75 réponses à ce sujet

[Suron]

First Synthesis is the ONE ending that keeps us from staying in the Milky Way.  I don't want the next game(s) to be Shepard.  This isn't about "losing" him/her.  But I am miffed about the copout and moving to Andromeda just to avoid their garbage "artistic" endings.  Go forward in time far enough and Destroy/Control work the same.  Destroy? They rebuilt.  As they said they were doing.  Control? Shepard and his Reaper Puppets, after a long period of time, go away to..wherever.  We don't ever have to hear from them again either...much like Destroy.  But Synthesis? Yep, screws it all up.  So we have to move to Andromeda.  I don't consider "refuse" a valid ending simply because it was only added by fan outcry for not liking any of the choices the little glowing brat gives us.

 

Now about the "waves" that are fired off at the end.  How do these waves know what to target?  For destroy how does this red wave discern between Reaper tech? partial Reaper tech? etc?  It makes no sense.  Especially since EVERYTHING is based, at least somewhat, off Reaper tech....every last bit of advanced tech should have been destroyed including every ship, etc...we shouldn't see any ships "limping" away at the end.  So why would it affect EDI and/or the Geth if they're only partially Reaper Tech? of which EVERYTHING and EVERY SHIP is?  Every single Relay should have been destroyed COMPLETELY regardless of EMS with this...

 

For Synthesis...Reapers leave the relay network for races that eventually evolve to a certain point.  Meaning there should literally be a relay in range of EVERY star system in the Milky Way.  And Synthesis merges organic/synthetic.  So basically EVER. SINGLE. PLANET. with ANY form of organic matter should have been turned in synthesis.  Meaning NO MORE SPECIES COULD EVER EVOLVE ANYWHERE in the Milky Way.  Just more reason Synthesis is ****** garbage.

 

I don't know what my point is other than I was sitting here thinking about this stuff after reading some threads...So much about these endings just make zero sense.  Control makes the most sense overall (well minus perhaps the disolving of Shepard to form the A.I.)

[Coyotebay]

Maybe there are people out there who genuinely like the synthesis ending, but the real reason most people pick it is because they don't want to see the Geth destroyed (if they're still alive) and EDI killed.  Especially EDI.  She is a a very likable character who most become very fond of.  And that's why the synthesis ending is so manipulative.  In most games where you make choices, those choices tend to be made not on the big picture, but on the impact on the characters you have just spent 50-plus hours with and grown to love.  It's these characters you connect with, not the billions of nameless people on the planet you never see that gets blown up.  If the Geth and EDI didn't have to die with the other choices, I bet one percent of players would choose synthesis.

[AlanC9]

First Synthesis is the ONE ending that keeps us from staying in the Milky Way.  I don't want the next game(s) to be Shepard.  This isn't about "losing" him/her.  But I am miffed about the copout and moving to Andromeda just to avoid their garbage "artistic" endings.  Go forward in time far enough and Destroy/Control work the same.  Destroy? They rebuilt.  As they said they were doing.  Control? Shepard and his Reaper Puppets, after a long period of time, go away to..wherever.  We don't ever have to hear from them again either...much like Destroy.  But Synthesis? Yep, screws it all up.  So we have to move to Andromeda.  I don't consider "refuse" a valid ending simply because it was only added by fan outcry for not liking any of the choices the little glowing brat gives us.

What you're proposing there for Control is an awful copout too, you know. Plus you'd need more copouts for the geth and quarians.

[RanetheViking]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I have no problem with the next game being set in Andromeda. A new game and a new Protagonist say I. Preferably set long after the Reaper War.  I loved Shepard's story (and all the various team mates etcetera), but in my opinion they should let him rest.  

 

 

As for the "Waves"I always pick Destroy for my Sheps anyway. Kill all the creepy, smoothie filled, Cthulhu looking  Killbots!!

[Excella Gionne]

Double Rainbows OMG! Best ending ever! 10/10 Would play again! 

[dorktainian]

synthesis 'is' garbage.  Look at the Collectors.  See What can happen when Organics are synthesised.

[aoibhealfae]

No glands, replaced by tech. No digestive system, replaced by tech. No soul...replaced by tech.

 

listen to Mordin, guys

 

Spoiler

The end of the Reaper War consist of both organics and synthetics working together to destroy a race of synthetic-organics starships (that is, if you work out the Turian-Krogan alliance and Geth-Quarian alliance). Honestly, why would anyone think synthesis is a good idea anyway...

but I really think Destroy ending gave the galaxy a fresh start. Shepard changed everything... alien races working together, changing the previous prejudice about synthetics wanting to kill everyone and that they all could defeat a common enemy. The EC changed part of Catalyst's conversation which now says not all synthetics die and those who survive can be fixed... and didn't Tali said Geth were all software and they could inhabit their exoskeletons. I'm quite optimist with this.

 

And remember how Sovereign's corpses changed a lot of things and gave everyone newer techs (like those Thannix canons, EDI, Shepard's reconstruction project etc).. so even if they're all dead, the scientist could still salvage from the reaper corpses. So, its not really a bad and wasteful ending.

 

urgh.. no more ending threads... can the moderators or something build another section dedicated to the ending or something.

[fhs33721]

synthesis 'is' garbage.  Look at the Collectors.  See What can happen when Organics are synthesised.

Oh, everyone can play the "randomly connecting bad things to an ending, even though the ingame ending slides directly contratict it -game". Case in point:

 

Destroy is garbage. Look at the Dead Reaper mission in ME2. That's what happens if you have a lot of Reaper scrap lying around everywhere.

[CrutchCricket]

What you're proposing there for Control is an awful copout too, you know. Plus you'd need more copouts for the geth and quarians.

Not a copout but a logical conclusion for a nigh-cosmic mechanical intelligence to reach. You didn't think it'd babysit us insignificant organics for eternity did you?

 

Otherwise a retread of things that have been said ad nauseum but are no less true today than they were three years ago. They done messed up. The only solution is to run away really fast. Wadda ya gonna do?

[Suron]

Double Rainbows OMG! Best ending ever! 10/10 Would play again! 

 

first off nowhere did I even allude too wanting a "rainbows and butterflies" ending.  nowhere.  But nice try.

[Suron]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I have no problem with the next game being set in Andromeda. A new game and a new Protagonist say I. Preferably set long after the Reaper War.  I loved Shepard's story (and all the various team mates etcetera), but in my opinion they should let him rest.  

 

 

As for the "Waves"I always pick Destroy for my Sheps anyway. Kill all the creepy, smoothie filled, Cthulhu looking  Killbots!!

 

My problem with moving to Andromeda is it further disconnects the player.  As we're not even in our own Galaxy anymore.  I love Mass Effect and it honestly has surpassed my love for both Star Trek and Star Wars.  I'd love to see movies (high budget, well done) made.  But I digress. 

 

It's bad enough BioWare followed the KOTOR formula so much in ME...even to keeping the DS/LS crap (Par/Ren) in ME (even with "corrupted" look via Renegade a la Dark Side) and Biotics are just poor mans "Force" etc.  A big part of the draw for ME, over SW (for me of course), is it being in our own Galaxy.

 

Now ME is just another typical sci-fi set in some unknown area completely disconnected from us minus there being humans.

 

A Long long time from now, in a galaxy not so far far away.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Mac Walters said that the Suicide Mission created too many variables for them to realistically account for in ME3.

 

Is the Suicide Mission also garbage (truth be told, it is arguably pretty bad)?

 

Given what a pain it was for them to account for the SM, I suspect that they had the move to Andromeda in mind from the beginning, so they could do whatever they planned at the end of ME3 and not need to worry about it.

[Excella Gionne]

first off nowhere did I even allude too wanting a "rainbows and butterflies" ending.  nowhere.  But nice try.

It was my opinion on Synthesis. No need to try there. 

[Excella Gionne]

 Mac Walters said that the Suicide Mission created too many variables for them to realistically account for in ME3.

 

Is the Suicide Mission also garbage (truth be told, it is arguably pretty bad)?

 

Given what a pain it was for them to account for the SM, I suspect that they had the move to Andromeda in mind from the beginning, so they could do whatever they planned at the end of ME3 and not need to worry about it.

It was pretty garbage given that the majority of decisions lead to using the same squad mates for the jobs. Priority Earth is a tad bit better since it's a longer sequence.

[God]

synthesis 'is' garbage.  Look at the Collectors.  See What can happen when Organics are synthesised.

 

No, I see what happens when Protheans are indoctrinated and cybernetically changed to suit the Reapers goal for them.

 

I don't think anyone has seen what synthesis can lead to. Not even the Reapers. It's a singularity event.

[Batarian Master Race]

Then how does Spacebrat know that Synthesis will be awesome? What evidence is he basing his prediction off of, again?

[God]

Information on what synthesis will do. 

 

Synthesis isn't necessarily the singularity itself, but its the means to achieve it.

[Thrombin]

I had problems with both Synthesis and Destroy the first time round. I couldn't see why anyone would choose to destroy EDI and the Geth or force everyone to be part machine at the cost of Shepard's consciousness when everyone can survive, including Shepard's consciousness with Control.

 

But, with subsequent play throughs I tried to deliberately harbour a mindset in my Shepard that would make the other choices easier. My Destroy Shepards were the ones who disliked the Geth, sacrificed them to the Quarians and never encouraged Joker and EDI to get together. My Synthesis Shepard felt that it was far better to bring synthetic and organic together in lasting harmony than to subvert the will of another race. Particularly given the possibility that, one day, that control would end and the destruction begin again.

 

As far as how the waves were able to distinguish between Reapers and non-reapers, I see the waves as not just indiscriminate energy. I see them as akin to clouds of intelligent nanites which can produce specific effects to specific targets.

 

Even without specific targetting they can still be intelligent enough to be attuned to look for a particular signature. The destroy burst is looking for the kind of processing infrastructure capable of artificial intelligence and can ignore anything only advanced enough to support normal computing capability.

 

One relevant entry in the war assets is mentioned for the Interferometric Array:

 

"Normally interferometric arrays are used to analyze planetary landmasses, or to determine the astrophysical properties of stellar systems. The powerful array salvaged from the Hercules system can be used for something much more ambitious: the Crucible tunes into the mass relays' command switches. Installing the interferometric array into the Crucible's systems results in a real-time map of the entire galaxy, including the position of each and every Reaper in the Milky Way."

 

So the 'waves' could definitely be set to target the Reapers alone, if desired.

 

As for setting the new game in Andromeda I have no problem whatsover. Clearly it is humanity exploring Andromeda so all it means is we get to see a whole set of new races and places. There's no reason why we couldn't still see familiar races amongst our team mates. I do wonder about the Synthetic ending, though. Are they going to have all the Milky Way natives in the game with silvery glowing eyes and built in tech? Setting it in Andromeda wouldn't mean they can avoid the synthesis ramifications (unless, of course, the synthesis doesn't carry through to the next generation which, to be honest, would be much more believable!)

[God]

Uh... no.

 

That's a lot of speculation, as well as personal incredulity. 

 

Think bigger.

[aoibhealfae]

Then how does Spacebrat know that Synthesis will be awesome? What evidence is he basing his prediction off of, again?

His Reapers. Each of them have God complex and they all think they're perfection... 

[God]

His Reapers. Each of them have God complex and they all think they're perfection... 

 

To be fair, they do kind of have a point. 

 

The Reapers are, in every sense of the word, more evolved and 'better' than we are. Unless we do the same, via synthesis.

[Coyotebay]

To be fair, they do kind of have a point. 

 

The Reapers are, in every sense of the word, more evolved and 'better' than we are. Unless we do the same, via synthesis.

 

Depends on your definition of "better".  If "better" means that you can zip around the galaxy destroying at will with your advanced technology, then yes, they're better.  But they don't seem to have free will since they just follow the instructions of whoever is in charge, don't contribute anything to the galaxy other than their Reaper tech, which ironically leads them to destroy the organics using it, so that kind of negates the positive benefits.  As far as "evolved" goes, they don't seem to have progressed beyond the "crush, kill, destroy" phase of their adolescence.  I would not use the term "enlightened" to describe them.  And they're big ugly squids floating in space, so they fail on that too.

[God]

My definition of better?

 

A lot from Plato (I'm of the crowd that believe he was an anarchist rather than a believer in authoritarianism. However, I believe in social conditioning, caste systems, and ensuring that people have a role in function in society that is determinate on their talents, not on their desires.

 

Thus, I think free will that is not of the Philosopher-King, Sovereign, head of state, etc. is immoral. The Reaper system is appealing in that regard.

 

What they do with their power is entirely their own whim. I can think of better and worse ways to use it. 

 

As for evolved, you aren't defining that term in an academically credible way. The Reapers state of function is not something prevalent to evolution, either biologically or technologically. 

 

Most of your point is emotive reasoning based on the idea that your own principles are what are centrally valid. As well, I have to beg the question of what you consider to be 'enlightened'.

 

I'll inform you whether it's correct or not.

[Coyotebay]

My definition of better?

 

A lot from Plato (I'm of the crowd that believe he was an anarchist rather than a believer in authoritarianism. However, I believe in social conditioning, caste systems, and ensuring that people have a role in function in society that is determinate on their talents, not on their desires.

 

Thus, I think free will that is not of the Philosopher-King, Sovereign, head of state, etc. is immoral. The Reaper system is appealing in that regard.

 

What they do with their power is entirely their own whim. I can think of better and worse ways to use it. 

 

As for evolved, you aren't defining that term in an academically credible way. The Reapers state of function is not something prevalent to evolution, either biologically or technologically. 

 

Most of your point is emotive reasoning based on the idea that your own principles are what are centrally valid. As well, I have to beg the question of what you consider to be 'enlightened'.

 

I'll inform you whether it's correct or not.

 

Well to put it simply, primitive, backwards, twentieth century-born me, with millions of years less experience than the Reapers, can easily come up with several plans for maintaining synthetic and organic life in the galaxy that doesn't involve wiping out whole civilizations, turning people into zombies, and liquifying them into goo to manufacture more Reapers.  So yes, if the millions years old master race of Reapers can't figure out a better way of running things than "crush, kill, destroy" when a simpleton like me can figure it out, no, they are not enlightened.  Let's not rationalize these monsters to be more than what they are.

[God]

Well to put it simply, primitive, backwards, twentieth century-born me, with millions of years less experience than the Reapers, can easily come up with several plans for maintaining synthetic and organic life in the galaxy that doesn't involve wiping out whole civilizations, turning people into zombies, and liquifying them into goo to manufacture more Reapers.  So yes, if the millions years old master race of Reapers can't figure out a better way of running things than "crush, kill, destroy" when a simpleton like me can figure it out, no, they are not enlightened.  Let's not rationalize these monsters to be more than what they are.

 

Simply put, I very highly doubt that you can. I might, but that's besides the question.

 

And to be frank, the Reapers did have other notional conceptions on what to do about maintaining order and preserving organic beings while facilitating peace with synthetics. The Catalyst is aware 2 such methods right off the bat: Control and Synthesis, though I believe that it feels control is an option that exists outside of its own mandate, and is thus undesirable from a hardware standpoint. Synthesis was simply not possible without a willing organic. I won't go into the details on that one though. It doesn't make a lot of sense due to the writing, but essentially, the premise is that the Reapers are willing to achieve a more effective means of preserving and enforcing their mandate, but that until the existence of Shepard and Crucible simultaneously, such a solution was not possible, nor was it seen as one.

 

Also, you failed to define 'better' and 'enlightened'. Keep in mind that relativism and subjectivity of these terms aside, there is a necessary meaning behind these words, neither of which you identified. As well, rationalization is the key to understanding. Emotive disgust inhibits that. By labeling the Reapers as 'monsters' and refusing to understand (and thus undermine, if necessary), you're creating a false dichotomy based around personal incredulity and disgust as a non-logical and irrational human.

 

Bluntly put, the Reapers and the Catalyst are on a higher scale intellectually and rationally from you. Their perspective (and thus their means) are much more objective, and they are of course aware that there are more efficient solutions (namely synthesis) to their mandate that lie beyond their means of capability. Which isn't to say that they're dumb. It would be the equivalent of knowing that a workable quantum law of gravity exists within the singularity of a black hole, but that it's completely impossible for us to ever find or create a solution for such. The Reapers had a theoretical solution to their issue, but one that was not practical or possible until spontaneous events put humanity in a position to be 'ready' for synthesis (the Tech singularity).