5087 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Hawk227 wrote...

@CGG

The Catalyst is only one of many reasons why I oppose synthesis, but he's a major issue in why I'm disinclined towards control. Take him out of the equation, and I still pick control every time.

Also, I think you understate Synthesis a lot. I know you imagine it as a slight adjustment (turns everyone's hair purple, a slight homogenization, ipod implant, etc), but there's nothing in the text to support that. It could just as easily be turning everything into Reaper goo or husks. We have zero idea either way. In the absence of data, the reputation of the one providing (or advocating) the choice becomes important.

Choice B, the apparent stand-in for synthesis, contains way more information than what we actually have. If synthesis had been explained as "All organics can now turn on computers telepathically, and AI have empathy" then I would be on board. But its not. It's not explained at all. The only data we have either way comes from someone who thought the Reapers were an appropriate solution, and he thinks this an appropriate solution.

While it may sound like I'm ignoring your point, it's really that I just completely disagree with it. In the absence of information, the running commentary is absolutely important. Also, unlike this analogy (and your Manson one previously) the narrator is inexorably tied to the issue. He isn't just random evil guy. He is the creator of the most evil entities ever, entities designed to solve the same problem that synthesis supposedly solves. He isn't manson saying we should do something about global warming, he's the unabomber telling you that whatever is in that box will stem the tide of evil technology.

EDIT: You seem to have edited choice b after I started responding. Oh well, I think my point still stands.
EDIT2: In the interest of clarity, I'll say that if it had not been the Catalyst but rather Balak presenting the choice, then his input would have been irrelevant, and I would probably choose control (but maybe destroy).

Not really.  The Catalyst is some demigod expositor general by intent.  He says the Reapers were his solution *before* the Crucible presented him with new options.  He is a very powerful shackled AI or VI; he says there are things he cannot do and needs you to choose.  The story explanation really isn't that bad or unclear. 

You don't know who made him, but apparently some race about to get wiped out by synthetics that made him as a savior.  He isn't anymore evil than some doctor using triage planning.  Now you can argue that it isn't necessarily true that a singularity in which synthetics always wipe organics will occur, but I'll always defer to what the authors of a work of fiction say about their own universe.  If the Catalyst is mistaken, okay, then his action is unwarranted.  If the Catalyst is correct, then it is warranted until he has further possible reactions ala the Crucible.  Until they clarify, we don't know.  Obviously, he's not perfect though, because he didn't foresee the possibility of you being there.

And unless you think turning everyone into Reaper goo or husks would be an advancement, there is no in context reason for Shepard to think that a result of synthesis.  The Catalyst plainly describes in admittedly vague terms that Shepard will be disseminated and create roboDNA.  Nothing implies or entails the possibility that everyone will just be harvested or turned into mindless husks.

[edisnooM]

@memorysquid

I wrote a mini-rant about this quite a few pages back, but they had it so close and dang near in the bag after the TIM standoff, they just had to end it there, maybe throw in a epilogue, funeral, whatever (maybe a solid platinum statue of our Shepard looking heroic). But then they tried for something fancy and ended up fumbling at the finish line.

My guess is they wanted a big finish, something memorable, but how they thought that everything that came after the Willy Wonka Glass Elevator ride would go over well with fans is beyond me.

I mean the Normandy scene alone, how in the world did that past muster? Not one person looked at that and thought: "Wait, what? Why is Joker running? This doesn't make any sense at all." Good golly, they know how obsessive their fans can be, did they not think we would analyze it?

Edit:

@KitaSaturnyne

Ha! Murray is certainly getting around. 

Modifié par edisnooM, 16 juin 2012 - 05:42 .

[Fapmaster5000]

edisnooM wrote...

@Fapmaster5000

Quick, write us a mission idea as a distraction. Something with Monty Python killer rabbits would be good.

Uh... fack fack fack... working quickly here...

Running from previous series of parallel narratives I rolled out, let's create one for later in the game and much later in the multiplayer curve. 

NEW MISSION!  "The Greater Share"
Unlocked after Priority: Thessia, and after achieving a score of X with each race, as well as one Gold Extraction against Cerberus.  Only triggers if Shepard has Krogan support and united Geth/Quarians. 

EMAIL RECEIVED FROM MSGT "SCARECROW" SCHAEFFER

"War makes funny bedmates, Commander.

These kids, they think that because someone sticks an N7 pin on 'em, it makes them invincible.  Bah.  You and I, we know better.  The pin, even the real deal, it doesn't mean you can't be killed.  It means the Mother Death got too tired after taking all your friends to bother finishing the deal.  It's a survivor's mark, that's all it is.  It says, 'this soldier has outlived his dreams'.  That's what makes people like us strong, Commander.  It's the ability to stand up, one last time, because we're already dead, but we aren't going quietly. 

Now, word through the grapevine is that Kai Leng punched your clock on Thessia.  F*ck him.  F*ck him, f*ck his cybernetic legs, his cybernetic boss, and his tiny cybernetic dick.  Yeah, he's N7, too, but he ain't half the soldier these kids have become, pin or no pin.  You should see them, Commander.  Each and every f*cking one of them has bled and fought and killed and stared down death, and they haven't earned that last pin, yet.  I'm the last to talk like this, I hope you understand, and if word gets out that Scarecrow's gotten soft, I'll hunt your undead ass down and carnifex your pud through a docking umbillical.  That being said...

I've seen a lot of sh*t.  You know exactly what kind of sh*t I'm talking about, Commander.  Just like on <insert Shepard's backstory>.  But what I had never seen, is a Geth load itself into an injured Quarian's suit and autopilot the powered armor out of hostile fire, because the Quarian got herself blasted trying to run data extraction hardlinks on downed prime platforms.  I have never seen is a the world's most anal retentive Turian and a crotchety old Krogan decide to "reconfigure" an Atlas into a gyro-top, and then use said gyro-top to perform kinetic strikes on a phantom kill squad.  (Oh, small note, Commander: apparently, there's enough Eezo in an Atlas to make it fly EXACTLY one time.  EXACTLY once, and nothing else, ever again.)  There's a terrible sort of symmetry going on here, and it's all on you.

You lead the way, Commander.  I was talking to Rusani the other day, and neither of us have seen anything like it.  These kids believe in you, like they're believing in some sort of spectre (heh) or icon.  I know, I know, you're just a soldier.  I've learned that refrain well.  All I'm saying is: stop by, check with the teams before we all hit the big one.  It would do them all well to see the legend, and you'd get a rare chance: It's not often that a man/woman gets to see his/her own legacy.  

It's a screwy thing, Commander, but a good one.  These kids don't need that N7 pin, not anymore.  They're getting back up, they're fighting, and they're dreams aren't dead yet.  

So, until the end, we'll keep the watchfires burning for you.  Poke Jack Harper in the eye for me, call him a b*tch, and know that when you go after Harbinger and his space-squid friends, you're not going alone.  The biggest, baddest half of the galaxy, is riding shotgun.  It's gonna be one hell of a ride, no matter the endgame, and I'm glad to be here.  Thank you, Commander.

Now, enough jib-jab.  There's killing to be done.

PS:  When you stop by, make sure to get a "Fat Lady" from Stubbs.  I don't know what those cigars are made out of, but they're amazing."

END EMAIL.

Final mission is the speech that Shepard should have given on Earth, done right.

EDIT:  Well, couldn't get any rabbits in there, but I hoped something uplifting might switch this thread back onto a more cordial track.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 16 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

@CGG

The Catalyst is only one of many reasons why I oppose synthesis, but he's a major issue in why I'm disinclined towards control. Take him out of the equation, and I still pick control every time.

Also, I think you understate Synthesis a lot. I know you imagine it as a slight adjustment (turns everyone's hair purple, a slight homogenization, ipod implant, etc), but there's nothing in the text to support that. It could just as easily be turning everything into Reaper goo or husks. We have zero idea either way. In the absence of data, the reputation of the one providing (or advocating) the choice becomes important.

Choice B, the apparent stand-in for synthesis, contains way more information than what we actually have. If synthesis had been explained as "All organics can now turn on computers telepathically, and AI have empathy" then I would be on board. But its not. It's not explained at all. The only data we have either way comes from someone who thought the Reapers were an appropriate solution, and he thinks this an appropriate solution.

While it may sound like I'm ignoring your point, it's really that I just completely disagree with it. In the absence of information, the running commentary is absolutely important. Also, unlike this analogy (and your Manson one previously) the narrator is inexorably tied to the issue. He isn't just random evil guy. He is the creator of the most evil entities ever, entities designed to solve the same problem that synthesis supposedly solves. He isn't manson saying we should do something about global warming, he's the unabomber telling you that whatever is in that box will stem the tide of evil technology.

EDIT: You seem to have edited choice b after I started responding. Oh well, I think my point still stands.
EDIT2: In the interest of clarity, I'll say that if it had not been the Catalyst but rather Balak presenting the choice, then his input would have been irrelevant, and I would probably choose control (but maybe destroy).

The problem is the last time we had this discussion, you went to the Godwin, and I'm strenuously trying to avoid that... but it seems that without the Godwin we're just talking in circles, and you're unable to separate my question from the Mass Effect ending. I do want to try one more time, because I do really, really want to understand your thought process here. I also want to avoid invoking the Godwin, though.

My problem isn't that you're ignoring my point, it's that my main aim isn't to make a point, it's to really ask a question. I'm trying to understand your thought process, and where you draw a particular rhetorical line.

I'm trying to understand under what circumstances you would consider a villain advocating a course of action a reason not to pursue that action, and under what circumstances you would ignore their opinion. Does it have to do with how closely the ideas are related in your opinion? Or does it have to do with how closely the ideas are related in the villain's opinion? Or is it a mix of both? Does the scale of the villain's evil play a part? If so, how does it relate to the other factors?

The Balak example you use seems to indicate that either scale of villainy or relatedness of ideas is a factor, but I can't tell if it's one of the two, or both.

I'm going to try a different tactic here and not use any examples at all.  think using examples is probably what's been causing this misunderstanding.

I'd also like to clarify and say that there are circumstances under which I would take a villain's opinion into consideration, but my guidelines for when I would do so seem to be completely unrelated to yours.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Fapmaster

Nice. Perhaps the mission could include a planetside component with these new kids, smack dab in the middle of alien killer rabbit territory?

@Mani Mani

Well, I always pictured Murray wanting to set himself apart from his dear old dad, not wanting to get lost in Harby's shadow.

[Fapmaster5000]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@Fapmaster

Nice. Perhaps the mission could include a planetside component with these new kids, smack dab in the middle of alien killer rabbit territory?

Reaper rabbits.  They carry indoctrination boosters into the walls and then die there, using their corpse as a relay to spread the signal into otherwise safe environs.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 16 juin 2012 - 05:55 .

[giveamanafish...]

Self-defence and defence of others can be a complete answer to a charge pf murder or it can result in the reduced charge of justifiable homiciide.

'Necessity', can also be a complete defence.
Described thus:
"Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law. Some jurisdictions require in addition that the harm must have been imminent and that the action taken must have been reasonably expected to avoid the imminent danger. All these elements mirror the principles on which the defense of necessity was founded: first, that the highest social value is not always achieved by blind adherence to the law; second, that it is unjust to punish those who technically violate the letter of the law when they are acting to promote or achieve a higher social value than would be served by strict adherence to the law; and third, that it is in society's best interest to promote the greatest good and to encourage people to seek to achieve the greatest good, even if doing so necessitates a technical breach of the law."
http://legal-diction...cessity defense

I'm almost positive the UN in adopting the conventions on genocide had never considered the possibility of an invasion by a race of sentient machines, but I imagine that a court would conseder these long established common law defences in relation to a charge of genocide. (These would be common law or court recognized defenses which would not need to expressed in the written form of the relevant laws.)

[KitaSaturnyne]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Reaper rabbits.  They carry indoctrination boosters into the walls and then die there, using their corpse as a relay to spread the signal into otherwise safe environs.

Would the rabbit husks have cecal feces? Could some pellets be saved to hurl at Casper the EndKilling Ghost?

[giveamanafish...]

Are people starting to recognize how problematic it is to discuss thematic incongruities without reference to the plot and setting of a story? (Just saying).

[delta_vee]

@Fapmaster5000

THAT is your idea of "working quickly"? Dear gods, man.

[delta_vee]

ismoketoomuch wrote...

Are people starting to recognize how problematic it is to discuss thematic incongruities without reference to the plot and setting of a story? (Just saying).

I'm not sure what you mean. We've been over just about every inch of both.

[Fapmaster5000]

delta_vee wrote...

@Fapmaster5000

THAT is your idea of "working quickly"? Dear gods, man.

Okay, it took me about 20 minutes, but I didn't think it was that slow.

... unless that was a compliment, in which case, yes, and thanks!  There wasn't time to build the actual "Shepard speach scene" with variations for which squad members were there, and their different dialogue.  That's the version I'd want to see.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 16 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[Costin_Razvan]

It speaks volumes about your professor's maturity that his natural reaction to the ending choice was to take his gun and shoot at something.

[Fapmaster5000]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

It speaks volumes about your professor's maturity that his natural reaction to the ending choice was to take his gun and shoot at something.

Hey, don't knock shooting.

It's a lot like meditation mixed with golf.  It's just you, your center, and piece of machinery, trying to place tiny bits of metal inside of rings down the firing lane.  It can really clear the mind.

Now, if you're running around shooting people, that's a bad thing, but I can think of few activities better for calming someone down than a little range time.

[Costin_Razvan]

I should have said at someone, because he choose to shot at the Hologram, but I don't even know exactly what the Catalyst is so I said something.

[Fapmaster5000]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I should have said at someone, because he choose to shot at the Hologram, but I don't even know exactly what the Catalyst is so I said something.

Okay, well, joking aside (and shooting is good times, IRL), the Catalyst is kind of the embodiement of the eldritch horrors you've been fighting.  Trying to blast the little bastard falls under the "Hitler Exemption" for doing bodily harm to a sentient being.

... okay, not so much on the "joking aside", but you follow the point, right?

[delta_vee]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Okay, it took me about 20 minutes, but I didn't think it was that slow.

... unless that was a compliment, in which case, yes, and thanks!  There wasn't time to build the actual "Shepard speach scene" with variations for which squad members were there, and their different dialogue.  That's the version I'd want to see.

Yes, that was indeed a compliment.

It's a lot like meditation mixed with golf.  It's just you, your center, and piece of machinery, trying to place tiny bits of metal inside of rings down the firing lane.  It can really clear the mind.

Now, if you're running around shooting people, that's a bad thing, but I can think of few activities better for calming someone down than a little range time.

Agreed, except for the golf bit. I hate golf.

[KitaSaturnyne]

@delta_vee

Agreed. Mark Twain summed it up best in my opinion.

That aside, does maturity necessarily make a man great, or his opinions anymore or less valid? Does it make his credentials more or less powerful? Or is the greatness of a man decided by more than what we deem "mature" responses to all situations? And finally, in the case of the scene with the Catalyst, what would the "mature" thing have been to do?

[Fapmaster5000]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

@delta_vee

Agreed. Mark Twain summed it up best in my opinion.

That aside, does maturity necessarily make a man great, or his opinions anymore or less valid? Does it make his credentials more or less powerful? Or is the greatness of a man decided by more than what we deem "mature" responses to all situations? And finally, in the case of the scene with the Catalyst, what would the "mature" thing have been to do?

I'm not quite sure what the "mature" thing to do would have been, but I can tell you what I would have had Shepard's response been, if I had total control of the character: near mental breakdown and psychotic laughter.  Shepard would have doubled over, cracked up maniacally, and then demanded, "You're f*cking me, right?"  

When it became apparent that this was indeed not a joke, or that the universe was pulling a perverse one, he/she would have suffered the psychotic break and started blasting the Catalyst, culminating in blowing the whole thing up screaming, "make it stop, make it stop!"

... Of course, that's reflecting my opinions on the ending a little much, but the Commander takes the sheer insanity a bit well, in my opinion.  I think the "fack it, pull the plug" ending should have been available.

[edisnooM]

@Fapmaster5000

Damn fine work, and twenty minutes? Seriously? Egads. You should absolutely be working for BioWare or somesuch. Also can you imagine being the soldier having to call in that your position was being overwhelmed by rabbits.

"Command, we need backup, our position is being overrun!"

"Stay calm soldier. What are you up against? Brutes? Banshees?"

"Uh.....no command. They're sort of, uh, small, um.......rabbits."

".........Please repeat last."

[Fapmaster5000]

edisnooM wrote...

@Fapmaster5000

Damn fine work, and twenty minutes? Seriously? Egads. You should absolutely be working for BioWare or somesuch. Also can you imagine being the soldier having to call in that your position was being overwhelmed by rabbits.

"Command, we need backup, our position is being overrun!"

"Stay calm soldier. What are you up against? Brutes? Banshees?"

"Uh.....no command. They're sort of, uh, small, um.......rabbits."

".........Please repeat last."

It being London, what I'm picturing is that the second the Communications officer says that last line, he turns to the specialist next to him, who holds two fingers down in front of his mouth and declares, "huge sharp- he can leap about- look at the bones!".  The whole FOB cracks up, until the unit confirms with a video link of mutated Reaper Rabbits, and then said specialist declares, deadpan, "The hell is that?"

At which point the outpost replies, "I warned you!"

After all, you can't lose your humor, especially when facing death.

EDIT:  The only solution is the Sanctified Cain.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 16 juin 2012 - 06:33 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Random thought: What happens if you cheat yourself a Cain in the Catalyst scene and fire it straight at your feet?

[delta_vee]

Does the Sanctified Cain have a two- or five-second spin-up time?

[Fapmaster5000]

delta_vee wrote...

Does the Sanctified Cain have a two- or five-second spin-up time?

Three, sir.

[delta_vee]

What is the average airspeed of an unladen Harvester?