449 réponses à ce sujet

[Leem_0001]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

If the Starchild believes so strongly that synthetic life will eventually wipe out organic, why does he give Shepard the control or destroy endings? I have seen many on here make arguments about the validity of his reasoning (myself included), and whilst we point to EDI and the Geth, I know the points made by 'pro enders' (not using that in any negative way) are worth heavy consideration. But if Starchild is so sure of this, why not only offer Synthesis? Why even give the other two as options, because it flies in the face of his very purpose?

I've explained this several times.
It's not the Catalyst's choice to give.
His is only Synthesis.
The Destroy is the original intention of the Crucible - using the Catalyst (i.e. the Citadel, a Mass Relay hub which connect the entire network of MRs and the Reapers).
The Control is the "sabotaged" intention of the Crucible - using the same methods, but to transmit something different than the Kill Switch. Created by Cerberus-like groups throughout the cycles (it's in the game!).
Synthesis is it's only addition to the equation.

 

Leem_0001 wrote... 
In Destroy, he basically says that organics will again go on to create synthetics, and warns us about it. But, at the end of the day, it will happen and there will be nothing he can do about it, as the reapers are gone. How is that a solution to him?

It's not.
See above.

 

Leem_0001 wrote... 
In Control, Shpeard only controls the Reapers, so synthetic life (Geth etc, and newlyy formed in the future) will go on. How is that a solution to him?

Not sure it only controls the reapers. It stands to reason, interface wise, if the Destroy kills both Geth (as they have Reaper code) and whatever else applicable, the same will work with Control.
But, again, see above. It is NOT a good solution for it.

Leem_0001 wrote... 
It doesn't really solve anything, he is just kind of, I don't know, bowing out and letting us get on with it (which is what many of us wanted). So why do we need to enslave the reapers or destroy our friends to do it? If he controls the Reapers, why not send them back to Dark Space, deactivate them, or something? It's the same end result - organics and synthetics go on, and the future remains to be seen.

Good question why it doesn't just send them back.
Although, it is answered, or implied.
The Catalyst's sole purpose is the Solution.
It was what it was created for, or whatever it's origin is.
It has no other motivation - like feelings of hate or wanting to win.
It's all about the solution.
Now, if we've come to a crossroads of sorts.
Obviously it won't send out the signal to retreat - cause that nullifies the solution.
If Shepard does it, by Destroying or Controlling, that's something this non-corporeal being can't do anything about. Apparently (yes, it can be explained better, and should be). But with Synthesis, the solution (again, should be explained better) changes. There's no need for the cycle anymore.

Haha, I guess this is the point that divides us most, as we see it from other sides. But from my point of view there is nothing that shows you interpretation of the Cruicible and Catalyst is correct. Nothing to show that Control was added by this splinter group of a previous cycle, in fact all that we have seen and are told goes against it, or that there was only the destroy option originally, and that the synthesis was only added recently. In fact, what the starchild says, is that the cruicible changed him and created new possibilities. Plural. Then it shows the three options. This implies that all of these are new. So goes against your theories. It isnt in the game that any splinter group added this option to the crucible - or if it is then could you provide proof?

And Control does only control the Reapers, Starchild makes this clear.

[AlexXIV]

humes spork wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

That's good for you. I don't care, but good for you. Though I am not suprised judging by your language that you would judge the validity of a point on the language, not on the point as such. Because that's why you talk like that, no? You think because you use this educated language you don't need to argue because the language alone makes you right. That's comfortable, and ... good for you.

No, I said the assumptions people make about others, the attitude they take, how they construct arguments and the charity with which they treat others and their arguments often enough speak for themselves as to their credibility and the validity of their points.

I never mentioned vocabulary or grammar. Food for thought.

Well if someone is rude and doesn't engage in discussion but still does have a good point on the matter. Does he still have a good point or not?

[spirosz]

Russalka wrote...

I wish people stopped misusing that gif.

[Leem_0001]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Leem_0001 wrote...

But by that logic, if he doesn't care, then surely he wouldn't give any choice at all  - he would just let things progress, let the Reapers keep going and see what happens. He has to still have a stake in this, whether it is caring as we understand it, or some form of programming etc.

This is my issue - because Control and Destroy still mean synthetic life will continue (in destroy it will be rebuilt etc) and, if he is to be believed (and I'm not saying he is) then synthetics will wipe out organics if either of these are picked. It doesn't flow with his reasoning of having the Reapers in the first place.

I agree with you, they likely won't end the cycle. (Though there is still a chance that they might.) But he mentions them anyway because the Crucible (a) changed him and ( made him see that "my solution (Reapers) won't work anymore." 

Perhaps that is true, or perhaps the Crucible merely messed with him enough to make him think it is true. It doesn't matter; what matters is that since you plugged it in, he gave up on Reapers and instead let you choose one of the three, because Shepard asked him "how can I stop the Reapers," not "how can I end the cycle."

Yeah, food for thought. I could not see how the Extended Cut would fix anything, but as its free I am going to download it and do an enitre ME3 playthough again, and see how it works out. Never know, it may suprise me.

[Cypher_CS]

We're not talking about expansion and interference with nature, we're talking about self augmentation through medicine.
The latter has everything to do with out evolution, the former... not so much. Not directly, at least.

[Tigerman123]

I was just using soul as a metaphor, like Shepard does, that's why it's in air quotes :/ . I agree there's no way for Shepard to know whether the result will be beneficial a priori, because s/he isn't given the requisite info, but we can see from the Joker Edi scene and the Stargazer that life isn't completely unrecognisable either in it's shape or the way people interact. I mean I also dislike the lack of specifics and wonder why you should jump into an energy beam of death on the advice of your recent adversary, but we just have to accept that they're intended to be taken at face value..

[NM_Che56]

I'm not a huge fan of the endings, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT FROM THIS POINT ON, but I'm not a huge fan of the points raised either:

Some of our major choices from ME1 - ME3 were revealed over the course of the entire game.
A) The future of the Krogan
The future of the Geth and Quarians and the fate of Legion (he dies either way, but as an ally or cerberus?)
C) Whether or not Kaidan/Ashely dies in ME3
D) Whether or not Wrex or Mordin dies in ME3...if they were even alive.

As for the final battle and the three choices, you don't get all three without increasing your EMS rating and I don't understand what's so bad about having three choices; two of which (control or synthesis) weren't part of your motives going in and are being pitched in a more persuasive manner than the original one. Why can't star brat, harbinger, TIM or whomever try to convince Shepard of alternatives, though they are filled to the brim with ulterior motives? Hell, that's real life. People always try to manipulate you to do THEIR bidding. So why is Shepard immune to influence? S/HE is NOT. So there you go. If you picked synthesis or control, then you allowed youself (ergo, Shepard) to be persuaded by TIM and/or the Star brat. Isn't that what choice is about? Being locked into "Destroy" only would see to go against the narrative grain of the ME universe.

As for these other two options, if you think they came out of nowhere, then you weren't paying close enough attention.

1) Think of all the experiments TIM and Ceberus were performing over the years. The Rachni (ME), The Geth (ME2:Overlord), the Thorian Creepers (ME), etc. Control has always been lurking in the background. When I played Overlord, I could see what they were up to: They wanted to find a way to control the enemy. Even at the end of ME2, you were given choices: Destroy the base (in line with your original plan) or SAVE the base (completely out of the blue...if you weren't paying attention). It is clear that TIM was an unconventional sort and that nothing was out of bounds when it came to advancing humanity. So the control option is fairly well established.

2) Synthesis. The Collectors are an example of Synthesis. Just replay the conversations with EDI and Mordin during and after the Collector ship mission. Everything is laid out: The Prothean's DNA was rewritten and organic material was increasingly being replaced by tech. Even Javik mentioned this when he told Shepard about the Za'thil. Again, this concept was not out of the blue.

That being said, I think some of these things weren't presented as clearly or as convincingly as they could have been. I think they were trying to be too subtle. I also don't like how the key decision at the end of ME2 is reduced down to a difference in 10 war asset points.

Another thing I didn't care for was the ambiguity surrounding "now what"? The three choices conceptually change the universe in very dramtic ways; each different from the other. However, the dramatic implications of these choices played our dreadfully (i.e. colors, Stargazer and very little cinematic difference). I don't know what happens to the galaxy now that the Mass Relays are gone. I don't know what happens to Earth or the other Alien races; even the ones that I saved from the brink of extinction or doomed to dust. I don't know what happened to the characters I came to care about over the course of 3 epic games other than some recreation of the beginning of Lost (why the hell are they smiling in all 3 endings). These choices, if fleshed out to their full potention, could be amazing to see in cinematics and a proper epilogue.

Personally, I'm convinced that Star Brat is just trying to manipulate Shepard and is no more divorced from the Reapers motives than Harbinger itself.

We'll just have to wait...

[AlexXIV]

Cypher_CS wrote...

We're not talking about expansion and interference with nature, we're talking about self augmentation through medicine.
The latter has everything to do with out evolution, the former... not so much. Not directly, at least.

Ok another question. Did you support Cerberus and do you think scientists should have any means to advance evolution or mutation in any way possible? Or is there ... like a line you wouldn't cross or wouldn't want to see crossed?

[CmnDwnWrkn]

If people were to naturally evolve to synthesis, then they would do it themselves. They wouldn't use an artifact created by an extinct race to do it.

[PsyrenY]

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok another question. Did you support Cerberus and do you think scientists should have any means to advance evolution or mutation in any way possible? Or is there ... like a line you wouldn't cross or wouldn't want to see crossed?

It's simpler than you're making it out to be.

Using Reaper tech  = bad, because there's no way to co-operate with them under their original programming.
Using the Crucible = good, because we built it, not them, and it modified their programming.

[AlexXIV]

Tigerman123 wrote...

I was just using soul as a metaphor, like Shepard does, that's why it's in air quotes :/ . I agree there's no way for Shepard to know whether the result will be beneficial a priori, because s/he isn't given the requisite info, but we can see from the Joker Edi scene and the Stargazer that life isn't completely unrecognisable either in it's shape or the way people interact. I mean I also dislike the lack of specifics and wonder why you should jump into an energy beam of death on the advice of your recent adversary, but we just have to accept that they're intended to be taken at face value..

Well I personally think the synthesis ending is logic fail and complete BS. That's why it is hard for me to judge on the cutscenes. It should never have been an option. I would much prefer if control and destroy were the only options tbh. I can't really argue on what we see in synthesis. It was my first option because I was curious. But it was ... earthshattering for me to see what they were doing. I have only negative feelings about this one. I can much more sympathise with control or destroy optionists.

[PsyrenY]

Then don't pick Synthesis and let those of us who find the idea appealing do so.

[AlexXIV]

Optimystic_X wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok another question. Did you support Cerberus and do you think scientists should have any means to advance evolution or mutation in any way possible? Or is there ... like a line you wouldn't cross or wouldn't want to see crossed?

It's simpler than you're making it out to be.

Using Reaper tech  = bad, because there's no way to co-operate with them under their original programming.
Using the Crucible = good, because we built it, not them, and it modified their programming.

We use blueprints and nobody knows where they come from. And since we proved that the Catalyst's solution was wrong by finishing it and getting on the Citadel I think chances are that the Reapers invented the Crucible to test their solution. Because that's all the Crusible does. It is not a weapon as we thought. Surprise surprise, epic twist.

[M920CAIN]

People who like the endings are idio-.asd12error1112
No point in making idio;asdaferror11112 change their minds.

[AlexXIV]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Then don't pick Synthesis and let those of us who find the idea appealing do so.

If it would not be the 'perfect' ending I could do so. Or if I was not forced to choose the other two. I said synthesis is the worst, I didn't say the other two are satisfying. Just not as bad.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mai 2012 - 04:08 .

[leeboi2]

TL;DR

Modifié par leeboi2, 03 mai 2012 - 04:18 .

[AlexXIV]

leeboi2 wrote...

TL;DR

Thanks for the input

[PsyrenY]

AlexXIV wrote...
We use blueprints and nobody knows where they come from. And since we proved that the Catalyst's solution was wrong by finishing it and getting on the Citadel I think chances are that the Reapers invented the Crucible to test their solution. Because that's all the Crusible does. It is not a weapon as we thought. Surprise surprise, epic twist.

If it was theirs, explain the following:

1) Why didn't it incorporate the Catalyst from the beginning?
2) Why didn't they build and use it themselves if they really like Synthesis that much?


I do think they may have common origins (i.e. the same race could have designed both Reapers and Crucible) but believe the latter was independent of the former.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 03 mai 2012 - 04:21 .

[humes spork]

Cypher_CS wrote...

We're not talking about expansion and interference with nature, we're talking about self augmentation through medicine.
The latter has everything to do with out evolution, the former... not so much. Not directly, at least.

Actually, it's quite a bit more relevant than you might think. Hell, I can point out two things off the top of my head (the lactase gene and the appendix) that have evolved to match changes and development in the human diet, itself a function of human civilization.

[Cypher_CS]

humes spork wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

We're not talking about expansion and interference with nature, we're talking about self augmentation through medicine.
The latter has everything to do with out evolution, the former... not so much. Not directly, at least.

Actually, it's quite a bit more relevant than you might think. Hell, I can point out two things off the top of my head (the lactase gene and the appendix) that have evolved to match changes and development in the human diet, itself a function of human civilization.

That's natural evolution. An indirect change.
What we're talking about is how if once all diseases were a tool of Natural Selection, today with various drugs and augmentations (Dick Cheney, for example), we fool evolution. Yet it still works.

Any rate, that's not the discussion here.

[Cypher_CS]

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote...


Haha, I guess this is the point that divides us most, as we see it from other sides. But from my point of view there is nothing that shows you interpretation of the Cruicible and Catalyst is correct. Nothing to show that Control was added by this splinter group of a previous cycle, in fact all that we have seen and are told goes against it, or that there was only the destroy option originally, and that the synthesis was only added recently. [/quote]

 [/quote]

Nothing except logic.

We do know, pretty much for a fact, that the Crucible was designed, over cycles, to Destroy the Reapers.
We do know, that there were other groups like Cerberus in previous cycles. One group we know for a fact (in the Prothean cycles), and we know they sabotaged the Crucible in that cycle. We also know, for a fact, that Cerberus was researching, quite heavily, various control technologies - and that it wanted to put their own agents on the Crucible project.
So far so good?

It does not take a big logical leap to assume that Humans aren't the first ones to try this.  But even so, they have succeeded to plant something. Be it in the Crucible itself or through the Citadel, Cerberus's goal was to Control Reapers.
Take a logical leap here - how would you control AIs? Or VIs?
How is it not logical to conclude that the Crucible, connected to the Citadel, is the means to either lift the Kill Switch or the Control Switch?

So far?

Sythesis is the only one not discussed before.

[quote]Leem_0001 wrote... 
In fact, what the starchild says, is that the cruicible changed him and created new possibilities. Plural. Then it shows the three options. This implies that all of these are new. So goes against your theories. It isnt in the game that any splinter group added this option to the crucible - or if it is then could you provide proof? 
[/quote]
Yes, I don't see the problem here.
The Catalyst's (again, just a word taken from Shepard's head, to communicate with him) ONLY solution was to continue the Cycle.
Of course once you connect the Crucible it is now faced with different options. Options it never had before (and it doesn't matter why - it's again the divergent thinking/imagination for AI debate).
The Crucible change it. Created new possibilites. Where's the problem?
It doesn't go againt any theory. All three are new.

[quote]
And Control does only control the Reapers, Starchild makes this clear. 
[/quote]
Don't know how clear this is. I'll need to look at the scene again.

[Cypher_CS]

AlexXIV wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

We're not talking about expansion and interference with nature, we're talking about self augmentation through medicine.
The latter has everything to do with out evolution, the former... not so much. Not directly, at least.

Ok another question. Did you support Cerberus and do you think scientists should have any means to advance evolution or mutation in any way possible? Or is there ... like a line you wouldn't cross or wouldn't want to see crossed?

I'll direct you to the thread I posted here:
http://social.biowar.../index/11786603

Augmentation of Humanity?
I'm for it.
I'm actually a big proponent of the Ousters' solution (Hyperion Cantos - instead of Terraforming planets, Adapting ourselves to new conditions - with XNA this might be possible someday).

My line is when it becomes a crutch - as I discuss in that thread up there (reply there, if you want to enter this debate - this topic is about something else, I think).

[Cypher_CS]

AlexXIV wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ok another question. Did you support Cerberus and do you think scientists should have any means to advance evolution or mutation in any way possible? Or is there ... like a line you wouldn't cross or wouldn't want to see crossed?

It's simpler than you're making it out to be.

Using Reaper tech  = bad, because there's no way to co-operate with them under their original programming.
Using the Crucible = good, because we built it, not them, and it modified their programming.

We use blueprints and nobody knows where they come from. And since we proved that the Catalyst's solution was wrong by finishing it and getting on the Citadel I think chances are that the Reapers invented the Crucible to test their solution. Because that's all the Crusible does. It is not a weapon as we thought. Surprise surprise, epic twist.

We don't prove the solution wrong.
We only show that it will no longer work.
Big difference in the context of these choices and the whole story.

[Cypher_CS]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

ardensia wrote...

I was going to make a big, long post, too, but EternalAmbiguity and Cypher_CS already covered it all. +1 to both of you.

Also, Cypher, you need to write that psych paper that I'm too lazy to write. It's on people's reactions to the end of the ME series in relation to the opinions and worldviews they brought into the game themselves. Since you're both a writer and a psych major, it's better if you do it. I'm just a writer who studies psych as a hobby. 

Huh. Interestingly enough, I'm a writer with a bit of an interest in psych.

Makes for more interesting stories and characters