65 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

What will that accomplish though?

 

If intergalactic travel is impossible, to the knowladge of the reapers, than it makes some sense that the catalyst was looking for a solution for the mily way because there si nothing else in his and the reaper's reach.

However, if intergalactic travel is a real possibility, that the reapers are aware of, than keeping up the cycles in one, two or a thousand galaxies will just have the inevitable conclusion that in some other galaxy that doesn't reset evolution every 50k years, an AI will have slaughtered their masters at some point and developed far beyond the reapers capabilities, invade and rip everyone apart, reapers included. I mean, promoting stagnation to safeguard life in a confined system is already pretty stupid. Doing it when you don't even have am isolated space is just beyond ridiculous.

[Pasquale1234]

I have to hope the ME team doesn't do with organic vs synthetic what the DA team has done with mage vs templar - which is to beat us over the head with it until we're (well, some of us anyway) sick to death of it.

Going forward, I'd like to explore some new themes along with the new areas (wherever they are located).

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What will that accomplish though?

 

If intergalactic travel is impossible, to the knowladge of the reapers, than it makes some sense that the catalyst was looking for a solution for the mily way because there si nothing else in his and the reaper's reach.

However, if intergalactic travel is a real possibility, that the reapers are aware of, than keeping up the cycles in one, two or a thousand galaxies will just have the inevitable conclusion that in some other galaxy that doesn't reset evolution every 50k years, an AI will have slaughtered their masters at some point and developed far beyond the reapers capabilities, invade and rip everyone apart, reapers included. I mean, promoting stagnation to safeguard life in a confined system is already pretty stupid. Doing it when you don't even have am isolated space is just beyond ridiculous.

Just like traveling between galaxies is a huge step bigger than travelling between stars, so too is traveling between galaxy groups a huge step bigger than traveling between galaxies. It goes from travelling millions of light years to traveling billions of light years. Just because the Reapers are capable of intergalactic travel doesn't mean they are capable of intergalactic-group travel. 

[SolNebula]

Tbh i'm quite fed up of organics vs synthetics. Let us have the good old organics vs organics. I cannot believe all aliens are good and cooperative give us something evil who isn't a machine. A powerful alien empire to deal with. Wouldn't want to shoot again the not-geth and the not-reapers. Surely there are other issues.

[MrFob]

Just like traveling between galaxies is a huge step bigger than travelling between stars, so too is traveling between galaxy groups a huge step bigger than traveling between galaxies. It goes from travelling millions of light years to traveling billions of light years. Just because the Reapers are capable of intergalactic travel doesn't mean they are capable of intergalactic-group travel. 

 

Maybe but if you are a race that overcame all these distances already, how limited must tour mindset be not to be able to predict that someone somewhere somehow and at some time may make it to your space and eat you alive because you stayed stagnant?

 

And for the record, the intergalactic travel just makes this problem more obvious. I have argued along these lines ever since March 2012 anyway. Making the reapers cycle about stagnation just entirely limits their vision and thus takes away from the awe they were supposed to inspire (and did with Sovereign in ME1).

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maybe but if you are a race that overcame all these distances already, how limited must tour mindset be not to be able to predict that someone somewhere somehow and at some time may make it to your space and eat you alive because you stayed stagnant?

 

And for the record, the intergalactic travel just makes this problem more obvious. I have argued along these lines ever since March 2012 anyway.

Who says they weren't preparing for that? Leviathan tells us that the Reapers have been improving themselves as time has passed. Not that it really matters since the Reapers won't come up again other than perhaps they harvested the other galaxies in our local galaxy group, but that would only be addressed with Mass Relays being there and signs of past harvests like the planetary descriptions sometimes had. 

[Torgette]

Who says they weren't preparing for that? Leviathan tells us that the Reapers have been improving themselves as time has passed. Not that it really matters since the Reapers won't come up again other than perhaps they harvested the other galaxies in our local galaxy group, but that would only be addressed with Mass Relays being there and signs of past harvests like the planetary descriptions sometimes had. 

 

Maybe a galactic relay exists in dark space and the reapers were just using us to bolster their numbers every 50k years to fight some war

[Han Shot First]

No matter what they do, if the next game takes place in another galaxy, the catalyst becomes even more ridiculous than he already is.

 

That suits me perfectly fine. It just another reason to the mountain of them already supporting Destroy as the best choice.

 

I'm entirely in favor of more reasons to shoot that tube. 

 

[MrFob]

That suits me perfectly fine. It just another reason to the mountain of them already supporting Destroy as the best choice.

 

I'm entirely in favor of more reasons to shoot that tube. 

 

 

I don't know, if there was an invasion of extragalactic super evolved machines, wouldn't it be better to have friendly reapers around?

[Farangbaa]

We can already show the Starchild to be a liar/incorrect in ME3 by uniting the Quarians and Geth. Having AI in the Andromeda would do nothing to further tarnish what is already a moronic plot device. It would be silly of them to try to honor lousy writing by conceding to it's stupidity in all future games.

Yes, a few weeks of peace equals everlasting harmony. We've seen it countless times in history, no nation has ever waged war on the same nation twice.

Or... no.. wait...

[MrMrPendragon]

What would be funny is if the Andromedan galactic society thinks that AI vs Organics is not an inevitable thing, and that it could be prevented with non-violent ways.

 

Sort of like a "You see this Catalyst? You dumb bastard" taunt, showing that AI and organics can co-exist and that the harvest was really for nothing.

[Han Shot First]

Mac Walters is creative director however, and he was one half of the parties responsible for Mass Effect 3's endings. In that game Synthesis was presented by the writers as the ideal choice. The leads wanted you to think that the Catalyst was right. its just that a large number of fans (the majority if polls are anything to go by) disagreed with the lead writers.

 

That could mean that Andromeda would have an example of synthetics destroying organics. Assuming the leak is true for a moment, maybe that is what happened to aliens referred to as the Remnant. I'm not sure how much of say he has in the story with the new job title, but I'd imagine he'd favor content that lent support to Synthesis rather than Destroy.

[MrFob]

You know how everyone always assumes that, if they are going to cannonize an ending, it's going to be destroy? What if they are actually cannonizing synthesis and now, that we are all one with our reaper friends, we boldly go to the Andromeda galaxy because there are organics living with synthetics and we just know that eventually, there will be a rebellion and a war of the created vs. the creators. So we are actually going there to ... solve their problems for them ... by any means necessary.

 

Now we are the reapers.

 

I want to be on the forums on the day that is announced.

[Farangbaa]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Andromeda turned out to be synthetised already?

The possibilities for ultimate trolling are endless in Ark Theory.

I'm starting to love the idea

[Iakus]

"Now we do feast, as we've become the beast "

 

To paraphrase a rather creepy Dragon Age poem

[Han Shot First]

You know how everyone always assumes that, if they are going to cannonize an ending, it's going to be destroy? 

 

If Bioware ever bases a sequel off one particular ending choice, I think Synthesis is about as likely as Destroy. Destroy might be the fan favorite, but Synthesis was intended by the lead writers to be the best choice.

 

The only ones I'd rule out are Refuse (Critical Mission Failure and DLC only) and Control, which was the neither the favorite of the writers or the fans. 

[Malanek]

They should just continue to have friendly and non-friendly AI's but without putting too much focus on it. Whether or not there is a mistrust of AI from the protagonists group is up to the writers, I can see it going either way. The star child won't be proved wrong for millions of years so I don't see a major problem.

[GalacticWolf5]

Destroy might be the fan favorite, but Synthesis was intended by the lead writers to be the best choice.

 

Where did you get this info from? I'm pretty sure the writers never said Synthesis was the best choice. There is no best choice for every player. We all have our own best ending.

 

The only ones I'd rule out are Refuse (Critical Mission Failure and DLC only) and ...

 

Refuse is an actual choice, not a Critical Mission Failure. Tho I agree that this ending should not be recognized, just as Shepard's death in ME2 wasn't recognized.

 

... Control, which was the neither the favorite of the writers or the fans. 

 

Again, where are you getting this info from? When have the writers ever said they didn't like Control? How do you know Control is not liked by the fans? You have no idea how many people actually like this ending. If what you're saying is based from what you've see on BSN, you're absolutely wrong.

[Vazgen]

Where did you get this info from? I'm pretty sure the writers never said Synthesis was the best choice. There is no best choice for every player. We all have our own best ending.

 

Again, where are you getting this info from? When have the writers ever said they didn't like Control? How do you know Control is not liked by the fans? You have no idea how many people actually like this ending. If what you're saying is based from what you've see on BSN, you're absolutely wrong.

It's in the game files, Synthesis is labeled as Best or Ideal (can't remember), Control was Bad and Destroy was Good. Mr. Fob should have a screenshot of that. It was posted in one of the recent threads.

[Steppenwolf]

Where did you get this info from? I'm pretty sure the writers never said Synthesis was the best choice. There is no best choice for every player. We all have our own best ending.

 

The endings were all so similar because they decided to focus on making that stupid Adam & Eve ending with Joker and EDI. The only reason the ending played out the way it did(crash landing and being marooned on that Garden of Eden planet) was to accommodate that. And it's the middle option so it's front and center when you make your choice, the Starchild tells you it's the best option, and your choices are framed in such a way as to make Synthesis the smart, reasoned answer. Destroy is framed as a rash decision, influenced by fear and Control is framed as a tyrannical decision, influenced by the desire for power.

[Malanek]

The endings were all so similar because they decided to focus on making that stupid Adam & Eve ending with Joker and EDI. The only reason the ending played out the way it did(crash landing and being marooned on that Garden of Eden planet) was to accommodate that. And it's the middle option so it's front and center when you make your choice, the Starchild tells you it's the best option, and your choices are framed in such a way as to make Synthesis the smart, reasoned answer. Destroy is framed as a rash decision, influenced by fear and Control is framed as a tyrannical decision, influenced by the desire for power.

There is a lot of personal interpretation here without drawing examples from the actual material to back them up.

 

How about this, Anderson represented destroy while Saren represented Synthesis. The game showed us this during the ending and Anderson is a hero and Saren was a villain. And starchild has been a villain for most (some would say all) of the series, why would him hinting that it is the best solution mean anything? In the synthesis ending you also see that husk that recoils in horror once it seemingly gains awareness.

 

Bioware showed good and bad things with every ending. They deliberately tried not to portray one as better than any other.

[GalacticWolf5]

The endings were all so similar because they decided to focus on making that stupid Adam & Eve ending with Joker and EDI. The only reason the ending played out the way it did(crash landing and being marooned on that Garden of Eden planet) was to accommodate that. And it's the middle option so it's front and center when you make your choice, the Starchild tells you it's the best option, and your choices are framed in such a way as to make Synthesis the smart, reasoned answer. Destroy is framed as a rash decision, influenced by fear and Control is framed as a tyrannical decision, influenced by the desire for power.

The Catalyst tells us Synthesis is the best option and that means the writers think it's the best ending? Are you serious? It's just a character stating his opinion. Of course the Catalyst will say Synthesis is the best choice, it's what it's been trying to achieve. Synthesis solves the Organic/Synthetic problem, which is the Catalyst's purpose.

Control certainly isn't framed as a tyrannical and power hungry decision. I have no idea where you're getting this. From TIM? Like that means anything, he was already controlled by the Reapers.

[Han Shot First]

 

Where did you get this info from? I'm pretty sure the writers never said Synthesis was the best choice. There is no best choice for every player. We all have our own best ending.

 

 

The Catalyst presents it as the ideal choice. It also requires a higher EMS score to unlock than Control or Destroy, and with the Extended Cut it is given an epilogue that make the results sound like it created some sort of utopia. All that was missing was a flashing neon sign above the decision chamber telling Shepard to Go Green. The favoritism among the lead writers for Synthesis was fairly heavy-handed.

 

 

Refuse is an actual choice, not a Critical Mission Failure. Tho I agree that this ending should not be recognized, just as Shepard's death in ME2 wasn't recognized.

 

 

Refuse is a choice, but it is also a very bad one that ends with everyone Shepard knows dead and the extinction of every space faring species in the galaxy including humanity. It results in a decisive defeat for the Council races in The Reaper War and the most disastrous outcome for a war in all of human history. It is a critical mission failure.

 

 

Again, where are you getting this info from? When have the writers ever said they didn't like Control? How do you know Control is not liked by the fans? You have no idea how many people actually like this ending. If what you're saying is based from what you've see on BSN, you're absolutely wrong.

 

I didn't say that the writers didn't like Control. I said they presented Synthesis as the best choice. 

 

As for the fans, every poll done on ending choices has shown Destroy to be far and away the fan favorite. The results were not even close, and some of those had very large sample sizes. On that note I didn't say that the fans disliked Control either. I just said that it wasn't the most popular ending among the fans.

[Vazgen]

Found the comment. 

 

 
Huh, you are right, actually. 
 
I mixed up the triggers. So, Destroy is the "Good Plattform" and Control is "The Bad".
 

Spoiler

Sorry for that. Editing the post on the first page to correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

Also, I'd like to make it clear (just in case it wasn't) that I posted that screen with my tonuge in my cheek. IMO, we don't know if this was labeled just by some level designer or what. IMO, it's pretty clear that the writers did not intend for one ending to be absolutely superior to the others. Given all the influence this took from Deus Ex, I believe they tried go a similar road there as well, that no ending was supposed to be better or "the best", sparking exactly the discussions that have been going on for the past 3 years (and whatever you may say about the ending, that is still an achievement in a way). As we all know, "speculation for everyone" was intended.

 

Combined with the EMS requirement for Synthesis I think it's reasonable to assume that Synthesis was considered as the best outcome. Still, even if it was, the game does not give it much preference when presenting the player with choice. In my own experience, I dismissed it right away and struggled between Control and Destroy.

[goishen]

It is entirely possible that we go to Andromeda and start collecting Remnant tech only to be killed on sight by anybody.  Later on we learn that it's because we have the Remnant tech and it is influencing our actions (not necessarily indoctrinated, but something like that) in ways we can't even imagine. 

 

Then halfway through, the protagonist says something he thought that he would never say.  Realizing that the Remnant tech is influencing him, he starts to wonder why...  And gets rid of the tech.   Except some of his crew aren't as willing.

 

 

Anyway, back on topic : 

 

It would be incredibly dense to have an entire galaxy not to realize the wonders and marvels of having something else do your thinking.  While you're thinking about something else.