1010 réponses à ce sujet

[Maurader Sackboy]

Cutlass Jack wrote...  Its equally deluded to believe the Destroy button works as advertised. Maybe it destroys them. Maybe it powers them up instead. Wouldn't it make more sense he was lying about the Destroy button?

Either you believe every button works as stated, or none of them.

Maybe it's not a matter of disbelieving the glow-boy Catalyst, just an opinion that the Catalyst presents itself as fallible (he was surprised Shepard made it, admitted that the "solution" wasn't working, etc.)   Thus I could believe the options he presented were viable, just that the eventual outcomes couldn't be predicted absolutely. 

-- God-Shepard could eventually become as corrupt/out-of-it as the boy-Catalyst
-- Synthesized creatures could lose there connect to biological life

Destroy keeps organics around to figure it out for themselves.

[SwobyJ]

Maurader Sackboy wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...  Its equally deluded to believe the Destroy button works as advertised. Maybe it destroys them. Maybe it powers them up instead. Wouldn't it make more sense he was lying about the Destroy button?

Either you believe every button works as stated, or none of them.

Maybe it's not a matter of disbelieving the glow-boy Catalyst, just an opinion that the Catalyst presents itself as fallible (he was surprised Shepard made it, admitted that the "solution" wasn't working, etc.)   Thus I could believe the options he presented were viable, just that the eventual outcomes couldn't be predicted absolutely. 

-- God-Shepard could eventually become as corrupt/out-of-it as the boy-Catalyst
-- Synthesized creatures could lose there connect to biological life

Destroy keeps organics around to figure it out for themselves.

This is possible.

Control, as a theme in the trilogy, seems to tell me:
-Advancing fast, yay!
-Crap, it all went wrong!!! *disaster*
-Overall, we at least learned more than before, without fully compromising to the enemy! But we'll always be tainted by the journey. But we did it for the greater good, and we know it'll help someone some day.

Synthesis, as a theme in the trilogy, seems to tell me:
-Ultimate peaceful/pacifiistic (so to speak) solution!
-Crap, we imposed it on the galactic order/'natural' way of things! *disaster*
-Overall, if we metagame to the max, we seem to push forward into an even more positive future! We just need to retain enough humanity to not be crazy like the Reapers. But can we?

Destroy, as a theme in the trilogy, seems to tell me:
-Tough but brutally appropriate action against mortal enemies
-Doesn't directly address larger concepts and problems, chance to renew them again *disaster*
-Overall, we claim to have kept our 'souls' intact and will try to learn from others' mistakes! (but don't as often make those mistakes ourselves, leaving it to other people/factions... like Cerberus, Salarians, etc)

Each carry hero feelings, but Control/Synthesis carry full-sacrifice tones, while Destroy recalls to a lot of Shepard dialogue of 'coming back' to Love Interest or simply other allies. The dialogue on London supports any of the 3 choices in themselves, with LI/allies understanding that Shepard may never return, but also a lot of lines where they *damn well hope* Shepard will.
In that sense, I consider Destroy to be the more 'base narrative' that Bioware starts from (they do this in all games, don't worry about it - like Destroy Base from ME2), but then adds elaborations for other player choice.

By putting Synthesis front and center, it also means that many more players will pick it than they otherwise would (heck, on my first playthrough, I just saw the giant beam and ran toward it!).

By making Control the Blue/Paragon appearing option, it also means that many players (I know many IRL) will Auto-Paragon right into it, not really even thinking much about the options themselves. That means a more equal distribution of Shepard outcomes than there may have been otherwise - something I support, regardless of any anti or pro ending-choice theories.

I can see them all leading to the same overall things, just with respective tones and flavor and sometimes unique events. Until the very end of the trilogy, the 'winning action' against Reapers seems to be to Destroy them, so I'll go with that. That does NOT mean there will not be major issues - just that they may be less overtly horrific than what goes wrong with Control (with a few games of records of this) and Synthesis (which the Reapers seemingly attempted for billions of years, to create... things like Banshees? WTF *runs away*)

For now though, all we're being told is that things go great.
So yeah.
Moral decision.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 octobre 2013 - 08:12 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

SwobyJ wrote...

Maurader Sackboy wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...  Its equally deluded to believe the Destroy button works as advertised. Maybe it destroys them. Maybe it powers them up instead. Wouldn't it make more sense he was lying about the Destroy button?

Either you believe every button works as stated, or none of them.

Maybe it's not a matter of disbelieving the glow-boy Catalyst, just an opinion that the Catalyst presents itself as fallible (he was surprised Shepard made it, admitted that the "solution" wasn't working, etc.)   Thus I could believe the options he presented were viable, just that the eventual outcomes couldn't be predicted absolutely. 

-- God-Shepard could eventually become as corrupt/out-of-it as the boy-Catalyst
-- Synthesized creatures could lose there connect to biological life

Destroy keeps organics around to figure it out for themselves.

This is possible.

Control, as a theme in the trilogy, seems to tell me:
-Advancing fast, yay!
-Crap, it all went wrong!!! *disaster*
-Overall, we at least learned more than before, without fully compromising to the enemy! But we'll always be tainted by the journey. But we did it for the greater good, and we know it'll help someone some day.

Synthesis, as a theme in the trilogy, seems to tell me:
-Ultimate peaceful/pacifiistic (so to speak) solution!
-Crap, we imposed it on the galactic order/'natural' way of things! *disaster*
-Overall, if we metagame to the max, we seem to push forward into an even more positive future! We just need to retain enough humanity to not be crazy like the Reapers. But can we?

Destroy, as a theme in the trilogy, seems to tell me:
-Tough but brutally appropriate action against mortal enemies
-Doesn't directly address larger concepts and problems, chance to renew them again *disaster*
-Overall, we claim to have kept our 'souls' intact and will try to learn from others' mistakes! (but don't as often make those mistakes ourselves, leaving it to other people/factions... like Cerberus, Salarians, etc)

Each carry hero feelings, but Control/Synthesis carry full-sacrifice tones, while Destroy recalls to a lot of Shepard dialogue of 'coming back' to Love Interest or simply other allies. The dialogue on London supports any of the 3 choices in themselves, with LI/allies understanding that Shepard may never return, but also a lot of lines where they *damn well hope* Shepard will.
In that sense, I consider Destroy to be the more 'base narrative' that Bioware starts from (they do this in all games, don't worry about it - like Destroy Base from ME2), but then adds elaborations for other player choice.

By putting Synthesis front and center, it also means that many more players will pick it than they otherwise would (heck, on my first playthrough, I just saw the giant beam and ran toward it!).

By making Control the Blue/Paragon appearing option, it also means that many players (I know many IRL) will Auto-Paragon right into it, not really even thinking much about the options themselves. That means a more[/b] equal distribution of Shepard outcomes than there may have been otherwise - something [b]I support, regardless of any anti or pro ending-choice theories.

I can see them all leading to the same overall things, just with respective tones and flavor and sometimes unique events. Until the very end of the trilogy, the 'winning action' against Reapers seems to be to Destroy them, so I'll go with that. That does NOT mean there will not be major issues - just that they may be less overtly horrific than what goes wrong with Control (with a few games of records of this) and Synthesis (which the Reapers seemingly attempted for billions of years, to create... things like Banshees? WTF *runs away*)

For now though, all we're being told is that things go great.
So yeah.
Moral decision.

Ah yes, reaper zombies. Horror for 12 year olds to shoot. Scary things. Well zombies are all the rage now, so I guess that's why they were there. Monsters. 

[SwobyJ]

Destroy - Rawr zombies! Shoot em!
Control - Rawr empowered zombies! But we have tech to fight them with!
Synthesis - Rawr uber crazy zombies and whole communities hacked into to join them! But we have the tech and knowledge and innate powers to counter them!

Choose wisely, lol

[thehomeworld]

I'm perfectly happy with picking destroy some people however think its genocidal to kill off machines that wanted to genocide you if you weren't their ideal and make you into tools if they liked you enough. They also don't like the fact the geth volunteered just like everybody else who turned up to the party to die to save the galaxy. In my playthrough both the Batarians and the geth got the total annihilation cards.

The only issue I take with destroy is shep lives because the kid lied he did say shep + reapers + geth + relays all die so its the oddest ending to have (post EC) the shep lives outcome tagged to it BW should've just made a 4th ending where shep lives in a plausible manner instead of giving us the 4th FU ending instead.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 26 octobre 2013 - 01:52 .

[Redbelle]

I don't know why people can be happy with synthesis...... Although......

If ME3 was the last ever ME game...... With no future ME game in the works...... Whereby ME3 was a clear bookend...... I wouldn't have a problem.......

However,

ME1..... ME2...... ME3...... I, and by extension everyone else who has played through all the games, are conditioned for more ME set in the future of the galaxy that we have created. We want ME4 to continue this formula of actions meeting out playable consequences. And there will be an ME4....... The only question that now remains is......

Will what had happened in ME1-3 factor into ME4 i some way? Not from a player perspective because Shep's dead. But as in.....

Are the Geth and Quarian's now living together or not?

I Wrex clan leader or buried in an unmarked grave on Virmire?

Is that Asari we, had the option to let go during Samara's loyalty mission, that we later learned killed a few men, in hiding or whipping up a new pirate armada to rule the space lanes with?

The history of our actions can have consequences what in turn can be played though. Becoming deeply personal because we let someone live, or something happens, or doesn't happen, because we let them die.

Coming to ME3's ending in particular..... It simply sucks the potential drama out of the galaxy by throwing up this idealised version of the galaxy where everyones fundamentally the same. Diversity of species is still.... kinda there. But now that everyone has been given the same Techno/Organic makeover they are far more compatible on a biological level. Even just looking at another, there is now a key simialrity in that everyone has green pupils and circuit board skin.

And this takes away from a galaxy whose core dramatic point that we all enjoyed playing through. The notion of diversity.

I find synthesis to be a immature take on what unifying every race and species in the galaxy means. It is portreyed as a final solution?

Is it?

If the Quarians and Turians suddenly suffered a crop failures and only one world could produce the food neccessary for one species? Would they not come into conflict through neccessity?

Would old wounds from the Krogan, directed at the Salrians and Turians be so easily forgotten in a future where they will require massive expansion of planetary territories? Where such a slight might rear its head if the council say no to returning old Krogan worlds? Surely those worlds are being used for something?

For such a well thought out series to end on Synthesis feels like a slap to the efforts of those who made brought such depth to ME. And if I haven't laid down a clear argument, Then hopefully this will demonstrate how the notion of that which is different, Can make a game better in bringing a gamer into the universie developers build for us.

[Reorte]

Redbelle wrote...

I don't know why people can be happy with synthesis......

The concept of merging organic and synthetic, or the way ME3 did it and the implications of that? I can see why the former might have some appeal, the latter on the other hand...

[AlexMBrennan]

If the Quarians and Turians suddenly suffered a crop failures and only one world could produce the food neccessary for one species? Would they not come into conflict through neccessity?

That's irrelevant - the purpose is to stop organics from making synthetics that will wipe out all life in the galaxy; however, if the turians and the quarians end up fighting and killing each other then the survival of organic life itself is not threatened and synthesis doesn't care.

Also, from the husk and human marine hugging in the synthesis ending I'd infer that it physically impossible for any post-synthesis being to harm another (which probably now includes livestock and plants so... Not sure what they are going to eat )

[Redbelle]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If the Quarians and Turians suddenly suffered a crop failures and only one world could produce the food neccessary for one species? Would they not come into conflict through neccessity?

That's irrelevant - the purpose is to stop organics from making synthetics that will wipe out all life in the galaxy; however, if the turians and the quarians end up fighting and killing each other then the survival of organic life itself is not threatened and synthesis doesn't care.

Also, from the husk and human marine hugging in the synthesis ending I'd infer that it physically impossible for any post-synthesis being to harm another (which probably now includes livestock and plants so... Not sure what they are going to eat )

The notion that a species can be destroyed and not have an impact is exactly what is so Alien about the Cat. That is not seen or displayed in such a brazen manner in the other races.

It is something seen already in the Asari. They have longer lives than most. Hence they are right about everything?

This is not the case.

The Catalyst does not have the moral or ethical right to do what it does in regards to synthesis. It simply has the martial power to enforce it's will.

What the ending essentially comes down to is.... My army is bigger than your army. And I (The cat) can never be wrong because I've thought about this a really long time.

Asari Matriarchs should therefore be assigned the same rights. They live the longest. Everything they say should be taken as gospel by the shorter lived races and the younger Asari Maidens. Except it isn't. (Well, they do't have a bigger army for one I guess).

The reason is that diversity of opinion exists. The Cat doesn't get to be right because it's logic is seamless. It get's to right by being the last Cat standing. That's a way to win an argument without actually engaging in the debate. Kill all voices and the only voice left get's to say it's won the debate.

The Cat get's to claim that Synth's will always destroy org's...... why? Has it seen this happen? By all accounts Synth's have never destroyed all organics. Not even a species. Synth's have always lost out to organics when there came a major confrontation.

If the Reapers had not existed the Quarians would have destroyed the Geth by virtue of their drive to engineer ways around problems. Yet the Geth never actually desired the Quarians complete destruction.

Maybe 1000 years on another machine race would emerge and try to kill all life......? Or would it?

The Cat is clearly not operating on what will happen. It is working off a premise of what might happen. And the Cat has the biggest and baddest army in existence to prevent this from ever happening..... Yet it never stops to reassess other paths and avenues as it's martial army grows over the cycles......

Modifié par Redbelle, 26 octobre 2013 - 01:03 .

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Also, from the husk and human marine hugging in the synthesis ending I'd infer that it physically impossible for any post-synthesis being to harm another (which probably now includes livestock and plants so... Not sure what they are going to eat )

Coukd someone point me to a video showing this? I just looked and didn't see any hugging.

[Deathsaurer]

Redbelle wrote...

By all accounts Synth's have never destroyed all organics. Not even a species.

Multiple species in the Leviathan cycle did get wiped out. That's why they created it, they wanted the tribute from the servant races the synthetics were wiping out.

Synth's have always lost out to organics when there came a major confrontation.

Erm no, a synthetic won the only conflict that ever really mattered and has been running the galaxy since.

[AlanC9]

Redbelle wrote...
The Catalyst does not have the moral or ethical right to do what it does in regards to synthesis. It simply has the martial power to enforce it's will.

Depends on your ethical theory, though. The Cat sounds like a straight-up utilitarian (assuming he's actually an ethical being at all.) From that standpoint violating rights to prevent a sufficiently bad outcome is the moral and ethical thing to do. The only question is whether you're right about the action being necessary.

I suspect that you're right about it not being necessary. It wouldn't be unprecedented for an enemy to simply be wrong about stuff. But Bio did leave it ambiguous.

[AlanC9]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Erm no, a synthetic won the only conflict that ever really mattered and has been running the galaxy since.

Hah! So the Catalyst proved his own proposition?

[Reorte]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

By all accounts Synth's have never destroyed all organics. Not even a species.

Multiple species in the Leviathan cycle did get wiped out. That's why they created it, they wanted the tribute from the servant races the synthetics were wiping out.

Or the Leviathans were trying to put some spin on their position; a more likely scenario is that the synthetics were threatening the Leviathans' dominant position.

Synth's have always lost out to organics when there came a major confrontation.

Erm no, a synthetic won the only conflict that ever really mattered and has been running the galaxy since.

Still lost it in the long run. Even that one didn't come close to destroying all life, and is the only one we know of with a deliberately destructive agenda.

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

Depends on your ethical theory, though. The Cat sounds like a straight-up utilitarian (assuming he's actually an ethical being at all.) From that standpoint violating rights to prevent a sufficiently bad outcome is the moral and ethical thing to do. The only question is whether you're right about the action being necessary.

How many atrocities are commited by people who don't think that?

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Also, from the husk and human marine hugging in the synthesis ending I'd infer that it physically impossible for any post-synthesis being to harm another (which probably now includes livestock and plants so... Not sure what they are going to eat )

Coukd someone point me to a video showing this? I just looked and didn't see any hugging.

All I saw was two individuals hell bent on destroying and surviving..... Then they choose not to after the wave.....

I don't fully understand why this is..... The husk is a programmed killng machine repurposed by Nanites.

The soldier has no reason to think that the husk won't kill him under the circumstances..... unless after the wave hit there was a mental change in their thought process.

I can say.... there was no hugging.

[Ieldra]

Redbelle wrote...
All I saw was two individuals hell bent on destroying and surviving..... Then they choose not to after the wave.....

I don't fully understand why this is..... The husk is a programmed killng machine repurposed by Nanites.

The soldier has no reason to think that the husk won't kill him under the circumstances..... unless after the wave hit there was a mental change in their thought process.

The husk was about to win, then it gets up and stops fighting, looking confused. Just like that. The soldier was wounded and confused as well. I don't see anything that requires a mental change to be plausible.

I can say.... there was no hugging.

Indeed.

[Redbelle]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
All I saw was two individuals hell bent on destroying and surviving..... Then they choose not to after the wave.....

I don't fully understand why this is..... The husk is a programmed killng machine repurposed by Nanites.

The soldier has no reason to think that the husk won't kill him under the circumstances..... unless after the wave hit there was a mental change in their thought process.

The husk was about to win, then it gets up and stops fighting, looking confused. Just like that. The soldier was wounded and confused as well. I don't see anything that requires a mental change to be plausible.

So here's the picture......

A soldier is about to get ripped apart by a husk and then boom..... the wave hits.....

The soldier goes down, and when he looks up..... The husk is also down......

Why does he not shoot him?

The solider knows nothing about the conversation that took place on the Citadel. He was just in a fight or die situation where he was about to die. Then he see's a reprieve in that the Reaper is down and instead of thinking.... Here's my chance to stop this thing from killing me. (Because he has no notion that the Husk will not kill him), he looks up, forgetting his role as a soldier in a battlefront, and just peers at it.

Why would he take the time to look at it. Before he was fighting for his life. After the wave, there is nothing to suggest that the husk will be docile. The weapon should have come up the moment he saw the husk and he should have shot it. Because what soldier would give the enemy an opening to kill him?

The only reason I can come up with is that there is a change in his thought process. His hind brain is no longer triggering his survival instinct. It's like both of them got doped. The adrenaline comes off. The contextual situational awareness from when the husk was about to rip the solider apart no longer applies......

Coming out of the scene from a player perspective... It's as if those two watched the Cat and Shepard have their talk and just went along with it.

Going back into the scene..... the prime question..... What force/action/POV made them stop fighting? Remains.

Just getting green eye's and circuit board skin is no reason not to continue attacking each other. Something else must have happened to the two. That they just stopped because they are confused is no answer in this situation. They are enemies with no knowledge of event's the player has.

Which leads to another question..... why in synthesis are the husked forces of the Reapers airbrushed out? What happened to them? Their absence paints a potentially disturbing graphic image that they have been disposed of.

After all...... What's a husk but an empty shell? Could they live a life? Is there anything left inside them that would allow them to go forth? Or are they simply empty shells that no longer want to kill?

If that is the ase, then still..... that solider should be slapped and told that the next time he hesitates in front of an enemy, it'll be the last thing he does.

[Obadiah]

@Redbelle
The reason I came up with for the soldier's reaction is that the soldier did not have a gun any more, was sorta stunned that the husk was no longer attacking him and just sorta heaving there on the ground looking at something else past and behind the soldier, so the soldier turned real quick to see what the husk was looking at - cause it could've been a harvester or something getting ready to swoop in.

But, it's 10 seconds of REALLY questionable reaction and footage. You could be on to something.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 octobre 2013 - 09:07 .

[AlexMBrennan]

The reason I came up with for the soldier's reaction is that the soldier did not have a gun any more, was sorta stunned that the husk was no longer attacking him

So, you think that a trained soldier would make no attempt whatsoever to retrieve his weapon when there are potentially hostile zombies around? If they had shown the soldiers pick up his gun and then hesitate when the husk isn't attacking I might have believed it but the present scene doesn't work.

[Obadiah]

*Shrug* Dunno. What do soldiers normally do when an energy wave washes over them, and their enemy falls off to the side and just sorta looks at them stunned. I'd think the prudent thing would be keep your eyes on your enemy and brace for another attack because turning around and looking for stuff might put you at a fatal disadvantage.

But hey, I don't know, I guess you guys, and that "trained" and totally-not-recent-and-inexperienced soldier, know more about that than me.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 octobre 2013 - 08:56 .

[Deathsaurer]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hah! So the Catalyst proved his own proposition?

Proof of concept yes, proof of inevitability no.

Reorte wrote...


Or the Leviathans were trying to put some spin on their position; a more likely scenario is that the synthetics were threatening the Leviathans' dominant position.

I doubt that. They had the resources handy for the Catalyst to build an army so massive that it overthrew them in one fell swoop.

Still lost it in the long run. Even that one didn't come close to destroying all life, and is the only one we know of with a deliberately destructive agenda.

It only "lost" because it was running an agenda that didn't involve total extremination of all life. They stuck relays in practically every system with a habitable planet. What happens if they blow them all? Yeah... It'd be a really simple thing to do if they actually cared about such things. Be thankful it wasn't entirely malicious.

[AlexMBrennan]

Do soldiers not carry sidearms in ME? You know, like all of Shepard's henchmen (including Ash, Kaidan and Vega) do? Maybe draw that?