story doesn't prepare us for its acceptance they reject it.

[dorktainian]

Reapers want Synthesis. Thats enough reason to say no.

[Nightwriter]

Technically Shepard's interest need not be limited to the cycle in any option. You could pick Synthesis because your Shepard holds a lifelong dream of owning a sentient toaster if you want. You could pick Destroy because your Shepard just wants to kill EDI.

And I can't speak as to why everyone rejects Synthesis, only why I reject it. I reject it because I don't see a problem. I have never said that the problem is implausible; I have said that there is insufficient in-game evidence for it. And considering that solving the problem requires me to kill myself or kill others, I'd like to be certain it exists.

We're conditioned to hate the Reapers in as much as we're conditioned to think Sauron, Voldemort, or Darth Sidious are the bad guys. Which is to say, we're conditioned a whole hell of a lot, to the extent that un-vilifying them becomes a seriously invalid late-game move to make unless you have some skilled writing up your sleeve -- which they didn't.

But I'll say this: if you're going to fall through on something, fall through on one or the other. Don't fail to prove the problem AND condition me to hate the problem solvers. One's hard enough to take; both is impossible.

As for the message, I don't see any reasonable way to blame people for rejecting it here. We don't hate the Reapers for no reason. They are enemies of the right to self-determinate. Even the right to exist. They violate and enslave minds, turn us against one another, and do all of it wth a sense of gloating superiority. It's not that I didn't want to hear "sometimes we need outside help." It's that I didn't want to hear "sometimes we need outside help from the Cthulhu mind rapists". If BioWare wanted me to hear it the first way they should've planned better.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 02 août 2013 - 01:46 .

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...
We're conditioned to hate the Reapers in as much as we're conditioned to think Sauron, Voldemort, or Darth Sidious are the bad guys. Which is to say, we're conditioned a whole hell of a lot, to the extent that un-vilifying them becomes a seriously invalid late-game move to make unless you have some skilled writing up your sleeve -- which they didn't.

But I'll say this: if you're going to fall through on something, fall through on one or the other. Don't fail to prove the problem AND condition me to hate the problem solvers. One's hard enough to take; both is impossible.

As for the message, I don't see any reasonable way to blame people for rejecting it here. We don't hate the Reapers for no reason. They are enemies of the right to self-determinate. Even the right to exist. They violate and enslave minds, turn us against one another, and do all of it wth a sense of gloating superiority. It's not that I didn't want to hear "sometimes we need outside help." It's that I didn't want to hear "sometimes we need outside help from the Cthulhu mind rapists". If BioWare wanted me to hear it the first way they should've planned better.

I agree it's mostly a storytelling flaw, not a flaw of the reception. I just wanted to outline that the assertion made by some people that the Catalyst's logic is "obvious nonsense" is, in itself nonsensical. The problem is not implausible. It is not "circular logic". It's simply highly speculative, and if people tote this "obvious nonsense" line I feel justified in pointing out there's likely another, more emotional, reason behind their rejection.

As for my hypothesis why people hate Synthesis, especially as opposed to simply rejecting it, I've posted a more comprehensive write-up in my Synthesis thread. I don't actually disagree with you in most of what you've said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 août 2013 - 02:05 .

[jtav]

I'm mostly interested in this from a story and RP POV and the story didn't sell me on the necessity of Synthesis. It's too radical and foreign to what we see elsewhere.

[Nightwriter]

I think the Catalyst's logic is bound to seem nonsensical to a human because we understand that being preserved as canned yams is meaningless, but it does not. So to us it's not solving anything at all.

I actually just read your latest post in that thread, found it quite a good read.

[AlexMBrennan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You do not need to believe in its necessity to find Synthesis a desirable outcome.

Also, people do not reject Synthesis because they cannot believe in the problem. They choose not to believe the problem because the games have conditioned them to hate the Reapers and they want to destroy them rather than integrate them into civilization. The problem is indeed insufficiently supported by the story, but it's not all that implausible to start with. The idea that our nature prevents us from achieving certain things is completely plausible, it's just that people don't want to hear that message, and since the story doesn't prepare us for its acceptance they reject it.

Well, some of us require more than "it's technically not impossible" before abandoning everything we are doing. Hell, it's not impossible that I'm the owner of Brooklyn Bridge, and if that's enough for you than I have a bridge to sell... Or have you, too, been conditioned to doubt such offers?

[KaiserShep]

If synthesis is possible, then it can come about some other way. In the meantime, it's probably a good idea to get rid of the things that have been eradicating life for eons. If they wanted to push Synthesis as a more viable option, EDI should not have been Shepard's friend/Joker's love interest. The geth should not have reached out to organics in Legion. Peace on Rannoch should not have been possible. One person should not have been able to help others see things a bit differently. After all, synthesis is meant to serve in lieu of everyone's apparent inability to do so on their own. Crucible engineers end up working alongside giant killer insects and killer robots and suddenly they're all incapable of seeing reason.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 août 2013 - 02:34 .

[sharkboy421]

Nightwriter wrote...

Technically Shepard's interest need not be limited to the cycle in any option. You could pick Synthesis because your Shepard holds a lifelong dream of owning a sentient toaster if you want. You could pick Destroy because your Shepard just wants to kill EDI.

And I can't speak as to why everyone rejects Synthesis, only why I reject it. I reject it because I don't see a problem. I have never said that the problem is implausible; I have said that there is insufficient in-game evidence for it. And considering that solving the problem requires me to kill myself or kill others, I'd like to be certain it exists.

We're conditioned to hate the Reapers in as much as we're conditioned to think Sauron, Voldemort, or Darth Sidious are the bad guys. Which is to say, we're conditioned a whole hell of a lot, to the extent that un-vilifying them becomes a seriously invalid late-game move to make unless you have some skilled writing up your sleeve -- which they didn't.

But I'll say this: if you're going to fall through on something, fall through on one or the other. Don't fail to prove the problem AND condition me to hate the problem solvers. One's hard enough to take; both is impossible.

As for the message, I don't see any reasonable way to blame people for rejecting it here. We don't hate the Reapers for no reason. They are enemies of the right to self-determinate. Even the right to exist. They violate and enslave minds, turn us against one another, and do all of it wth a sense of gloating superiority. It's not that I didn't want to hear "sometimes we need outside help." It's that I didn't want to hear "sometimes we need outside help from the Cthulhu mind rapists". If BioWare wanted me to hear it the first way they should've planned better.

Well said.  This is indeed the primary reasons why I find synthesis to be very undesirable.

[Thandal N'Lyman]

@Ieldra2; Read your much longer post in the other thread. Great summary of the problems presented by what should have been (was supposed to be?) an equally valid choice. I agree this would probably be the best long-term outcome for the galaxy, but the least likely one for any Shepard (player) to choose given the three-game build-up of valid Reaper Hate!

[mopotter]

phillip100 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

You had to make a new thread by lifting someone else's post from an already-active thread?

To be fair, it wasn't on-topic from the other thread.

The objections to Synthesis are as follows:

1. No one asked for it. You're making a permanent change on everyone in the galaxy whether they like it or not, which is a violation of the concept of autonomy.

2. The Catalyst asserts that organics and synthetics cannot coexist without it, but is this true? Aren't the geth and quarians now coexisting? Is such a change necessary?

3. Does it even fix the problem? Won't organics still create new synthetics even if their bodies are upgraded?

4. The way they explain how it "alters" DNA doesn't really make sense.

5. It's kinda out of left field.

6. It isn't a compelling conclusion to a series about learning to coexist with another race if the solution was simply to force change on everyone. The implication here is that if two groups of people are different enough from each other, respect, peace, and coexistence are impossible. This isn't a message that I really want to hear personally, whether it's true or not.

That's pretty much it.

Me too.   Especially #1

for 2nd point - not all of my games had the quarian and geth working together, but some did and for those games, the catalyst was wrong.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

zaalbar76 wrote...

The problem with Synthesis is it's execution was terrible and it's not very interesting story materiel, it effectively ends the Mass Effect universe.

I hate synthesis as much, if not more than most blokes, but it doesn't really end the universe in Mass Effect. There is still a future to be had with it; just not one that I find tolerable to have exist. What ends the universe is the massive choice at the end that lead to 4 very different futures. 

Bioware has left little room for future story's in a post ending universe, especially Synthesis.
Take the Star Wars Trilogy, the ending to Return of the Jedi closed off the story arcs and for better or worse they left it open for future story's, Hence Episode VII.

As I said, the structure from the ending itself has done that. I frankly am surprised that they want to 'integrate' all aspects of every ending into the next ME game. I still wonder though why I even care since I'm not likely to buy the damn game.

As for Star Wars, I'm one of the purists who has pretty much read the entire EU and knows it like the back of my hand. So actually, for me, they're pretty limited with where they can go with Episode VII. Luckily, they're right at the perfect time frame that is ill-defined in the series, and they can pretty much use whatever they need to get things done.

Mass Effect has effectively ended and the only likely path is prequels which I for one is not a huge fan of.
That is partly the reason why I don't like ME3's ending especially Synthesis, It's the worst way to end an epic trilogy with little room for sequels.

Destroy = post apocalyptic Fallout type setting.
Control = Reapers policing the galaxy ending conflict before they start... Lame!
Synthesis = Stupidity
Refusal = End

Again, as I said, none of the endings quantitatively 'end' the series. The fact that all the endings are so widely different is what prevents it from being feasible in my opinion.

[mopotter]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Shall I get my popcorn already?

Anyway, here's my two cents:

Reapers should die anyway, the Geth are purged and I don't give a damn about EDI. Hey, Shep even has a chance of survival! Thus: Destroy > everything else

As a destroyer, I'm going to say that this argument falls woefully short. I concur, though I think that if this is your reasoning....

The Quarians will probably end up starting the cycle again.

Unless a little accident happens to Xen...

Jokes aside, I don't pick destroy because Shep lives, I pick destroy because out of all the endings, it sucks the least.

Yep.  Destroy is the choice I pick or would pick for most of my games.  I spent years trying to destroy them, not going to change my mind because something that has the looks of a child, tells me differently.  I always expected some of the Shepards to die.  Have to say though, I also expected one to be more than a crispy body in a pile of ruble..

I don't have any Shepards who believe the tall tale about controlling the reapers and only 1 who had lost everyone else she cared for (Kaidan in Me1, Thane in 3)  so had this moment when she figured she was diying anyway and wanted Joker to be happy.  She was rather blind to all the other implications, but she was hurt and mentally stressed.