221 réponses à ce sujet

[goishen]

As a matter of fact, now that I've been thinking about it.   And posting in other places, I think that BioWare is gonna try and sew up some plot holes.

 

The ARKCON sets off from Illium just as reaper forces are landing (remember that Illium is like a big melting pot, races from all over) and then goes to the Salarian home world for some uber fancy tech stuff and a couple'a Salarians to boot.  Then it goes over to the Krogan home world.  Then you can go over to pick up a couple'a Quarians from the fleet.  It would take time just for logistics of getting everybody set up down on Rannoch.

 

I mean, if you honestly think about it, the end of ME3 had Illium untouched, Salarian home world untouched, and the Krogan home world only touched by the reaper that was taken down by the thresher maw.  Until later in the game when they say that more reaper "forces" have landed, but reaper forces can mean anything from land units to actual reapers.

 

Hmmm.   I'm liking this idea.

[lastpawn]

Skimming some of these posts makes me think... as long as ME4 doesn't include anything as absurd as synthesis, I'll consider it a win.

[Revan Reborn]

So by this logic I am indoctrinated too. Yet I choose Synthesis not because the Catylist says it will work but because I believed it was the best option before it even explained anything. I had an moral decision to 1- kill the Geth 2-Brainwash another sentient being or 3- "upgrade" both synthetics and organic to give them the chance to co-exist. I knew it wasn't a sure thing but I refused the other two on principle.

 

So my question for you is- Am I indoctrrinated, or am I "only human?"

The difference here is even if the geth are destroyed, they can always be rebuilt. Once you pick Synthesis, there is no going back, and if it turns out it was a terrible choice, the entire galaxy suffers, not just one group of synthetics. You had one job to do. Destroy. That would end the conflict permanently by dealing with the Catalyst, the Reapers, and any other existential threat to the galaxy. By opting to buy into the Catalyst's logic, whether you believed it or not is irrelevant. You chose its preferred choice, of which had failed in the past, and you leave the galaxy to a game of Russian Roulette, for the promise of a "happy ending"? That is being fooled and naive.

[XXIceColdXX]

Well if we're stuck with Mac

As long as he gets over his crush on Cerberus

And maybe rethinks that maybe Mass Effect isn't all about organics vs synthetics.

We might be alright....

[ImaginaryMatter]

The difference here is even if the geth are destroyed, they can always be rebuilt. Once you pick Synthesis, there is no going back, and if it turns out it was a terrible choice, the entire galaxy suffers, not just one group of synthetics. You had one job to do. Destroy. That would end the conflict permanently by dealing with the Catalyst, the Reapers, and any other existential threat to the galaxy. By opting to buy into the Catalyst's logic, whether you believed it or not is irrelevant. You chose its preferred choice, of which had failed in the past, and you leave the galaxy to a game of Russian Roulette, for the promise of a "happy ending"? That is being fooled and naive.

 

The Geth can't be rebuilt. They were a race that gained their sentience independently of their creators design and then spent 300 years of isolation developing their own culture in the absence of organic races. You can build things that look like Geth but they would never be the same past any superficial resemblance.

 

Also, how do you know Synthesis can't be undone? If one magical beam of light can cause it why can't a magical beam of light uncause it? Also, choosing Synthesis is not buying into the Catalyst logic any more than going green or airing anti-smoking campaigns is buying into Nazi logic. Choosing Synthesis stops the war with the Reapers (unless you think the Catalyst is lying in which case Destroy is equally suspect). Additionally, the Synthesis the Crucible offers is different, the Catalyst says 'similar' options were tried in the past. Synthesis is bad for other reasons mostly on a story telling and gameplay level but it's not bad because of whatever stuff your spouting off to justify Destroy. If you like that option great but don't read in the National Enquirers' list of why green is bad.

[Riven326]

Well if we're stuck with Mac

As long as he gets over his crush on Cerberus

And maybe rethinks that maybe Mass Effect isn't all about organics vs synthetics.

We might be alright....

 

Nope.

[Revan Reborn]

 

The Geth can't be rebuilt. They were a race that gained their sentience independently of their creators design and then spent 300 years of isolation developing their own culture in the absence of organic races. You can build things that look like Geth but they would never be the same past any superficial resemblance.

 

Also, how do you know Synthesis can't be undone? If one magical beam of light can cause it why can't a magical beam of light uncause it? Also, choosing Synthesis is not buying into the Catalyst logic any more than going green or airing anti-smoking campaigns is buying into Nazi logic. Choosing Synthesis stops the war with the Reapers (unless you think the Catalyst is lying in which case Destroy is equally suspect). Additionally, the Synthesis the Crucible offers is different, the Catalyst says 'similar' options were tried in the past. Synthesis is bad for other reasons mostly on a story telling and gameplay level but it's not bad because of whatever stuff your spouting off to justify Destroy. If you like that option great but don't read in the National Enquirers' list of why green is bad.

 

They didn't "gain their sentience independently of their creators design," the quarians accidentally gave them artificial intelligence, which caused a panic and ended poorly. Developing in isolation is a moot point as the geth operate as a Consensus rather than independently. They are all software and improve themselves based on their needs at the time. The only difference with new geth is they wouldn't be as militant as their predecessors.

 

When you fundamentally change the DNA of every living organic and give synthetics "understanding," that cannot be undone. They have been evolved through force and will never be as they were previously.

 

Choosing Synthesis does stop the war, by turning everybody into a new breed of reaper against their will. Yes. It's different because Shepard is the "missing link" and apparently his "being" will allow Synthesis to properly work where it could not have been achieved before. National Enquire? It seems you are the one spouting nonsense. I've provided plenty of in-game examples and explanations why Synthesis is a dumb choice. If you picked it (which you likely did) and are content with its consequences, good for you. That doesn't discredit how ridiculous it is and how it's far more worse than Control or Refuse.

 

Again, play through the Mass Effect Trilogy again. You might be surprised how many times "Destroy" is mentioned by virtually every major character and casts in the games and how it is the only way to truly "end the war." Not by throwing in the white flag like Synthesis, but actually ending any and all future conflicts permanently without turning everybody into reaper slaves.

[StealthGamer92]

The difference here is even if the geth are destroyed, they can always be rebuilt. Once you pick Synthesis, there is no going back, and if it turns out it was a terrible choice, the entire galaxy suffers, not just one group of synthetics. You had one job to do. Destroy. That would end the conflict permanently by dealing with the Catalyst, the Reapers, and any other existential threat to the galaxy. By opting to buy into the Catalyst's logic, whether you believed it or not is irrelevant. You chose its preferred choice, of which had failed in the past, and you leave the galaxy to a game of Russian Roulette, for the promise of a "happy ending"? That is being fooled and naive.

I never said it was a/or the "happy ending." I said my instinct, personality, whatever you call it, leads me to choose synthises. I am human and therfore I am not guaranteed to have or agree with your opinion. No mater what you have said so far I still(for now at least) disagree with your opinion. I have played all three games read all codex's I have read all (three) books I know of. I am open to seeing it your way if you are right, but so far all you have given me is your opinion(at least I don't think you wrote ME3's story/ending, did you? not mocking you/srious question) which is a understandable conclusion out of god only knows how many possible ones(includeing mine).

 

To me ME3's ending was the best in the trilogy. It is the ultimat "what would you do," and it gave us four choices where none are completely moraly good or justifiable. I mean ME1 was so disconected(radio transmision) I just pulled a Spok and the logical choice was sacrifice the Council. ME2 was easier due to the Destroy option not only destroyed the abomination but "freed" the Collectors from an eternal semi-living hell.

[Revan Reborn]

I never said it was a/or the "happy ending." I said my instinct, personality, whatever you call it, leads me to choose synthises. I am human and therfore I am not guaranteed to have or agree with your opinion. No mater what you have said so far I still(for now at least) disagree with your opinion. I have played all three games read all codex's I have read all (three) books I know of. I am open to seeing it your way if you are right, but so far all you have given me is your opinion(at least I don't think you wrote ME3's story/ending, did you? not mocking you/srious question) which is a understandable conclusion out of god only knows how many possible ones(includeing mine).

 

To me ME3's ending was the best in the trilogy. It is the ultimat "what would you do," and it gave us four choices where none are completely moraly good or justifiable.

I don't disagree. I'm one of the few that actually thought ME3's ending was great and it was shocking to see it come out of a AAA developer in an industry where safe and predictable is typically the preferred method. You get to decide the fate of the galaxy, whatever your rationale is for doing so. All I am saying is Synthesis is an incredibly hard choice to fight for because it is one big question mark. If you want to be gullible and just believe everything will be okay, then it is the "happy ending" choice as everybody wins. I think that's part of the reason why it's illusory and actually a terrible choice. What defines greatness are the tough choices one has to make in times of crisis. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer, but something needs to be sacrificed, and everybody cannot win. If there was always an easy way out, and that's certainly what Synthesis suggests, then what was the point of the trilogy and all of those various sacrifices to start?

[StealthGamer92]

I don't disagree. I'm one of the few that actually thought ME3's ending was great and it was shocking to see it come out of a AAA developer in an industry where safe and predictable is typically the preferred method. You get to decide the fate of the galaxy, whatever your rationale is for doing so. All I am saying is Synthesis is an incredibly hard choice to fight for because it is one big question mark. If you want to be gullible and just believe everything will be okay, then it is the "happy ending" choice as everybody wins. I think that's part of the reason why it's illusory and actually a terrible choice. What defines greatness are the tough choices one has to make in times of crisis. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer, but something needs to be sacrificed, and everybody cannot win. If there was always an easy way out, and that's certainly what Synthesis suggests, then what was the point of the trilogy and all of those various sacrifices to start?

It was the ultimate sacriface though. In controll Shepard becomes the catylis but in synthesis he is uterly killed or deconstructed or something. I built my Shepard from ME1 and now I sacrificed him not for an easy way out or to let others continue the fight but for non-logical "hope". In fact it is just as possible for the Catylist to have an I told you so from the grave with destroy because some species might make an AI that will wipe out organics in the future. I mean people in real life are looking into reviveing giant carnivorous lizard! We are stupid creatures at our core to want or try such a thing.

[Revan Reborn]

It was the ultimate sacriface though. In controll Shepard becomes the catylis but in synthesis he is uterly killed or deconstructed or something. I built my Shepard from ME1 and now I sacrificed him not for an easy way out or to let others continue the fight but for non-logical "hope". In fact it is just as possible for the Catylist to have an I told you so from the grave with destroy because some species might make an AI that will wipe out organics in the future. I mean people in real life are looking into reviveing giant carnivorous lizard! We are stupid creatures at our core to want or try such a thing.

The Ultimate Sacrifice for what though? That's the problem. Shepard doesn't become the Catalyst in control, but rather controls the Catalyst as well as the reapers. At least with Control though, it is suggested that Shepard would determine the fate of the galaxy because of his dominance over the reapers.

 

The galaxy didn't end before the Catalyst existed. The Leviathans created the Catalyst as a way of cementing their control and dominance over the galaxy. Their own short-sighted ambitions led to their own downfall and betrayal by their own technology. Whether the Catalyst existed or not, the galaxy would go on.

 

So your argument for Synthesis is "non-logical 'hope'"? That's a rather big leap of faith you are taking there, friend... I personally wouldn't want to gamble the fate of the galaxy and all living things on the prospect of hoping things would work out. Destroy isn't perfect and it certainly comes at a cost, but at least we know the reapers are dead and the Catalyst is gone with them.

 

Everybody should have known this trilogy was going to end with the ultimate moral dilemma. I "Destroyed" not only because I felt it was the right decision, but all of my crew, friends, and everybody in the galaxy (including synthetics) wanted to destroy the reapers and bring an end to the galactic destruction forever. We all knew there would be a cost. That doesn't mean we should shy away from it.

[shingara]

if i see a sniff of star child in the next one then im going to buy a copy of the game just to burn it.

[StealthGamer92]

The Ultimate Sacrifice for what though? That's the problem. Shepard doesn't become the Catalyst in control, but rather controls the Catalyst as well as the reapers. At least with Control though, it is suggested that Shepard would determine the fate of the galaxy because of his dominance over the reapers.

 

The galaxy didn't end before the Catalyst existed. The Leviathans created the Catalyst as a way of cementing their control and dominance over the galaxy. Their own short-sighted ambitions led to their own downfall and betrayal by their own technology. Whether the Catalyst existed or not, the galaxy would go on.

 

So your argument for Synthesis is "non-logical 'hope'"? That's a rather big leap of faith you are taking there, friend... I personally wouldn't want to gamble the fate of the galaxy and all living things on the prospect of hoping things would work out. Destroy isn't perfect and it certainly comes at a cost, but at least we know the reapers are dead and the Catalyst is gone with them.

 

Everybody should have known this trilogy was going to end with the ultimate moral dilemma. I "Destroyed" not only because I felt it was the right decision, but all of my crew, friends, and everybody in the galaxy (including synthetics) wanted to destroy the reapers and bring an end to the galactic destruction forever. We all knew there would be a cost. That doesn't mean we should shy away from it.

You and I keep proveing my earlier point that we each got an impression and conclusion from ME3. We formed very different opinions from the same source. I belive this

 

Destroy- The reapers are utterly defeated but there is a strong chance we would destroy ourselves as in the situation before.

 

Controll- Shepard is given too much of it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

synthesis- The upgrades may indeed bo forced and the peace may not last or I admit might never happen but the saved species may have peace. They may also have even biger  deadlier wars. They may even wind up makeing a synthetic that wipes them out. Synthesis would also give the Catylyst and Reapers a more orgaanic concious instead of machine logic(in theory anyway) which is what started the cycle's.

 

Refuse- was just a wierd choice to start with

 

Also I used hope not as in "my hope" but as in "to inspire hope(for change, understanding, anything to keep people's will to live on)."

[Revan Reborn]

You and I keep proveing my earlier point that we each got an impression and conclusion from ME3. We formed very different opinions from the same source. I belive this

 

Destroy- The reapers are utterly defeated but there is a strong chance we would destroy ourselves as in the situation before.

 

Controll- Shepard is given too much of it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

synthesis- The upgrades may indeed bo forced and the peace may not last or I admit might never happen but the saved species may have peace. They may also have even biger  deadlier wars. They may even wind up makeing a synthetic that wipes them out. Synthesis would also give the Catylyst and Reapers a more orgaanic concious instead of machine logic(in theory anyway) which is what started the cycle's.

 

Refuse- was just a wierd choice to start with

 

Also I used hope not as in "my hope" but as in "to inspire hope(for change, understanding, anything to keep people's will to live on)."

That's my ultimate problem with Synthesis though. There are too many unanswered questions. You are placing all your hopes on one big unknown, and it could have a positive impact or a negative one. Whatever happens, Shepard can't stop it as he is now out of the picture. It's true the Catalyst and Reapers may have a different perspective now since they have the understanding of organics, but we have no idea what exactly that future would entail.

 

Whether another synthetic-organic war would occur because of Destroy is irrelevant, in my opinion. If a war is to happen, then so be it. At least it would be on the terms of the galaxy, rather than having this ancient-advanced machine race committing genocide against trillions only to covert them into reaper form to "preserve" them. The reapers can only be destroyed in one option. It's the only conclusion I can see that will lead to anything good.

[GalacticWolf5]

The Ultimate Sacrifice for what though? That's the problem. Shepard doesn't become the Catalyst in control, but rather controls the Catalyst as well as the reapers. At least with Control though, it is suggested that Shepard would determine the fate of the galaxy because of his dominance over the reapers.

 

Shepard takes the place of the Catalyst. The Catalyst ceases to exist. Therefore, Shepard becomes the new ''catalyst''.

 

And Shepard doesn't determine the fate of the galaxy, he only protects it. Tho his methods are different if you're a Paragon or Renegade (Because if you didn't know, your dominant morality determines what is said in the Control epilogue)

 

The galaxy didn't end before the Catalyst existed. The Leviathans created the Catalyst as a way of cementing their control and dominance over the galaxy. Their own short-sighted ambitions led to their own downfall and betrayal by their own technology. Whether the Catalyst existed or not, the galaxy would go on.

 

Wrong. The Leviathans created the Catalyst so it would find a solution to stop the repetitif conflict between organics and synthetics. The Catalyst, in search of a solution, decided to collect physical data from organics. It chose to collect it's creators' data, making the first Reaper (known as Harbinger). It then found the only solution was to create the harvest cycles.

[Revan Reborn]

Shepard takes the place of the Catalyst. The Catalyst ceases to exist. Therefore, Shepard becomes the new ''catalyst''.

 

And Shepard doesn't determine the fate of the galaxy, he only protects it. Tho his methods are different if you're a Paragon or Renegade (Because if you didn't know, your dominant morality determines what is said in the Control epilogue)

 

 

Wrong. The Leviathans created the Catalyst so it would find a solution to stop the repetitif conflict between organics and synthetics. The Catalyst, in search of a solution, decided to collect physical data from organics. It chose to collect it's creators' data, making the first Reaper (known as Harbinger). It then found the only solution was to create the harvest cycles.

By controlling the reapers, he determines the galaxy's fate. You are playing semantics. The Catalyst had been playing God for hundreds of thousands of years deciding who lives or dies. That is determining fate.

 

That's not wrong actually... You are just confirming what I already said. The Leviathans were looking for order and stability to maintain their control. There were problems, so the Catalyst was created to resolve them. The Catalyst actually concluded that in order to create "order" all organics needed to be "preserved," in the form of the reapers in order to maintain stability in the galaxy.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Choosing Synthesis does stop the war, by turning everybody into a new breed of reaper against their will. Yes. It's different because Shepard is the "missing link" and apparently his "being" will allow Synthesis to properly work where it could not have been achieved before. National Enquire? It seems you are the one spouting nonsense. I've provided plenty of in-game examples and explanations why Synthesis is a dumb choice. If you picked it (which you likely did) and are content with its consequences, good for you. That doesn't discredit how ridiculous it is and how it's far more worse than Control or Refuse.

 

Again, play through the Mass Effect Trilogy again. You might be surprised how many times "Destroy" is mentioned by virtually every major character and casts in the games and how it is the only way to truly "end the war." Not by throwing in the white flag like Synthesis, but actually ending any and all future conflicts permanently without turning everybody into reaper slaves.

 

Firstly, as I've stated several times on this forum I never choose an option. I uninstalled the EC and dance around the Catalyst shooting bullets through its wispy form until I turn the game off. Any way there is nothing in the game saying Synthesis will turn any body into a new breed of Reaper or into Reaper slaves, nor does the epilogue and star gazer scene suggest otherwise. Your (and I can't put enough quotes around it) "evidence" is flimsy conjecture at best (I sure hope that last sentence isn't what you count as evidence, if it is I think I owe that Ancient Aliens guy an apology). I know Synthesis is dumb but your reasoning why that is is even worse.

[fyz306903]

 

Again, play through the Mass Effect Trilogy again. You might be surprised how many times "Destroy" is mentioned by virtually every major character and casts in the games and how it is the only way to truly "end the war." Not by throwing in the white flag like Synthesis, but actually ending any and all future conflicts permanently without turning everybody into reaper slaves.

But this is more proof than any that Bioware didn't have a coherent plan for the whole trilogy. If ME1 and ME2 constantly set up destroying the Reapers as the ultimate goal (which they do) why: 1. bother including three 'non-Destroy' endings a to ME3 and 2. Ruin (IMO) the actual Destroy ending by making it kill all synthetics. Bioware either didn't think this through, or tried to imply that maybe the alternatives to killing the reapers are better after all.

We can't say 'Destroy is fine because EDI and the Geth can be rebuilt'. The post ending sequence shows EDI in the 'people we lost' slideshow and shows a Geth-free Rannoch, so we must assume that Destroy does away with them for good. Even if EDI and the Geth can be produced, they'll only be copies, rather than the actual people. Also, how does Synthesis turn people into Reaper slaves or Reapers? To me, it means giving synthetics and organics part of each other's 'essence' and intelligence and allows them to understand each other. Organics can use the light-speed logic and communication of Synthetics, and Synthetics can feel the emotion and tolerance of organics. I think that Synthesis is the ultimate way of defeating the Reapers as it basically renders them obsolete. So until ME4 brings up some new info/clarification (which I'm sure it will) my head cannon is synthesis. 

[Iakus]

But this is more proof than any that Bioware didn't have a coherent plan for the whole trilogy. If ME1 and ME2 constantly set up destroying the Reapers as the ultimate goal (which they do) why: 1. bother including three 'non-Destroy' endings a to ME3 and 2. Ruin (IMO) the actual Destroy ending by making it kill all synthetics. Bioware either didn't think this through, or tried to imply that maybe the alternatives to killing the reapers are better after all.

We can't say 'Destroy is fine because EDI and the Geth can be rebuilt'. The post ending sequence shows EDI in the 'people we lost' slideshow and shows a Geth-free Rannoch, so we must assume that Destroy does away with them for good. Even if EDI and the Geth can be produced, they'll only be copies, rather than the actual people.

Can't like twice, so I'll toss in a "this"

 

Also, how does Synthesis turn people into Reaper slaves or Reapers? To me, it means giving synthetics and organics part of each other's 'essence' and intelligence and allows them to understand each other. Organics can use the light-speed logic and communication of Synthetics, and Synthetics can feel the emotion and tolerance of organics. I think that Synthesis is the ultimate way of defeating the Reapers as it basically renders them obsolete. So until ME4 brings up some new info/clarification (which I'm sure it will) my head cannon is synthesis.

 

As for this part, as I said in the past, Synthesis changes people on a fundamental genetic level.  And is heavilly implied to alter minds so they are more "peaceful"  Ugly, ugly connotations.

 

Won't go into detail because spoilers, but to anyone playing DAI, look at Dorian's personal mission regarding his father.  that's how bad Synthesis is for me. 

[Oni Changas]

How's about this? F*ck the "Catalyst" and everything that happens after Anderson dies. That RGB **** never happened for me and never will. Better we not acknowledge that garbage rather than argue about stupid vs lame vs dumb.

[Vazgen]

How's about this? F*ck the "Catalyst" and everything that happens after Anderson dies. That RGB **** never happened for me and never will. Better we not acknowledge that garbage rather than argue about stupid vs lame vs dumb.

How about people who liked the ending?

[Cheviot]

How's about this? F*ck the "Catalyst" and everything that happens after Anderson dies. That RGB **** never happened for me and never will. Better we not acknowledge that garbage rather than argue about stupid vs lame vs dumb.

So you basically want to canonize Refuse? 

[fyz306903]

How's about this? F*ck the "Catalyst" and everything that happens after Anderson dies. That RGB **** never happened for me and never will. Better we not acknowledge that garbage rather than argue about stupid vs lame vs dumb.

Well, we don't know what they'll do. Synthesis is my favourite ending but I still don't like it much. Bioware can either: Sidestep the ending (By which I mean ignoring it while not outright saying it didn't happen), choose one ending as canon or allow for all the endings. One thing that I highly doubt they'll do, is retcon the ending. 

[Iakus]

How about we canonize "The Reapers attacked the galaxy, Shepard saved us all, now let's never speak of it again"?

[Oni Changas]

How about people who liked the ending?

u wot m8?