214 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

I wish the EC gave some actual answers and clarification. Instead the Catalyst has even more lines of ambiguous and nonsensical dialogue.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmmm..... unless Bio had long-term plans to continue the MEU in a Synthesis version, I don't really see why they'd bother to be particularly interested in whether or not a majority picked Synthesis. What's the difference?

Because it's pretty clear that Synthesis was made with the assumption that it would be the "optimal" ending.

Which is just one sign showing how badly they misread their audience.

Sure. My point was just that it's not a problem for Bio if we don't pick the ending they liked best.

[David7204]

It makes a huge difference, Alan. Synthesis carries themes, and it makes a huge difference whether players find those themes meaningful or repulsive.

Modifié par David7204, 03 décembre 2013 - 12:57 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. My point was just that it's not a problem for Bio if we don't pick the ending they liked best.

It does speak to poor judgement on their part, and what it might mean for future games.

Modifié par iakus, 03 décembre 2013 - 01:14 .

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

The good thing is that we are still allowed to say it's repulsive at least, and choose accordingly. They didn't outright railroad Synthesis, so it's something to be thankful for. And if they try it as the premise in a sequel, we can just not buy the game.

Given I despised all the ending options, I'm going to take a bit of convincing to buy the next game anyway.

[KaiserShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

The good thing is that we are still allowed to say it's repulsive at least, and choose accordingly. They didn't outright railroad Synthesis, so it's something to be thankful for. And if they try it as the premise in a sequel, we can just not buy the game.

Yeah, I would've been pretty annoyed if my kill-them-all Shepard suddenly accepted the premise behind synthesis. I feel rather confident that the next game will not involve synthesis at all. It's just not good material to write more story around.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sure. My point was just that it's not a problem for Bio if we don't pick the ending they liked best.

It does speak to poor judgement on their part, and what it might mean for future games.

That's not a problem with us picking an ending Bio doesn't like. It's a problem -- maybe  -- with Bioware liking an ending we don't like.

Remember, we got here because upthread we were talking about Bio trying to make us pick the ending they liked because reasons. I don't see the reasons.

[Darks1d3]

StreetMagic wrote...

iakus wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

The good thing is that we are still allowed to say it's repulsive at least, and choose accordingly. They didn't outright railroad Synthesis, so it's something to be thankful for. And if they try it as the premise in a sequel, we can just not buy the game.

Given I despised all the ending options, I'm going to take a bit of convincing to buy the next game anyway.

That's fair too. I'm on the fence myself, for other reasons. I'm disappointed in how they handled many of the characters. The ending sucks, but whatever. I'm glad Mac is venturing into that himself with the Foundation comics, but it might be the last thing I look into. I hate saying goodbye to what they already created. Don't think I want to invest further.

I'm not sure I can say goodbye yet as it's been only months since I started the series. As Zaeed said about his addictions "I'm an all in kind of guy". My mistake was that I dived head first into the series, and it will be difficult to let go of the MEU. I'm cautiously optimistic that they won't screw up the next game in the series,...or foolishly optimistic. But I can say rather confidently that BW isn't stupid enough to continue the series with the synthesis ending being canon(if they decide to do a sequel that is).

[I Tsunayoshi I]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sora Kitano wrote...

I could go on to the point where it sounds like I suscribe to IT or PT, but the only thing I see in the Catalyst is just another obscenely desperate being looking out for its own self-preservation and making a very desperate attempt to take victory from the closing jaws of defeat. With all the talk about Synthetics being every bit as alive as Organics, assuming that an AI far more human that what the Geth and EDI are doesnt exist sounds pretty stupid.

If the Catalyst is really desperate and lying, why not tell better lies? Or not tell Shepard anything and just wait for the Reapers to blow up the Crucible?

Ignoring that as a player we are going to pretty much be able to spot the steaming bull**** before the Catalyst gets it all out, Shepard is half dead and more than likely unable to think clearly. It really doesnt take much effort to deceive someone that isnt capable of maintaining a proper thought process.

Putting in what the player knows. We know the Catalyst is lying through its proverbial teeth. Mainly in that if Destroy cant selectively target one synthetic race over another, then Control either should have the same limitation or be an obvious trap. Reverse also applies in that if Control can selectively target, then Destroy should as well. Either way you look at it, Shepard is taking a lie at face value.

Beyond that definitely requires meta-gaming to figure out. Namely, how does destroying your own body actually do any good. Destroying the body through any means doesnt create energy. This goes against everything you are taught in school on the matter. I fail to see how destroying a body also transmits data as well, even in the realm of space magic. The idea that Shepard killing himself to either take over the Reapers (Impossible unless he becomes the new Catalyst which does not seem to be the case in the Control ending) or to make everyone have the same BioSynthetic genetic framework (Remember how destroying matter doesnt create energy?) Both options seem like traps designed to take advantage of a weakened Shepard in hopes that they wont see flaws in logic being presented to him/her. Both are made to appear as superior by not resulting in further losses and/or access to the superior force to do as they please. Destroy is painted in a negative light by the false argument that it cant target and would result in effective genocide.

Despite the fact that the Catalyst acknowledges that Shepard is an exceptional individual that has effectively rendered its entire 'solution' pointless for any future attempts, it still makes its own attempts to destroy Shepard to preserve itself in hopes that it could stop the one person that had reached a position to actually stop it. As already stated before, it would be foolish to assume that there is not an AI that has developed far enough along to have concerns for its own well being beyond the basic sense we see EDI question and reject if guided in that direction.

Daemul wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
You're not alone. A lot of Destroy fans like to make up bad stuff about the other endings. Many are less honest about it than you.

It's been nearly two years and I still have no idea why so many people who chose Destroy do this. If the only way you can justify your choice of ending to yourself is by making stuff up about other endings then you are clearly incapable of carrying the full weight of your decision and the consequences of it. Stop making yourself suffer, choose a different ending.

If they are like me and see nothing but two lies and a sabotaged option that ends the war with the disgusting taste of bad liquor and hooker spit, then going along with the more logical idea of what Destroy is supposed to do (See reply above about the respective endings), then going along with Citadel taking place after the war is only a natural extension of that.

The only foolish thing that I could see someone doing along those lines is assuming that everything is perfectly fine in the galaxy when its clear they are most certainly not going to be close to that for a very long time.

[Rasofe]

David7204 wrote...

It makes a huge difference, Alan. Synthesis carries themes, and it makes a huge difference whether players find those themes meaningful or repulsive.

David, Synthesis is the only win-ending of ME3 that doesn't carry the same motif for the central theme as the main character. That's a pretty damn big disconnect, in fact it's so big there's no evidence that Synthesis carries the same central theme at all. No evidence! You could PROPOSE that Synthesis is about accepting the new Horizon, but there's no literary evidence for this since Shepard NEVER says why they chose Synthesis. And synthesis doesn't make a statement about supremacy or diversity, cooperation or dominance which is the conflict that defines the main character.

Because of this, we have no evidence that Synthesis carries themes at all. We can assume there's an idea that's being delivered because of the way the writers push it forward and the uncanny "perfect ideal" label they attribute to it, but a theme must also define character development, central conflict, and everything else important in the story.

We can find the ideas meaningful or repulsive, but it doesn't matter much since they're not themes anyway. Synthesis is the biggest thematic pitfall in the post-EC endings.

Modifié par Rasofe, 03 décembre 2013 - 04:02 .

[AlanC9]

Rasofe wrote...
And synthesis doesn't make a statement about supremacy or diversity, cooperation or dominance which is the conflict that defines the main character.

That's kind of the point, maybe. Shepard is transcending those dichotomies.

That's probably why so many people interpret Synthesis as abolishing all conflict, etc., even though there's no evidence of that in the actual text.

[Rasofe]

Maybe, or maybe it's just horseraddish. If Shepard was going to transcend those dichotomies they should've said so before jumping into the beam.
Think about it. There's criticism of the ending that Shepard could never bring up the Geth-Quarian conflict. That's one line of dialogue! One line of dialogue could have made a phenomenal differance to the roleplay experience because of thematics.

[AlanC9]

Agreed. My bet is that Bio didn't want Shepard to attempt to do something futile right before his final action. Bio has a regrettable tendency to not let the PC just fail at something. Thessia's an exception, and a couple of the ME2 LMs can be failed, but that's about it.

I don't count Refuse since Shepard's playing for a moral victory there.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Agreed. My bet is that Bio didn't want Shepard to attempt to do something futile right before his final action. Bio has a regrettable tendency to not let the PC just fail at something. Thessia's an exception, and a couple of the ME2 LMs can be failed, but that's about it.

I don't count Refuse since Shepard's playing for a moral victory there.

Dragon Age II ends up as pretty much a gigantic failure on Hawke's part, other than saving what civilians he could by defeating Meredith and Orsino.

Linkenski wrote...
I don't want to throw this too off-topic now, but I feel like stressing yet again that I really think Mac violated Anderson's character. He made Anderson sound incredibly americanized and one-sided.

Dude you need to stop with this passive-aggressive anti-America bull****. I've seen it in multiple threads from you now and it has no place on these forums.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 décembre 2013 - 05:33 .

[AlanC9]

Sora Kitano wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
If the Catalyst is really desperate and lying, why not tell better lies? Or not tell Shepard anything and just wait for the Reapers to blow up the Crucible?

Ignoring that as a player we are going to pretty much be able to spot the steaming bull**** before the Catalyst gets it all out, Shepard is half dead and more than likely unable to think clearly. It really doesnt take much effort to deceive someone that isnt capable of maintaining a proper thought process.

So he's willing to run a huge risk for no good reason except that he might get away with it?

Putting in what the player knows. We know the Catalyst is lying through its proverbial teeth. Mainly in that if Destroy cant selectively target one synthetic race over another, then Control either should have the same limitation or be an obvious trap. Reverse also applies in that if Control can selectively target, then Destroy should as well. Either way you look at it, Shepard is taking a lie at face value.

Are you arguing that the Crucible does do what he says it will do, but he's lying by omission, since the only reason it works that way is because he makes it do so? If he can control the Crucible, why have Destroy or Control work at all? What does he gain by doing that?

Or are you arguming that the endings don't do what they appear to do? I have seen headcanon that powerful on occasion.

Beyond that definitely requires meta-gaming to figure out. Namely, how does destroying your own body actually do any good. Destroying the body through any means doesnt create energy. .....

This whole passage is you trying to substitute your own lore for the game's lore. It's OK to do that as long as you recognize that you're doing it. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between our own headcanon and the game, though I'm not sure that isn't just bad rhetoric. But for the moment I'll take you at face value.

You're a little different from the Destroyers I mentioned before. You're making up stuff about Destroy itself.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 décembre 2013 - 05:31 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Agreed. My bet is that Bio didn't want Shepard to attempt to do something futile right before his final action. Bio has a regrettable tendency to not let the PC just fail at something. Thessia's an exception, and a couple of the ME2 LMs can be failed, but that's about it.

I don't count Refuse since Shepard's playing for a moral victory there.

Dragon Age II ends up as pretty much a gigantic failure on Hawke's part, other than saving what civilians he could by defeating Meredith and Orsino.

 I only bought that a couple days ago.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

 I only bought that a couple days ago.

Oh, damn sorry.

I think you'll find DA2 interesting. It doesn't follow Mass Effect's "use persuasion to win without cost" system and several times has unavoidable bad ends, with your choices only shaping the details.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 décembre 2013 - 05:37 .

[Vicious]

lol. i hated EC because it removed all ambiguity and what you saw was what you got. Synthesis is hands down the best ending for the galaxy. Destroy is hands down the worst, unless you just wanted Shepard to live but its not like you'll ever play him again anyway so what's the point.

While I wasn't big on the sopranos-esque original ending of ME3, where the player sat there wondering WTF happened, i appreciated that they wanted players to piece it together, fill in blanks and come up with theories. And it worked. IT was a prime example. (if incredibly stupid because its early iterations relied on the ridiculous idea that the story would continue thru DLC) There were tons of theories of the ending. There still are but many of them have been quashed.


I also didn't appreciate that they bent knee to the loudmouthed butthurt players who weren't satisfied with the ending and basically bullied them into making it. These same folks were not satisfied with the EC, either.

As one guy said, people saw the ending as a turd and EC an attempt to polish it. And EC would never change their minds. Ever.

So no, I'm not a fan of it either. I liked the original ambiguous ending. Now it's pick blue or green or just be a dick.

Modifié par Vicious, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:21 .

[KaiserShep]

There's nothing particularly dickish about picking destroy.

Anyway, the EC kills the garden of Eden. That alone is enough to get me to appreciate it, as I loathe that imagery.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:31 .

[RandomGuy96]

Synthesis actually has a LOAD of downsides and overall unfortunate implications. They're just not really addressed, and were probably unintentional. And Destroy also has the benefit of wiping out the geth if you haven't already.

[KaiserShep]

I wouldn't really describe wiping out the geth as beneficial in the end, since they were helping the quarians to rebuild if you brokered peace between them. The benefit is simply that the enemy is dead and life can move on without them.

[Vigilant111]

Rasofe wrote...

David, Synthesis is the only win-ending of ME3 that doesn't carry the same motif for the central theme as the main character. That's a pretty damn big disconnect, in fact it's so big there's no evidence that Synthesis carries the same central theme at all. No evidence! You could PROPOSE that Synthesis is about accepting the new Horizon, but there's no literary evidence for this since Shepard NEVER says why they chose Synthesis. And synthesis doesn't make a statement about supremacy or diversity, cooperation or dominance which is the conflict that defines the main character.

Because of this, we have no evidence that Synthesis carries themes at all. We can assume there's an idea that's being delivered because of the way the writers push it forward and the uncanny "perfect ideal" label they attribute to it, but a theme must also define character development, central conflict, and everything else important in the story.

We can find the ideas meaningful or repulsive, but it doesn't matter much since they're not themes anyway. Synthesis is the biggest thematic pitfall in the post-EC endings.

Good point

Since Synthesis is the favored option by the game, I am inclined to believe it is an admission that the trilogy does not have a consistent theme which was defined by Shepard...quite simply, the ending decision is an arbitrary choice, since it does not reflect Shepard well

Modifié par Vigilant111, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[KiwiQuiche]

With the vanilla endings I was left with a "well what the hell happened?" since there was no elaboration on the end, just speculations as those two dumbasses wanted.

Didn't help the relays were destroyed and earth roasted, so it was extremely likely the quarians and turians would all starve to death before they could get home.

Sure, it's a victory but it's more along the lines of "I'm taking you down with me" end. Grim I suppose, if that's your cup of tea. I would have liked it more if they elaborated on everything that happened, rather than just "BOOM game over buy DLC"

The whole Normandy flying away scene was stupid beyond reasons. At least they kinda give you a reason in the EC, rather than just "abandoned by team" we had in the vanilla. Doesn't help it's established in canon if you break out of the relay jump the radiation will kill everyone on boards. Whoops, lore.

Then Garden of Eden reference...ugh, especially if you picked Control/Destroy, why the hell are your crew so calm? For all they know the battle is still waging, stop wandering around the jungle.

With the EC....blarg, it was better but worse in many ways.

I don't agree with your opinion on the evacuation scene, which I think is just daft for numerous reasons.

The expansion on the Catalyst was better, though his entire involvement was stupid.

With the end...I feel vague only really works if it's been present in the game since the start, in all areas, like Dark Souls. With Mass Effect, too much was written, explained and shown. then suddenly, vague, not time, do this while I don't explain, draw your own conclusions with pretty much nothing to go on. And it was just hilariously out of place.

Well I think both ends, EC and vanilla, sucked.