779 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

fr33stylez wrote...

I fail to see how this solves the issue. What about a connection with synthetics will stop the organics from creating new synthetics - is this  a massive galatic brainwashing?

If the Catalyst is correct in saying 'the created will always rebel against its creators', how does Synthesis stop this?

The point of synthesis is not stopping creation of synthetics. I think it solves the problem by eliminating the reasons for created-creator conflict in the first place. Organics will create machines and, sentinent or not, they synergize naturally with organic life.

Not saying it can't be done without synthesis, just easier with it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...

People aren't determined to drag everything down into the dirt, it's just where logical, rational thinking leads to. If that wasn't what it was supposed to do then it's BioWare's fault for not thinking it through properly. If you're happy accepting a ludicrously positive portrayal as evidence that everything is all right then more the fool you. To many other people it just looks like propaganda. If you could kill half the population of Earth you'd have a great many positive outcomes (a good number of current issues would die with them) but I sure as hell wouldn't be happy with a portrayal of doing that being over the top positive when it should concentrate on the fact that you've just committed a horrific crime.

What "logical" downsides are there going to be in this galaxy? Only thing wrong I can think of is fools who would rather be Reaper goo or huskified than alive in synthesized form complaining about it and hating the Reapers.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:04 .

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You complain about the lack of "realistic downsides"? Blame yourselves. You're so determined to pull everything into the dirt that Bioware has used the biggest hammer to tell you that the outcome is good. I'd take any bet that if those "realistic downsides" had been included, you would ignore everything else and treated those as the whole picture, just because there can't be what must not be and a global change like Synthesis absolutely must not have a good outcome.

People aren't determined to drag everything down into the dirt, it's just where logical, rational thinking leads to. If that wasn't what it was supposed to do then it's BioWare's fault for not thinking it through properly. If you're happy accepting a ludicrously positive portrayal as evidence that everything is all right then more the fool you. To many other people it just looks like propaganda. If you could kill half the population of Earth you'd have a great many positive outcomes (a good number of current issues would die with them) but I sure as hell wouldn't be happy with a portrayal of doing that being over the top positive when it should concentrate on the fact that you've just committed a horrific crime.

Rational, logical thinking? Don't make me laugh. Mental inflexibility, that's what I call it. As if it wasn't utterly obvious that the mass relay explosion in the original ending was supposed to be different from the one in Arrival. But no, rather than seeing this and trying to find an in-world rationalization people insisted with bloody-minded stubbornness that everyone and everything was dead as if the one instance of a relay explosion meant that every other absolutely has to work the same way, even though that made no sense at all in the storytelling context. It's level of fan ****** I've never seen before. 

As if it wasn't utterly obvious that Synthesis was supposed to be a good outcome brought about by questionable means and a painful sacrifice. The EC presentation is absolutely in line with the thematic environment, and that "horrific crime" is a subjective value judgment not at all self-evident if you consider the circumstances, and if you're a consequentialist it's almost the opposite: you've crossed a line to bring about a new golden age, as opposed to the new dark age Destroy was supposed to bring before they changed that between the script leak and the release date. One was based on the idea that it's worth a new dark age to get rid of the Reapers, the other based on the idea that it was worth a global change and connecting the Reapers to civilization in order to bring about a golden age and the prospect of ascension. None of those ideas is wrong, they're based on different value hierarchies and different perceptions. If you can't demonstrate that the effects of the change are mostly bad, you don't have a leg to stand on except arguing from principles. On the scale we're dealing with here, outcomes are more important than principles. Ask any politician and any strategist where they can't be overheard by the press and they'll say the same.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rational, logical thinking? Don't make me laugh. Mental inflexibility, that's what I call it. As if it wasn't utterly obvious that the mass relay explosion in the original ending was supposed to be different from the one in Arrival. But no, rather than seeing this and trying to find an in-world rationalization people insisted with bloody-minded stubbornness that everyone and everything was dead as if the one instance of a relay explosion meant that every other absolutely has to work the same way, even though that made no sense at all in the storytelling context. It's level of fan ****** I've never seen before. 

You have misidentified the wanker in this particular case of indecency. Mac Walters sure seemed to think the setting would be a 'boring wasteland' after the endings, as he states in a pre-release interview.

Edit: WTF? I can't view Youtube videos I watched last week without signing in? Is this a new thing or a freak occurrance? Anyways, you'll find the relevant video on YT.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:13 .

[Ieldra]

@Spambot:
You *seriously* believe he meant everything was dead, all planets vaporized and all star systems rendered uninhabitable? Really? From which planet are you? How would that make any kind of storytelling sense? Yet again, what was meant is obvious from the original ending:

The mass relays are destroyed. There is no more galactic civilization but only star systems separated from each other by vast spaces conventional FTL can't cross in acceptable time frames, many of those devastated by Reaper attacks. The major species' homeworlds are devastated and must be rebuilt. That could take many, many years. To play there would be like playing in the MEU equivalent of a post-apocalyptic setting.

Yes, that's bad. But it's very, very different from "everyone and everything is dead". It could be seen as a victory because after all, the civilizations themselves aren't destroyed and will possibly reconnect one day. That's why this scenario makes sense, as opposed to "everything's vaporized" which couldn't be seen as a victory from any point of view.

[clennon8]

I'm an IT'ist. Sometimes I think maybe the ending is brilliant. But then I remember how the Bioware fanbase has basically been turned into a landscape of warring factions, all convinced that their religion is the correct one. Yes, dear reader, I say religion. Because whatever faction YOU belong to seems like a religious cult to someone. Probably a lot of someones.

The ending, unfortunately, is not brilliant. It is a horrific failure. Such a shame.

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Spambot:
You *seriously* believe he meant everything was dead, all planets vaporized and all star systems rendered uninhabitable? Really? From which planet are you? 

My homeworld is not one you would have heard of, and there is no time to explain.

What do you think he meant by 'boring wasteland'? Happy Cyborgia? It might be boring, but surely not a wasteland.

When you defend ME3 with 'what makes sense from a storytelling point of view', you have already committed a category mistake that will render all conclusions invalid.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:30 .

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
@Ieldra:  And perhaps you need to reassess your own ad hominem attributions of petty motivations to people who find fault with the Synthesis ending.

Says the one who called Synthesis supporters a "cult of indoctrination". Sorry, you've disqualified yourself with that and I won't forget that any time soon. Also, no, I'm not saying my preferred ending is "correct". That would be stupid. What I am saying is that all high-EMS endings are good endings. If you don't believe a ten-minute epilogue telling you exactly that then *you're* the one with the dogmatic mindset. 

@spambot:
I've posted what I think he meant, and I don't see any category error in the perspective I have used to come to my conclusions. I consider the story as a story created for a certain audience. They may have failed in estimating the limits of what their audience can still accept as a victory, but it was always obvious that they would give us one, or at least one they think we would accept as a victory. A scenario "All star systems are vaporized" makes no sense in that context. We're not talking about experimental art here where the artist has no stakes in his work but fame, but a work of mainstream fiction.     

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:58 .

[clennon8]

I'm sure we've all "disqualified" ourselves from pretty much every conversation there is to have about Mass Effect 3 at one time or another. Yourself included.

Anyway. I don't have enough anger left over for continued backbiting.

You seem more upset at this point than I do.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 décembre 2012 - 08:57 .

[Falaxe]

clennon8 wrote...

I'm an IT'ist. Sometimes I think maybe the ending is brilliant. But then I remember how the Bioware fanbase has basically been turned into a landscape of warring factions, all convinced that their religion is the correct one. Yes, dear reader, I say religion. Because whatever faction YOU belong to seems like a religious cult to someone. Probably a lot of someones..

The ending, unfortunately, is not brilliant. It is a horrific failure. Such a shame.

Well I dont belong into any group of that sort... I do my best trying to be **** to everyone equally!

I think that synthesis was done pretty badly in ME, as choosing synthesis means that no one will have a free will anymore. And just think about all those deformed monsters that used to be people! Like, what the **** bioware, are you serious?

[futurepixels]

Synthesis AKA playing right into the hands of the Leviathans.

[clennon8]

But, see, you're supposed to ASSUME that everybody DOES have free will in the Synthesis ending, despite everything that has occurred previously. Basically, any bad thing that you can imagine about Synthesis can be explained away somehow, while simultaneously acknowledging in an ambiguous way that "some bad things will happen," so as to maintain some shred of credibility.

[Ieldra]

Upset? Perhaps. I thought there could finally be conversations about Synthesis not tainted with this irrational level of hate. I am disappointed.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Upset? Perhaps. I thought there could finally be conversations about Synthesis not tainted with this irrational level of hate. I am disappointed.

It's your cross to bear, my dear Ieldra.

[Ieldra]

Falaxe wrote...
I think that synthesis was done pretty badly in ME, as choosing synthesis means that no one will have a free will anymore.

Sigh. This again. Synthesis makes ONE change without anyone's consent. It ignores everyone's "right to self-determination" - ONE time.
That is - it appears this escapes people again and again - very different from removing free will (which likely doesn't exist, but I'll let that slide and take it in the spirit it was meant). As I said, it's not so much "rational, logic thinking" involved here but a lack of it. *Could* it remove free will? I don't know. It's not said. Usually, if things aren't specifically mentioned and cannot be inferred from the text they're not assumed to happen.

I feel confident in saying that Synthesis doesn't remove your ability to make reasonably free decisions and doesn't link your will to anyone else's.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:18 .

[MegaSovereign]

I think Ieldra is breaking.


Synthesis = Indoctrination trolololol

[futurepixels]

clennon8 wrote...

But, see, you're supposed to ASSUME that everybody DOES have free will in the Synthesis ending, despite everything that has occurred previously. Basically, any bad thing that you can imagine about Synthesis can be explained away somehow, while simultaneously acknowledging in an ambiguous way that "some bad things will happen," so as to maintain some shred of credibility.

Why exactly are you supposed to assume that? 

[Falaxe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

*shortened for fun*

Stopped reading when you said "free will doesnt exist" (jk, i did read it all but it was all messed up bull**** lol). If I  would want to, I could go outside, **** a squirrel, kill the annyoing stare-granny from my neighbourhood, grab a stick from the ground and shove into my brains through my nose.

Problem is that current synthesis looks like it doesnt give people have their own will. Or their current will. lol i dont know, all the endings sucked: in control shepard becomes a douchbag semi-god, in destroy you kill all synthetics (wich have reaper tech, BW couldnt make even this clear) and synthesis is brainwash.

I respect your opinion, because it´s so darn funny :happy: Now when I think a bit longer about those deformed aliens etc. it makes me laugh... Some nasty xxx coming into extranet in couple next weeks.

[clennon8]

futurepixels wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

But, see, you're supposed to ASSUME that everybody DOES have free will in the Synthesis ending, despite everything that has occurred previously. Basically, any bad thing that you can imagine about Synthesis can be explained away somehow, while simultaneously acknowledging in an ambiguous way that "some bad things will happen," so as to maintain some shred of credibility.

Why exactly are you supposed to assume that? 

Because EC slides!

[Ieldra]

@Falaxe:
You can do what you want, but you can't will what you want. You cannot change at will what you prefer, what you value, how you feel about certain things. Your will is, in a most fundamental sense, not free.

@MegaSovereign:
Thanks for the trolling. Helps immensely. Maybe I'll give up one day, but not to the likes of you. That would be too demeaning.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:36 .

[futurepixels]

clennon8 wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

But, see, you're supposed to ASSUME that everybody DOES have free will in the Synthesis ending, despite everything that has occurred previously. Basically, any bad thing that you can imagine about Synthesis can be explained away somehow, while simultaneously acknowledging in an ambiguous way that "some bad things will happen," so as to maintain some shred of credibility.

Why exactly are you supposed to assume that? 

Because EC slides!

I just re-watched the synthesis ending and it's like a remember it.  It's Edi talking about what the future should be because of synthesis, and the immediate effects after the end of the war, not what it has become years later.  Everything she is descibing could still happen if synthesized life was within the thralls of the Leviathans.

Modifié par futurepixels, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:38 .

[Fnork]

I think synthesis can be beautiful. But only if it's narrated by Johnny Depp and featured in an extended version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Modifié par Fnork, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:38 .

[MegaSovereign]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@MegaSovereign:
Thanks for the trolling. Helps immensely. Maybe I'll give up one day, but not to the likes of you. That would be too demeaning.

I do it in jest. Do not take me seriously.

[Eterna]

If it means anything, I believe in you Ieldra. Keep fighting the good fight.