1042 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

To each their own. I'll let TIM do the job. Saren can do Synthesis. Lets see if they can beat me.

Oh wait..

I don't get this Saren and synthesis thing - in his obviously deranged rant, he basically talks about organics surviving as some kind of modified slave race. He's not necessarily in favour of it, or being implanted by Sovereign. Whereas TIM genuinely seems to think controlling the Reapers is a good idea. Well, except for the fact that he's portrayed as a lunatic and the idea of a faction focused on control is pitched as a traitor faction.

[AlanC9]

Well, they are both presenting their choices as the best option available under the circumstances. I agree that Saren's a bit more ambiguous than TIM is in his stance, although it's hard to spin "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither" as anything but positive.

I think this is mostly because of differences in their characters anyway. TIM's never going to see his own plans as leading to anything but brilliant triumphs.

[The Twilight God]

I don't recall hearing/seeing anything from Bioware that mentions synthesis was chosen. Can you post a link?

Some bio employee stated on twitter that regardless of the ending people would inevitably incorporate some kind of synthetic hybridization down the line. Like the Deus Ex games. It had nothing to do with Synthesis. The only viable ending to ever continue the franchise in the Milky Way is Destroy anyway.

The dialog in the after credit scene implies that Destroy was used and the Reapers were the ones caught in a trap. The fact that their knowledge of events is based solely on archives and not gained from the Reapers themselves implies they never really had to deal with Reapers. My guess is they all piled in through the Citadel as they usually would have and the races destroyed them with the Crucible right then and there before they even knew what hit them. You wouldn't even need to connect it to the Citadel in that scenario.

[straykat]

I don't get this Saren and synthesis thing - in his obviously deranged rant, he basically talks about organics surviving as some kind of modified slave race. He's not necessarily in favour of it, or being implanted by Sovereign. Whereas TIM genuinely seems to think controlling the Reapers is a good idea. Well, except for the fact that he's portrayed as a lunatic and the idea of a faction focused on control is pitched as a traitor faction.

 

It's just what it is. He sees value in an alliance with the Reapers, thinks their existence is inevitable, and "wants to save more lives than have ever lived". Not to mention he did a "completionist" playthrough, with his Geth army and Genophage cure.

 

He's the good guy.

 

I'm not.

 

Seriously though, whether he'd accomplish Synthesis is doubtful. It's more like he reminds me of the motivations of a Synthesis playthrough. The fatalism and the idea of alliance especially. And like he said, "I'm not doing this for myself!" So he's not like TIM either.. it's not power or any one faction he's trying to strengthen.

[Iakus]

I don't get this Saren and synthesis thing - in his obviously deranged rant, he basically talks about organics surviving as some kind of modified slave race. He's not necessarily in favour of it, or being implanted by Sovereign. Whereas TIM genuinely seems to think controlling the Reapers is a good idea. Well, except for the fact that he's portrayed as a lunatic and the idea of a faction focused on control is pitched as a traitor faction.

The thing is, his deranged rant turns out to be precisely what Synthesis is.  

 

"The relationship is symbiotic - organic and machine intertwined - a union of flesh and steel. The strength of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future Shepard - the evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny, join Sovereign, and experience a true rebirth."

 

Any wonder people are suspicious of it?  The delusional rant of a half-indoctrinated traitor used to try and convince Shepard how wonderful it will be to serve the reapers is once again being dangled in front of Shepard  once again BY THE REAPERS? 

[UpUpAway95]

Refuse is just telling a Reaper to do his worst.

 

Maybe it's not sacrifice, but it's a death wish nonetheless. I suppose there's a distinction, but either way, it will get fulfilled. Along with dragging trillions of others with you. All of these people who put their hope in you, looking up at the Citadel, waiting expectantly. Only to find the worst kind of horror. And no miracle, last moment save-the-day rescue....like they're probably still expecting at the last second.

 

Refuse can be interpreted in a couple of different ways.  In addition to what you're saying, it can be viewed as "allowing nature to take its course."  Deciding actively that death (even extinction of individual species) is a cycle that has occurred for many, many millennia and that disrupting that cycle may actually do more harm than good.  Hope can be derived from the knowledge that the Reapers don't harvest all organic life and that other species will be allowed to continue to develop and rise.

 

(NOTE:  I'm not advocating that any of the endings are inherently better than any of the others.  Personally, I've used them all.  They all mean different things to me... but none of them are "good" - Shepard is truly left in the position of having to make a "no win" decision... and Barla Von does tell us right near the beginning of ME1 that we "can never win.")

[themikefest]

My Shepard is in a win position. Shoots the tube. Reapers destroyed. Shepard wins. The galaxy wins.

[UpUpAway95]

My Shepard is in a win position. Shoots the tube. Reapers destroyed. Shepard wins. The galaxy wins.

 

Really?  I realize that you're so biased towards this Destroy ending that you go around BSN suffocating anyone who purports any alternative... but here's my 2 cents on that one:

 

Did the Krogans "win" by nuking their own planet, destroying their previous civilization?  Part of what the Reapers represent is all the past civilizations of the Milky Way galaxy archived in a particular form.  In Destroy, all of that knowledge is lost forever.  In Synthesis, all of that knowledge becomes accessible and usable again.

 

So, IRL, would you advocate nuking all museums, archives, libraries, etc. as a "win" position in war?

 

As we have progressed in our technologies, more and more of our history is being stored in electronic form only.  Identities can be altered and wiped now with the click of a few buttons... birth records, school history, etc.... just gone... destroyed.  Is that a "win"?

[themikefest]

Really?  I realize that you're so biased towards this Destroy ending that you go around BSN suffocating anyone who purports any alternative... but here's my 2 cents on that one:

So? I like destroy. I have also posted different solutions instead of using shoot this, jump in this and pull that endings. I also don't see any genocide when choosing destroy. Nearly all my playthroughs the geth are destroyed by the quarians.

In regards to the green and blue, I have no reason to choose them nor does the game give me any reason to choose them
 

Did the Krogans "win" by nuking their own planet, destroying their previous civilization?  Part of what the Reapers represent is all the past civilizations of the Milky Way galaxy archived in a particular form.  In Destroy, all of that knowledge is lost forever.  In Synthesis, all of that knowledge becomes accessible and usable again.

The player only finds that out at the end and only if ems is high enough. Until that point, the galaxy was doing well enough on its own. Why can't it continue the way it is? With the reapers destroyed the galaxy can continue to advance themselves as they see fit.
 

So, IRL, would you advocate nuking all museum, archives, libraries, etc. as a "win" position in war?

Since the museums, archives and libraries are not in a war, I would not nuke them

[Iakus]

Really?  I realize that you're so biased towards this Destroy ending that you go around BSN suffocating anyone who purports any alternative... but here's my 2 cents on that one:

 

Did the Krogans "win" by nuking their own planet, destroying their previous civilization?  Part of what the Reapers represent is all the past civilizations of the Milky Way galaxy archived in a particular form.  In Destroy, all of that knowledge is lost forever.  In Synthesis, all of that knowledge becomes accessible and usable again.

 

So, IRL, would you advocate nuking all museums, archives, libraries, etc. as a "win" position in war?

 

As we have progressed in our technologies, more and more of our history is being stored in electronic form only.  Identities can be altered and wiped now with the click of a few buttons... birth records, school history, etc.... just gone... destroyed.  Is that a "win"?

I'm no fan of Destroy, but there is a flaw here.

 

While the loss of knowledge the Reapers have is a tragedy, knowledge can be relearned.  People when killed are gone forever.  Frankly i'd rather have the people the Reapers mulched back than the information stored in the Reapers.  But, that is not possible, so I am left with trying to keep the Reapers from murdering anyone else in order to perfect" them.

 

Killing the reapers is not like destroying museums or libraries.  Those are buildings, and unless you are in one when it collapses, they can't hurt you.  The Reapers, however, are actively trying to murder the galaxy.  And when someone comes at you with intent to do you harm, it doesn't matter if they are a gifted poet, a brilliant scientist, or a renowned author, you defend yourself.

[UpUpAway95]

So? I like destroy. I have also posted different solutions instead of using shoot this, jump in this and pull that endings. I also don't see any genocide when choosing destroy. Nearly all my playthroughs the geth are destroyed by the quarians.

In regards to the green and blue, I have no reason to choose them nor does the game give me any reason to choose them
 

The player only finds that out at the end and only if ems is high enough. Until that point, the galaxy was doing well enough on its own. Why can't it continue the way it is? With the reapers destroyed the galaxy can continue to advance themselves as they see fit.
 

Since the museums, archives and libraries are not in a war, I would not nuke them

 

... Ah, but museums, libraries, archives, and national treasures are commonly destroyed during wartime.

 

Let's look at Control... and how that might be a preferred ending for some.  A common concern about control is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  That is, control is vulnerable to the "goodness" of Shepard... but what happens if Shepard seizes control and doesn't become corrupted by it's power.  Control only gives Shepard control over the Reapers... not any other species in the Galaxy.  So, if Shepard remains "good", what happens is the Reapers just stop their Reaping and organics can go on about their lives using their various synthetics, etc.  However, this makes the Reapers essentially defenseless and organics have lots of history to keep on hating them and to go on pummelling them with conventional weapons.  So, ultimately, Shepard winds up "in control" of an extinct species... having effectively "destroyed" the Reapers without the collateral damage of destroying any of the other "useful" synthetics in the galaxy.

[Iakus]

... Ah, but museums, libraries, archives, and national treasures are commonly destroyed during wartime.

 

Let's look at Control... and how that might be a preferred ending for some.  A common concern about control is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  That is, control is vulnerable to the "goodness" of Shepard... but what happens if Shepard seizes control and doesn't become corrupted by it's power.  Control only gives Shepard control over the Reapers... not any other species in the Galaxy.  So, if Shepard remains "good", what happens is the Reapers just stop their Reaping and organics can go on about their lives using their various synthetics, etc.  However, this makes the Reapers essentially defenseless and organics have lots of history to keep on hating them and to go on pummelling them with conventional weapons.  So, ultimately, Shepard winds up "in control" of an extinct species... having effectively "destroyed" the Reapers without the collateral damage of destroying any of the other "useful" synthetics in the galaxy.

Control gives the Shepalyst control over all the species of the galaxy through the Reapers, their husks, and indoctrination.  It could start the cycles up again at any time and no one could do a thing about it

[Laughing_Man]

... Ah, but museums, libraries, archives, and national treasures are commonly destroyed during wartime.

 

Let's look at Control... and how that might be a preferred ending for some.  A common concern about control is that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  That is, control is vulnerable to the "goodness" of Shepard... but what happens if Shepard seizes control and doesn't become corrupted by it's power.  Control only gives Shepard control over the Reapers... not any other species in the Galaxy.  So, if Shepard remains "good", what happens is the Reapers just stop their Reaping and organics can go on about their lives using their various synthetics, etc.  However, this makes the Reapers essentially defenseless and organics have lots of history to keep on hating them and to go on pummelling them with conventional weapons.  So, ultimately, Shepard winds up "in control" of an extinct species... having effectively "destroyed" the Reapers without the collateral damage of destroying any of the other "useful" synthetics in the galaxy.

 

That is assuming that you can take the Catalyst words at face value, and that Shepard is not simply going to be some more data sprinkled atop the existing Catalyst because the Catalyst was somehow impressed by Shepard.

 

But even assuming you can believe it, 50,000 years for a digital personality is a long time. It is likely that at some point Shepard will resemble more the Catalyst with his thought processes than his original organic source.

[TheJediSaint]

Control gives the Shepalyst control over all the species of the galaxy through the Reapers, their husks, and indoctrination.  It could start the cycles up again at any time and no one could do a thing about it

 

The merciful God-Shepard would never do a silly thing like that, heathen.

[UpUpAway95]

That is assuming that you can take the Catalyst words at face value, and that Shepard is not simply going to be some more data sprinkled atop the existing Catalyst because the Catalyst was somehow impressed by Shepard.

 

But even assuming you can believe it, 50,000 years for a digital personality is a long time. It is likely that at some point Shepard will resemble more the Catalyst with his thought processes than his original organic source.

 

... If I want to, I should be able to take what the Catalyst says at face value just as much as I might take any other line in the Trilogy at face value or not.  There is no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of ME3's endings.  BSN definitely has a strong bias though and rather forcefully tries to make everyone who comes here interpret the endings in the exact same way... and then they want to blame Bioware for not "canonizing" that "BSN approved" interpretation - most of which leads to "Destroy is the only option" rhetoric.

 

There is no reason why the endings and decisions made in the ME Trilogy should be carried over into ME:A.  The story of Shepard and the Reapers is done.  The ending to that book is old news - whichever one you favor.  We're opening an entirely new book in ME:A.  It doesn't have to even be remotely connected to the story told in the ME Trilogy.  What Bioware writes under the moniker of their own trademark (Mass Effect) is entirely up to them.

[Iakus]

The merciful God-Shepard would never do a silly thing like that, heathen.

I for one welcome our new cuttlefish overlords!

[Hadeedak]

"completionist" playthrough, with his Geth army and Genophage cure.

 

He's the good guy.

 

I'm not.

 

Hahah! ...Huh.

 

My Synthesizer was someone who'd lost a lot of people to conflict and misunderstanding, and saw the chance as worth the rampant issues with synthesis. It was an interesting playthrough.

[Laughing_Man]

... If I want to, I should be able to take what the Catalyst says at face value just as much as I might take any other line in the Trilogy at face value or not.  There is no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of ME3's endings.  BSN definitely has a strong bias though and rather forcefully tries to make everyone who comes here interpret the endings in the exact same way... and then they want to blame Bioware for not "canonizing" that "BSN approved" interpretation - most of which leads to "Destroy is the only option" rhetoric.

 

There is no reason why the endings and decisions made in the ME Trilogy should be carried over into ME:A.  The story of Shepard and the Reapers is done.  The ending to that book is old news - whichever one you favor.  We're opening an entirely new book in ME:A.  It doesn't have to even be remotely connected to the story told in the ME Trilogy.  What Bioware writes under the moniker of their own trademark (Mass Effect) is entirely up to them.

 

Wut.

 

Whoever claimed that you can't believe whatever you want? No one is forcing you to do anything.

 

I didn't know that by presenting the other side of the argument I was bursting your happy and perfect bubble. Sorry.

[UpUpAway95]

Wut.

 

Whoever claimed that you can't believe whatever you want? No one is forcing you to do anything.

 

I didn't know that by presenting the other side of the argument I was bursting your happy and perfect bubble. Sorry.

 

I said there was no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of the endings.  The interpretation I presented above is not even my only interpretation of that ending.  So, I'm not sure where you get the idea that you're "bursting" any bubble of mine.  I can probably find at least 1,000 posts that strongly insist that people should not trust the Catalyst and another 1,000 that suggest Shepard must already be indoctrinated (despite Vendetta indicating clearly that Shepard is not indoctrinated at that particular point in the game  - Of course, only if you take Vendetta's statement at face value as well.)  There are far fewer that say it's OK to take what  the Catalyst says at face value.  Therefore, I conclude statistically that BSN does have a strong bias in this regard.

[UpUpAway95]

Control gives the Shepalyst control over all the species of the galaxy through the Reapers, their husks, and indoctrination.  It could start the cycles up again at any time and no one could do a thing about it

 

Only if Shepard does not order the Reapers to stop converting people into husks.  If he/she has control over the the Reapers, then /she has the ability to make them stop reaping altogether - including stopping making husks, ravagers, cannibals, etc. and can order them to stop indoctrinating anyone as well.  He/she can also order them not to defend themselves.

 

Of course, it could fail if Shepard does not actually have control over the Reapers... which is also another interpretation that can be made of the Control ending.

[Laughing_Man]

I said there was no singularly "correct" way to interpret any of the endings.

So what was the point of your post? I didn't claim otherwise, just pointed out a potential flaw in your reasoning.

(personally I think that my interpretation is more likely if you analyze the universe as is - which is IMO precisely the problem with BW's writing,

but I digress)

 

Your natural inclination seems to be to find justifications for what is probably the author's intent, despite the numerous flaws in the universe as it was actually presented, while mine is more about taking what was presented to what I perceive as the most logical conclusion.

 

I don't even have a problem with your approach (aside from it seeming apologetic to me).

[straykat]

Refuse can be interpreted in a couple of different ways.  In addition to what you're saying, it can be viewed as "allowing nature to take its course."  Deciding actively that death (even extinction of individual species) is a cycle that has occurred for many, many millennia and that disrupting that cycle may actually do more harm than good.  Hope can be derived from the knowledge that the Reapers don't harvest all organic life and that other species will be allowed to continue to develop and rise.

 

(NOTE:  I'm not advocating that any of the endings are inherently better than any of the others.  Personally, I've used them all.  They all mean different things to me... but none of them are "good" - Shepard is truly left in the position of having to make a "no win" decision... and Barla Von does tell us right near the beginning of ME1 that we "can never win.")

 

I don't think Refuse is nature taking it's course, because the Reapers and cycles are unnatural and orchestrating nature. All Destroy is to me is getting rid of this. Then nature takes it's course, for better or worse.

 

 

..Funnily, I'm watching a documentary on hurricanes atm.

[Laughing_Man]

I don't think Refuse is nature taking it's course, because the Reapers and cycles are unnatural and orchestrating nature.

All Destroy is to me is getting rid of this. Then nature it's course, for better or worse.

 

Essentially, this is the point of the famous meme, about how getting killed (sorry, "preserved") by synthetics will save you from getting killed by synthetics.

 

The Reapers are neither a force o nature, a balancing element, or saviors, they are simply the most powerful example of synthetic intelligence on a rampage.

[UpUpAway95]

Wut.

 

Whoever claimed that you can't believe whatever you want? No one is forcing you to do anything.

 

I didn't know that by presenting the other side of the argument I was bursting your happy and perfect bubble. Sorry.

 

 

So what was the point of your post? I didn't claim otherwise, just pointed out a potential flaw in your reasoning.

(personally I think that my interpretation is more likely if you analyze the universe as is - which is IMO precisely the problem with BW's writing,

but I digress)

 

Your natural inclination seems to be to find justifications for what is probably the author's intent, despite the numerous flaws in the universe as it was actually presented, while mine is more about taking what was presented to what I perceive as the most logical conclusion.

 

I don't even have a problem with your approach (aside from it seeming apologetic to me).

 

So...whoever claimed that I can't believe whatever I want?  Look at the bolded text in your subsequent post... apparently, you did (or maybe if you want to split hairs, you're telling me that I can believe whatever I want, but I'm just "wrong" for believing it.)  BTW, I think it's you who owe me an apology.

[AlanC9]

Control gives the Shepalyst control over all the species of the galaxy through the Reapers, their husks, and indoctrination.  It could start the cycles up again at any time and no one could do a thing about it

This is not an very sensible thing to believe.... unless the Catalyst really was right about everything all along, which I guess is possible even if nothing in the game supports it. If the cycles were a mistake, why would a new AI make the same mistake rather than a new mistake?