876 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
If the reapers are wrong, then you're doing essentially committing a horrible crime for no moral reason at all, other than the threat of everyone being killed. It's an incredible moment of forced powerlessness in a game about empowerment, where all of the choices are different versions of moral nausea. 

If the Reapers are right, then at least you can justify the things you're doing as having somewhat of a pay-off. 


This is again based on the presumption that the reapers and the Catalyst are wrong.  

I ... umm... I don't know how to react to this when my entire post is about how the Reapers being wrong makes the choices a lot more morally abhorent, to answer the question of why it would be worse if the Reapers were wrong. 

I still maintain that the jury is out on that that because our sample size is too small to make a judgement. As I said earlier the Geth and EDI do hurt the argument of the Catalyst, but at the same time those are very special cases where certain factors made them become a credible argument. Throughout the game we see the negatives that prove the Catalyst right. Overlord, the AI on the Citadel, the AI that tried to kill Shepard in Mass Effect 1, and the fact that AI existed before the Geth.

The Catalyst's argument isn't stupid beyond belief because of a lack of empirical data. It's stupid beyond belief because it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what "organic" means. The intestinal fauna that coates our excrement are "living" organic beings, but the Catalyst isn't just creating huge farms of digestive tracts to "preserve" organics forever. Despite using the word "organic" what the Catalyst really means is sapient entities made out of flesh. But the made out of flesh part is idiotic - there's nothign intrinsically special in ME about being a saptient organic versus saptient something else, and sapient organics are just as likely to wipe each other out as anything. 

I am also reminded by that AI that tries to kill Shepard, when it said "all organics must destroy or control syntehtic life forms." Once again, it cuts both ways and makes this a gray area. 

The krogan destroyed the rachni, but organic life wiping out organic life doesn't justify exterminating all existing organic life to save all future organic life. It's a logical black hole that only seems superficially coherent because of this "right stuff" analogy. 

You are bringing real world science into a space opera.

Just because we have intestinal fauna in our bodies and are "living" organics doesn't really mean much in this context, what it means to be "organic" turns this into a semantical debate, and in that case BioWare should have picked a better phrase than organic. Plus we are presuming that is what the Catalyst believes, since it just says organics, it could be talking about living creatures in general, something that A.I should not be because it is not living (technically.)

And yes, organics kill organics. Organics also start conflict because of needs synthetics don't have, or require. If we bring in sociology and other social sciences into the mix, it is basically a mimic of real life in space. Organic life wiping out organic life doesn't justify anything, but it keeps the world going because of the needs of organic life. If synthetics wiped out all organic life, there would be nothing to gain. No natural world, nothing that we would reconize. If I remember correctly, the charge was that the universe would simply just die forever.

To tie this back to Drew K, perhaps the intent was to make the organic/synthetic conflict more prevelent until dark energy came into the mix. We can presume, as lead writer, he had final say on the use of "organic" as a phrase and how the reapers worked, of course. At least, that is my guess. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 10 décembre 2013 - 05:25 .

[Iakus]

Responding to the edits:

LinksOcarina wrote...

Actually, the pre-determination is the issue here, because that was always the case, as with other protagonists. 

What you are describing is again narrative flavor, and presuming the Bhaalspawn dies when he becomes a god of murder as well which I call a stretch since you don't really die.

Being two seperate states of being doesn't change the fact that the choices are locked in for that moment. This is why it's the same for Mass Effect, the important choice is that you actually choose. Your state of being is irrelevent to the choice. Sure it can factor into things, but that is why those aspects become a part of the narrative to that plot point. "How do you stop the reapers?" is the question, not "How do you live?".

Both are fundamentally the same through the mechanics of the game itself.  From a writing standpoint you can make a case like you are doing, but it doesn't change the fact that the games mechanics, how plot and narration is set up in BioWare games, provides you a narrative choice on how you say things, but not what is said or done. It's like the moments in Mass Effect 1 where no matter what dialouge choice you picked, you would say the same thing; it's pretty much the same principle here, because what was said by Shepard is designed to move the plot, not change the narrative.

Except  "How do you live?" is a fundamental question.  People want to live.  Survival is an almost universal mark of success in your task.  And yes, Shepard can exhibit a desire to live.

Sometimes there is no way out and death is inevitable.  But that really sucks when it happens and it takes something truly extraordinary for it to be worth it.  ME3 wasn't worth it.  Heck I'd argue ME3 isn't worth it even if Shepard did live.  But railroading death makes it a lot worse.

That's the secret to "good railroading"  You guide the player down the path they'd choose anyway.

Saying "Shepard has to die because "those are the only options given to us" avoids the issue:  The issue is there should have been possibilities (in all three colors) that Shepard could survive.  The writers should have allowed for the players to strongly desire this.  Removing, or never allowing for that was a terrible misreading of the audience.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

Responding to the edits:

LinksOcarina wrote...

Actually, the pre-determination is the issue here, because that was always the case, as with other protagonists. 

What you are describing is again narrative flavor, and presuming the Bhaalspawn dies when he becomes a god of murder as well which I call a stretch since you don't really die.

Being two seperate states of being doesn't change the fact that the choices are locked in for that moment. This is why it's the same for Mass Effect, the important choice is that you actually choose. Your state of being is irrelevent to the choice. Sure it can factor into things, but that is why those aspects become a part of the narrative to that plot point. "How do you stop the reapers?" is the question, not "How do you live?".

Both are fundamentally the same through the mechanics of the game itself.  From a writing standpoint you can make a case like you are doing, but it doesn't change the fact that the games mechanics, how plot and narration is set up in BioWare games, provides you a narrative choice on how you say things, but not what is said or done. It's like the moments in Mass Effect 1 where no matter what dialouge choice you picked, you would say the same thing; it's pretty much the same principle here, because what was said by Shepard is designed to move the plot, not change the narrative.

Except  "How do you live?" is a fundamental question.  People want to live.  Survival is an almost universal mark of success in your task.  And yes, Shepard can exhibit a desire to live.

Sometimes there is no way out and death is inevitable.  But that really sucks when it happens and it takes something truly extraordinary for it to be worth it.  ME3 wasn't worth it.  Heck I'd argue ME3 isn't worth it even if Shepard did live.  But railroading death makes it a lot worse.

That's the secret to "good railroading"  You guide the player down the path they'd choose anyway.

Saying "Shepard has to die because "those are the only options given to us" avoids the issue:  The issue is there should have been possibilities (in all three colors) that Shepard could survive.  The writers should have allowed for the players to strongly desire this.  Removing, or never allowing for that was a terrible misreading of the audience.

By the logic of most people here, any form of railroading is bad to begin with. If they were to guide you down a path you would choose anyway, you wouldn't play the game because it would be less interactive.  Of course any RPG you play outside of stuff like Skyrim has it in there although Skyrim has railroading mechanics based on powers, but thats a discussion for another day."

How to live?" may be a fundamental question, but its not the question being asked in that scene. That is what sets it apart in the end. It may be important for you, but its not important to the writers who penned the scene. This is also based on personal taste then in the end, because I wonder how many see the deaths as worth it. It has the trappings of being a hero mixed into it anyway. After all, what makes it the ultimate choice outside facing death in the face? 

Regardless, Shepard living or having the chance of living, in the context of what was written, makes little sense in the end. As I said earlier, the scene needs to be completely reframed to make that even possible, and the writers did not want to change the ending to their story like that. 

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Wait.... where does the approving of genocide part come in?

Because the essence of control is to "take over" from the Catalyst to try and come up with a non-genocide way of dealing with the prolbme. The moral territory being staked out is more, "let's see if there's an alternative to genocide" rather than "genocide is wrong".

That isn't what my Control Shepards were thinking. If they had thought the Catalyst was right they'd have gone for Synthesis, EMS permitting.

I'm not sure about the indirectly agreeing part either. Whatever the Catalyst wants is of only historical interest to my Shepards. Why should they care?

Well, you're accepting that genocide is justified: it just has to be for the right goal. Even if you think the reapers goal is wrong, you're not disagreeing with their method as much on that point as you are with what they were trying to achieve. 

OK, but that's got nothing to do with the Catalyst; if he believes 2+2=4, it's still 4. Unless you're a pure deontologist, there are sets of consequences where committing genocide is the most moral thing you can do. My Destroy Sheps pick Destroy because they think this is one of these situations. My Control Sheps don't think that and so they don't do that.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:16 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...


By the logic of most people here, any form of railroading is bad to begin with. If they were to guide you down a path you would choose anyway, you wouldn't play the game because it would be less interactive.  Of course any RPG you play outside of stuff like Skyrim has it in there although Skyrim has railroading mechanics based on powers, but thats a discussion for another day."

I'm not so naive to think that railroading to some degree is a necessity in a computer game.  However, this goes to the illusion you spoke of earlier.  The railroading has to be couched either in the form of some sort of desirable result, or at least as the logical extension of what has already come.  Shepard has to become a Spectre, so we are shown how becoming a Spectre will makeit possible to track down Saren, for example.

How to live?" may be a fundamental question, but its not the question being asked in that scene. That is what sets it apart in the end. It may be important for you, but its not important to the writers who penned the scene. This is also based on personal taste then in the end, because I wonder how many see the deaths as worth it. It has the trappings of being a hero mixed into it anyway. After all, what makes it the ultimate choice outside facing death in the face? 

Bolded is where the writers failed.  Or at least one part where they did.  That they did not take this into consideration and were surprised at the backlash  shows a detatchment from the audience that's stunning to behold for professional writers.

Regardless, Shepard living or having the chance of living, in the context of what was written, makes little sense in the end. As I said earlier, the scene needs to be completely reframed to make that even possible, and the writers did not want to change the ending to their story like that. 

Context?  All they'd have to do is make the process non-lethal.

Don't have Shepard walk into an explosion
Don't make Shepard clutch live wires
Don't have Shepard jump into the beam of green space magic.
Add a five second scene of Shepard being found alive.

If they didn't want to change these things, well, that's on them.  And future sales will tell where that attitude will lead them.  But it's not exactly a complicated process here.

Modifié par iakus, 10 décembre 2013 - 06:50 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
Bolded is where the writers failed.  Or at least one part where they did.  That they did not take this into consideration and were surprised at the backlash  shows a detatchment from the audience that's stunning to behold for professional writers.

At the very least, they diverged from incorporating morality (how should I live?) into the story and/or gameplay the way they had previously throughout the series. It's a trade-off of consistency for depth. That isn't a shot at anyone: I expected no depth from my moral choices in Mass Effect based on how the series had functioned and instead located the value of the story in the in-depth character interactions. When both the characters and the power fantasy were abandoned in the ending, I was not pleased indeed.

Incidentally the only games I can remember that truly forced me to think about my choices were Dragon Age 2 and Tactics Ogre LUCT.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:23 .

[AlanC9]

Are you guys all using "how should I live" the same way?

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:45 .

[txgoldrush]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
Bolded is where the writers failed.  Or at least one part where they did.  That they did not take this into consideration and were surprised at the backlash  shows a detatchment from the audience that's stunning to behold for professional writers.

At the very least, they diverged from incorporating morality (how should I live?) into the story and/or gameplay the way they had previously throughout the series. It's a trade-off of consistency for depth. That isn't a shot at anyone: I expected no depth from my moral choices in Mass Effect based on how the series had functioned and instead located the value of the story in the in-depth character interactions. When both the characters and the power fantasy were abandoned in the ending, I was not pleased indeed.

Incidentally the only games I can remember that truly forced me to think about my choices were Dragon Age 2 and Tactics Ogre LUCT.

ME3 is not power fantasy, and really, I think they go against it by not putting you on the front lines often and emphasizing more characterization over the action. And, really, the themes of the ending was foreshadowed all throughout ME3.

The last 5 minutes were no different from the first 30 hours, people just weren't paying attention.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you guys all using "how should I live" the same way?

In this particular instance I'm using it for "survival"  Though I think the endings fail even more spectacularly in the moral sense of the phrase.  Heck if it had done better in that sense I might have been able to live with just a breath scene.

[Ryzaki]

Well it makes sense Shepard dies in Synthesis. He's pretty much Jesus dying so everyone can ascend or some crap.

Control and Destroy he should be able to live though.

[CronoDragoon]

Probably not since I barely read anything in this thread.

[txgoldrush]

Ryzaki wrote...

Well it makes sense Shepard dies in Synthesis. He's pretty much Jesus dying so everyone can ascend or some crap.

Control and Destroy he should be able to live though.

Control he lives on in a different form, so he "lives:.

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Well it makes sense Shepard dies in Synthesis. He's pretty much Jesus dying so everyone can ascend or some crap.

Control and Destroy he should be able to live though.

If it were possible to survive COntrol and Synthesis, I'd be willing to bet Destroy would not enjoy the overwhelming majority it has now.

It may still be the favorite ending, just not by as huge a margin.

Modifié par iakus, 10 décembre 2013 - 07:56 .

[Ryzaki]

True to equal it out destroy would need not to kill the Geth and EDI.

[LinksOcarina]

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you guys all using "how should I live" the same way?

That's like asking if we all played the same game.

From a narrative standpoint, no.

[CronoDragoon]

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 is not power fantasy

It does not ultimately end up being one, no.

and really, I think they go against it by not putting you on the front lines often and emphasizing more characterization over the action.

Uh, there's quite a bit of action and you are often on the front lines. I don't see how that's related to what "power fantasy" though. Newsroom is it's own form of Aaron Sorkin power fantasy and it has nothing to do with shooting.

And, really, the themes of the ending was foreshadowed all throughout ME3.

Correct, but so would the themes of other possible endings as well. The events of ME3 don't necessarily converge into only one possible ending.

The last 5 minutes were no different from the first 30 hours, people just weren't paying attention.

Oh? There were Paragon and Renegade persuasion options? Do tell.

[txgoldrush]

CronoDragoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 is not power fantasy

a) It does not ultimately end up being one, no.

and really, I think they go against it by not putting you on the front lines often and emphasizing more characterization over the action.

Uh, there's quite a bit of action and you are often on the front lines. I don't see how that's related to what "power fantasy" though. Newsroom is it's own form of Aaron Sorkin power fantasy and it has nothing to do with shooting.

And, really, the themes of the ending was foreshadowed all throughout ME3.

c) Correct, but so would the themes of other possible endings as well. The events of ME3 don't necessarily converge into only one possible ending.

The last 5 minutes were no different from the first 30 hours, people just weren't paying attention.

d) Oh? There were Paragon and Renegade persuasion options? Do tell.

a) The series never was...it was closer to Star Trek than Star Wars. It has its power fantasy moments, but it is not power fantasy.

There are multiple definitions to "power fantasy" because really "power fantasy" isn't a true genre or concept and ME3 fits none of them.

c) They all converge into this endgame, but some themes are just more important than others, "victory through sacrifice" being the most important in ME3's case.

d) They may not be charm and intimidate, but there is still paragon and renegade options with the Catalyst. Nevermind the Control ending is based off of alignment.

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

True to equal it out destroy would need not to kill the Geth and EDI.

Spare the geth and EDI and I could live with the breath ending.  Wouldln't be happy with it, but I could live with it.

[CronoDragoon]

txgoldrush wrote...
a) The series never was...it was closer to Star Trek than Star Wars. It has its power fantasy moments, but it is not power fantasy.

I'm not seeing what the Wars/Trek comparison does here. Regardless you admit the series before ME3 has power fantasy moments, but say it isn't a power fantasy. At what point does something become a power fantasy? Or:

There are multiple definitions to "power fantasy" because really "power fantasy" isn't a true genre or concept and ME3 fits none of them.

Considering there are different definitions, what is yours? It's useless to discuss whether ME is a power fantasy if we are working from different definitions of the term. But you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that the first two games did not represent a power fantasy in some definition or another.

c) They all converge into this endgame, but some themes are just more important than others, "victory through sacrifice" being the most important in ME3's case.

True, that is a very important theme in ME3, if not one of the most. Both Tuchanka and Rannoch contain sacrifice, yet you won't find many players complaining about the end of those arcs. This should make you wonder precisely what kind of sacrifice exists in the ending that did not exist previously. Hint: it has to do with Paragon morality.

If you want to say that this is the point the writers are making, trying to find the degree of sacrifice that becomes unacceptable in exchange for victory (a sort of moral chicken) then fair enough, but now we've really deviated from the structure of moral decisions in the first two games.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 décembre 2013 - 08:48 .

[txgoldrush]

CronoDragoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) The series never was...it was closer to Star Trek than Star Wars. It has its power fantasy moments, but it is not power fantasy.

a) I'm not seeing what the Wars/Trek comparison does here. Regardless you admit the series before ME3 has power fantasy moments, but say it isn't a power fantasy. At what point does something become a power fantasy? Or:

There are multiple definitions to "power fantasy" because really "power fantasy" isn't a true genre or concept and ME3 fits none of them.

Considering there are different definitions, what is yours? It's useless to discuss whether ME is a power fantasy if we are working from different definitions of the term. But you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that the first two games did not represent a power fantasy in some definition or another.

c) They all converge into this endgame, but some themes are just more important than others, "victory through sacrifice" being the most important in ME3's case.

c) True, that is a very important theme in ME3, if not one of the most. Both Tuchanka and Rannoch contain sacrifice, yet you won't find many players complaining about the end of those arcs. This should make you wonder precisely what kind of sacrifice exists in the ending that did not exist previously. Hint: it has to do with Paragon morality.

If you want to say that this is the point the writers are making, trying to find the degree of sacrifice that becomes unacceptable in exchange for victory (a sort of moral chicken) then fair enough, but now we've really deviated from the structure of moral decisions in the first two games.

a) ME3 has comedy moments, but is it a comedy? Same logic applies here. And if you didn't know Star Trek is far less power fantasy while Star Wars is definitely power fantasy.

One definition is a classic good vs evil tale with tons of action, typical block buster stuff. Then there is the tvtropes definition, which ME3 definitely does not fulfill. Then there is the classic build the world the way you wanted, which many WRPG and god games have, which ME3 subverts.

c) When the EC added a thematic statement scene (or close to it), it is now the most important theme, because now all three endings end on the theme of sacrifice, and really Refuse does as well. But the memorial wall scene is ME3's thematic statement, or as close as you can get to one.

And really, they needed a choice that diverges from the Paragon and Renegade mentality.....good, because Bioware games were dual morality to a fault. But P/R still plays a big role in the Control ending and justifies a Paragon Shepard choosing control when he was arguing against it the entire game.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 10 décembre 2013 - 09:15 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
True, that is a very important theme in ME3, if not one of the most. Both Tuchanka and Rannoch contain sacrifice, yet you won't find many players complaining about the end of those arcs. This should make you wonder precisely what kind of sacrifice exists in the ending that did not exist previously. Hint: it has to do with Paragon morality.

If you want to say that this is the point the writers are making, trying to find the degree of sacrifice that becomes unacceptable in exchange for victory (a sort of moral chicken) then fair enough, but now we've really deviated from the structure of moral decisions in the first two games.

Hmmm.... come to think of it, I never took Paragon morality seriously in the first place. Even though most of my Sheps end up pretty high on the P/R scale, that's not because they see the universe the way Paragons are supposed to.

And I like the "moral chicken" metaphor.

[CronoDragoon]

txgoldrush wrote...
a) ME3 has comedy moments, but is it a comedy? Same logic applies here. And if you didn't know Star Trek is far less power fantasy while Star Wars is definitely power fantasy.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question. At what point does something switch from "a game with power fantasy moments" to "a power fantasy game"?

One definition is a classic good vs evil tale with tons of action, typical block buster stuff. Then there is the tvtropes definition, which ME3 definitely does not fulfill. Then there is the classic build the world the way you wanted, which many WRPG and god games have, which ME3 subverts.

I don't see how ME3 subverts that at all, before the ending. And the first two games certainly didn't.

c) When the EC added a thematic statement scene (or close to it), it is now the most important theme, because now all three endings end on the theme of sacrifice, and really Refuse does as well. But the memorial wall scene is ME3's thematic statement, or as close as you can get to one.

And really, they needed a choice that diverges from the Paragon and Renegade mentality.....good, because Bioware games were dual morality to a fault. But P/R still plays a big role in the Control ending and justifies a Paragon Shepard choosing control when he was arguing against it the entire game.

Well, I suppose Control would be a counterargument, since it's essentially a power fantasy multiplied exponentially. Still, why do you think players like Tuchanka and Rannoch but not the ending?

There's also the fact that as far as thematic statements go, the Stargazer scene gives us the final comment on the Shepard character, which is that he becomes The Shepard Myth or Legend, responsible for guiding the galaxy down the path it now inhabits.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 10 décembre 2013 - 09:31 .

[Jorji Costava]

It seems pretty plain to me, anyways, that ME is and has always been a power fantasy through and through. Heck, those text blurbs during the ME2 load screens ("Be the ultimate hero!" "Be the ultimate badass!") should make that evident.

The basic premise of the game is to put Shepard in positions where he or she gets to make decisions that will shape the entire galaxy; arguably this reaches its height in ME3, where you get to resolved centuries-old political conflicts (Geth/Quarians, the Genophage, etc.). I know I've made this comparison a hundred times by now, but that's a bit like having a highly decorated Navy SEAL single-handedly decide the outcome of every major global political conflict out there.

The whole conceit of Spectres is a way of empowering the PC such that Shepard can be put in position to make these decisions, as well as get away with stuff (like punching reporters) that ordinary soldiers or civilians could not. All of these things sound like power fantasy elements to me.

I think you could even argue that by intent, the ending isn't really a deviation from this basic pattern. Shepard encounters a quasi-divine being who reveals the mysteries of the universe, and then judges the PC worthy of making the decision to end all decisions, a decision about the fundamental existential question confronting the galaxy that will shape the future of that galaxy for all time, thereby making Shepard into space Jesus.

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

True to equal it out destroy would need not to kill the Geth and EDI.

Spare the geth and EDI and I could live with the breath ending.  Wouldln't be happy with it, but I could live with it.

Same.

As you said dead Sheps got closure living Shep got speculations

[eyezonlyii]

CronoDragoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
a) ME3 has comedy moments, but is it a comedy? Same logic applies here. And if you didn't know Star Trek is far less power fantasy while Star Wars is definitely power fantasy.

Okay, but you didn't answer my question. At what point does something switch from "a game with power fantasy moments" to "a power fantasy game"?

One definition is a classic good vs evil tale with tons of action, typical block buster stuff. Then there is the tvtropes definition, which ME3 definitely does not fulfill. Then there is the classic build the world the way you wanted, which many WRPG and god games have, which ME3 subverts.

I don't see how ME3 subverts that at all, before the ending. And the first two games certainly didn't.

c) When the EC added a thematic statement scene (or close to it), it is now the most important theme, because now all three endings end on the theme of sacrifice, and really Refuse does as well. But the memorial wall scene is ME3's thematic statement, or as close as you can get to one.

And really, they needed a choice that diverges from the Paragon and Renegade mentality.....good, because Bioware games were dual morality to a fault. But P/R still plays a big role in the Control ending and justifies a Paragon Shepard choosing control when he was arguing against it the entire game.

Well, I suppose Control would be a counterargument, since it's essentially a power fantasy multiplied exponentially. Still, why do you think players like Tuchanka and Rannoch but not the ending?

There's also the fact that as far as thematic statements go, the Stargazer scene gives us the final comment on the Shepard character, which is that he becomes The Shepard Myth or Legend, responsible for guiding the galaxy down the path it now inhabits.

I would venture that the Tuchanka and Rannoch missions are so well recived because they had about a 2 game setup beforehand; especially Tuchanka if you talked to Wrex a lot in ME1. The buildup is there and all the pieces and characers play their parts well (even if a few change masks between games), but the ending isn't really like that. As someone said in another thread somewhere, all of the choices beforehand were supported by the gameplay of their missions. In Prioirty Earth, and ME3 as a whole, there is no buildup to anything but Destroy with a half wink thown at Conrol during Sanctuary, and NOTHING to suggest Synthesis is even on the table (let alone possible). 

It's like biting into a cookie expecting chocolate chip and getting raisins instead. 

Modifié par eyezonlyii, 10 décembre 2013 - 09:41 .