375 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

dorktainian wrote...

when starjar says 'you MUST choose' is the time i seriously question why.

i mean what if the choices (all of them) are not what happens to the reapers but what happens to us? Meaning that this debate about which ending is ultimately pointless because no matter what you choose humanity is boned.

Destroy. Humans turned to Collectors. The final insult.
Control. Humans Huskified. Blue eyes all around everybody. yay.
Synthesis. Humans reaperised. We'll live forever inside ******-reaperus.

puts a different slant on which ending is best doesnt it?

What on earth do these have to do with the actual endings?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Obadiah wrote...

The Catalyst gets panned on these forums WAY more than is appropriate. The enemy in ME is an AI, obviously created by someone - it stands to reason they'd have been built for a purpose and have a logical reason for behaving the way they did.

I thought it was a pretty good twist to find out this this whole fight that had been taking place was because of an inevitable battle between Synthetics and Organics, considered and judged on a massive timescale scale that, unbeknown to us, we had been part of it.

I still think it was a contrived and thus lousy twist. Shouldn't a twist have some basis in the story? Yes, the Reapers were a race of AI facing off against other, mostly Organic races; but never did it seem like the game (even in retrospect) was leading to an inevitable, metaphysical conflict between Organics and Synthetics that will result in the destruction of all Organic life. In fact, it seemed to be leading to a somewhat opposite conclusion: that lasting peace between the two groups certainly is possible (which according to the Catalyst is impossible prior to the choices).

I find it very telling that the player is not allowed to bring up EDI or the Geth, or actually argue against the Catalyst's premise.

[dorktainian]

AlanC9 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

when starjar says 'you MUST choose' is the time i seriously question why.

i mean what if the choices (all of them) are not what happens to the reapers but what happens to us? Meaning that this debate about which ending is ultimately pointless because no matter what you choose humanity is boned.

Destroy. Humans turned to Collectors. The final insult.
Control. Humans Huskified. Blue eyes all around everybody. yay.
Synthesis. Humans reaperised. We'll live forever inside ******-reaperus.

puts a different slant on which ending is best doesnt it?

What on earth do these have to do with the actual endings?

just trying (and failing) to point out there might not be a 'best ending'.

as for synthesis i only have questions.  in the ending it shows plant life has been made partly synthetic.  How would organic life process organic food - which is no longer organic?  do they even need food?  If they cannot eat this new food would they starve to death?  Why does everyone look like they just had a cameo in project overloard?  Why is the glowy green effect on the outside of everyone?  How come the reapers are our friends?  How can a huge collosal killing machine help to reconstruct when even putting its feet down will make massive dents in the ground?  How come in the synthesis slideshow it shows some green framework attaching itself to what looks nothing like DNA?  How does billy husk feel now he's a part of society?

[Rasofe]

I'm just principially against "Transcendence" victories, which is exactly what Synthesis is meant to be. It's hard to understand what your forcing the galaxy to transcend into, because while synthetic augmentation for organics is obviously possible, how does it work in reverse? Anyway, that's not important.

What's relevant is that it doesn't seem real. When you've got the Leviathan DLC to explain the origins and motivations of the Catalyst, it feels almost inexplicably as though the Catalyst doesn't have a CLUE of what it's doing, not from the start of time when it suddenly created the Reapers to solve a badly posed problem formulated by an ancient race of Cuthulus, and not until ME3 where a single specimen, Shepard, is somehow enough to validate Synthesis. The Catalyst appears to be inexplicably wrong about exactly everything, almost like Javik is wrong about most things (although not about the Leviathans... I think he's dead on the money there). Logically whatever the Catalyst considers the best option is almost certainly the worst.

[Iakus]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
I find it very telling that the player is not allowed to bring up EDI or the Geth, or actually argue against the Catalyst's premise.

Especially since EDI and the geth are two examples of synthetics that grow beyond their original roles and evolve over time.  Something this Catalyst which is an AI "in the same way that you are just an animal" is apaprantly stuck in its role and purpose, demonstating all the sentience of a not very well programmed VI.

the entire concept was just stupid.  Citing "inevitable conflict makes" it lose credibility.  It's execution is laughable.  And the implementation of Synthesis itself has some very unpelasant implications

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

On the other hand, now that they're making another game, all of this closure and these big questions seem so unnecessary. Shepard's story could have ended without death or destroying the MEU's continuity. They could explored things like Synthesis over time, in smaller forms and more focused quests. Now they want their cake and to eat it too.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy.  All of this was unnecessary, and could easily have been avoided with a little planning.

[ElSuperGecko]

iakus wrote...
the entire concept was just stupid.  Citing "inevitable conflict makes" it lose credibility.  It's execution is laughable.

I disagree.  As red herrings go, it appears to have been incredibly effective.  A ten minute chat with a ghostly kid, ten minutes of wild leaps in logic, unfounded assumptions, vague assurances and meaningless platitudes and some mild nudging in a particular direction and suddenly some players are not only willing to hand the galaxy's last, best chance over to the self-admitted master of the Reapers, but actually manage to convince themselves it's a really good idea in the process.

Bioware, I applaud your efforts. 

[Sion1138]

iakus wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On the other hand, now that they're making another game, all of this closure and these big questions seem so unnecessary. Shepard's story could have ended without death or destroying the MEU's continuity. They could explored things like Synthesis over time, in smaller forms and more focused quests. Now they want their cake and to eat it too.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy.  All of this was unnecessary, and could easily have been avoided with a little planning.

A company like EA sees planning at that level as inefficient. They need to be able to change everything on a whim, impose directions as to the target market and reroute staff and resources when they see fit

It's the same kind of thing, the exact same, as what happened to the last two Ultima games. When EA decided that the games needed to appeal to larger audiences and subsequently when they reassigned much of the production team of the last game to Ultima Online, leaving a mess of loose threads.

Just like they reassigned the lead writer of Mass Effect to The Old Republic and I am certain put pressure on the Mass Effect team to deliver more of a game for the masses as opposed to their established niche market. You add to that some ridiculous deadline and there you have it.

And of course, it makes sense from their perspective. 

Modifié par Sion1138, 21 novembre 2013 - 04:31 .

[Wayning_Star]

to fully debate that ending OP, wouldn't the story have to devise a plan to explain the gory details of such types of evolution and all interested parties?

[JShepppp]

Check out the Synthesis Compendium by Ieldra2:

http://social.biowar.../index/12153660

It has a lot of thoughts there, especially a lot of metaphysical/philosophical stuff combined with some more down-to-earth thoughts.

[Obadiah]

With respect to the green circuitry covering people in the Synthesis ending, I think it was supposed to seem a bit strange, weird, and unexpected. This sort of carries through on the notion that AI, once evolved, will improve/perfect us past the contraints we place on them, in unexpected ways.

[SwobyJ]

Obadiah wrote...

With respect to the green circuitry covering people in the Synthesis ending, I think it was supposed to seem a bit strange, weird, and unexpected. This sort of carries through on the notion that AI, once evolved, will improve/perfect us past the contraints we place on them, in unexpected ways.

And just like Synthesis, I think the franchise itself has more curveballs to surprise us with.

[Obadiah]

StreetMagic wrote...

Another thing I find so awful about Synthesis is that Mass Effect started as a series that fantasized a version of our own real world fascination with the stars, with space exploration. A hyper reality version of how humanity's space programs might emerge and unite (NASA, Soviet, etc). Complete with nods to Gagarin, Shepard, Grissom, Tereshkova, etc.. A neat little world where you could imagine what humanity's efforts could look like 200 or so years from now.

Then Synthesis puts a proverbial nail in that coffin. Humanity isn't the goal. Transhumanity is. It's not about the future, but about the end of the road. This whole time, I thought the only reason to fight the reapers was to be able to insure this future and prevent extinction.

Stands to reason that in a future where we reach for the stars we'd be faced with problems of a much larger scope than we can imagine now, with solutions that transcend our current beliefs and understandings.

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

Another thing I find so awful about Synthesis is that Mass Effect started as a series that fantasized a version of our own real world fascination with the stars, with space exploration. A hyper reality version of how humanity's space programs might emerge and unite (NASA, Soviet, etc). Complete with nods to Gagarin, Shepard, Grissom, Tereshkova, etc.. A neat little world where you could imagine what humanity's efforts could look like 200 or so years from now.

Then Synthesis puts a proverbial nail in that coffin. Humanity isn't the goal. Transhumanity is. It's not about the future, but about the end of the road. This whole time, I thought the only reason to fight the reapers was to be able to insure this future and prevent extinction.

ME1: "It's time to step up and show the galaxy what humanity can do!"

ME3:  "Being human (or organic in general) is a bad thing"

[CronoDragoon]

Well, Nieztsche's overmen are identified primarily by their approach to morality, so I think Obadiah's statement about the transcendence of belief works quite well with him.

[KaiserShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

Another thing I find so awful about Synthesis is that Mass Effect started as a series that fantasized a version of our own real world fascination with the stars, with space exploration. A hyper reality version of how humanity's space programs might emerge and unite (NASA, Soviet, etc). Complete with nods to Gagarin, Shepard, Grissom, Tereshkova, etc.. A neat little world where you could imagine what humanity's efforts could look like 200 or so years from now.

Then Synthesis puts a proverbial nail in that coffin. Humanity isn't the goal. Transhumanity is. It's not about the future, but about the end of the road. This whole time, I thought the only reason to fight the reapers was to be able to insure this future and prevent extinction.

This reminds me of that line the Catalyst tells you when Shepard objects to this ascension to reaper form.

"I think we'd rather keep our own form."

"No, you can't."

That line alone had me hard set on killing it dead. Perhaps I'm a simple man with simple tastes, but I find the whole universal transcendence concept to be overly tired and I won't put any effort toward caring about it.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 22 novembre 2013 - 08:47 .

[CronoDragoon]

StreetMagic wrote...

Another thing I find so awful about Synthesis is that Mass Effect started as a series that fantasized a version of our own real world fascination with the stars, with space exploration. A hyper reality version of how humanity's space programs might emerge and unite (NASA, Soviet, etc). Complete with nods to Gagarin, Shepard, Grissom, Tereshkova, etc.. A neat little world where you could imagine what humanity's efforts could look like 200 or so years from now.

Then Synthesis puts a proverbial nail in that coffin. Humanity isn't the goal. Transhumanity is. It's not about the future, but about the end of the road. This whole time, I thought the only reason to fight the reapers was to be able to insure this future and prevent extinction.

I disagree with your interpretation here, and I think the ME series is clever in subverting precisely that expectation with the entire discussion of "the good of humanity" vs. "the good of everyone". This is crystallized, I believe, by what I consider to be the central intellectual conflict of the series, which is TIM vs. Shepard. By the end of ME2, can you really say the series is about the progress of humanity still?

While I agree that Synthesis asserts that the answer does not lay in organics or synthetics as currently constructed, I don't think it follows that Synthesis isn't about the future. It very much still is, and I think you open a can of worms by suggesting that Synthesis "extinguishes" humanity. As far as we know, all that's been added are synthetic augmentations that will be common to all organic forms of life; a commonality has been added but none of the diversities have been removed (as far as we know. Perhaps now lifetimes will be more similar between races? Impossible to say).

[Rasofe]

Let's not go into Nietzsche's overman. Nietzsche ended up coloring the idea with so much excess it was ridiculous. In reality overmen are just those who despise humanity and want the trait completely removed from our species.

More to the point, we know the Catalyst is lying when it says "No you can't." It's not an overman's choice to ignore its rubbish, it's what any sensible human being would do. Overmen reject common sense in the same way that they reject all other qualities of humanity. I don't think that even factors into the equation, since even for Control, Shepard doesn't act that way.

@Cronodragon
It's a matter of tone more than anything there. The Synthesis ending comes across as intentionally transcendental, with the Catalyst pitching it as the best option. I haven't actually had a Shepard playthrough where my Shepard differed so far from my beliefs that they'd pick transcendence victory. The whole point of humanity is to prove that we can either live with the rest of the world or conquer it, not to become something else.
At least it's not magical energy beings... but it's got the same overtones.

Modifié par Rasofe, 22 novembre 2013 - 09:06 .

[CronoDragoon]

StreetMagic wrote...
The Catalyst, in a way, is trying to be the "overman" in this exchange. He's imposing his will. Shepard is free to do the same. He just has to believe in himself.

The overman isn't really about the will to power, though. That already exists in all things; Nieztsche believed it to such an extent that he thought it was actually a physical driving force in all organisms.

What separates the overman is how he approaches "truth", which is to say how he deals with the question of the ascetic ideal, a moral question. Without the ascetic ideal, how can man have morality? Now that God is dead, what is left but nihilism? The overman is his answer, the great "experimenter" whose beliefs are solely his, "and you have no right to them."

Without digressing into talking solely about Nieztsche, I don't agree that the Catalyst is trying to impose his will on Shepard. He's already submitted. He has no choice but to give Shepard the keys.

[KaiserShep]

There's something odd about the whole connectedness thing that synthesis suggests that I find incompatible with the way humanity actually functions. Heck, in our own reality, I would expect that sudden and universal augmentation of our own species (without changing the fundamental framework of their minds) to cause global panic and even mass suicides as people freak the f*ck out, but that's me lol.

[CronoDragoon]

StreetMagic wrote...

It definitely extinguishes humanity. I'm nothing like people in Synthesis. Nor are you. Nor have humans been in the past 100,000 years, nor are Shepard and friends. They are different. So different that EDI doesn't feel alone any longer. They might live happy, productive lives, but the fact is that this current chapter of humanity is gone. It's something radically new.

Where does the cutoff for that happen? Did penicillin extinguish the previous humanity? What about prosthetic limbs and pacemakers? Of course, since Synthesis allegedly does some fundamental change to our DNA (lawl) to produce the effect shown in Synthesis, I would agree that this is radically new and a change unlike anything ****** sapiens have undergone before. But still, how does a human changed by Synthesis identify himself? A human still, right?

Ultimately, it's an ending for people who hate their state of life right now. People like Ray Kurzweil. Or those cyberpunk dweebs in the 90s who referred to everything in the real world as "meat space". They're uncomfortable in their own skin -- literally!

Well that doesn't have to be the reason one chooses Synthesis, but I agree some people do choose it for that reason. Personally I'm cool with the state of being in my own universe and Mass Effect's. Part of the reason I consider Synthesis too underwhelming as a meaningful ending to the series for me.