449 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Okay, that's true.
But the discussion here is solely about that. 
We aren't discussing evolution as a whole, but rather the fact that your still Human, still same species, even with a major change, and not a vicarious one. Is all.

Well, the thing is it's quite silly to stop and pick that particular issue as somehow "playing god" from an evolutionary standpoint, when human civilization (in the non-fiction world) is built upon "playing god" from an evolutionary standpoint in the first place. So, the entire argument stemming from that is a moot point at best, and ignorance or hypocrisy at worst.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 mai 2012 - 09:12 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Picking any one of the endings is basically admitting to the Starchild that transhumanism will not happen without direct intervention, when every other narrative voice in the universe is screaming that we're on the threshold of achieving it on our own terms.

Bullcrap, it doesn't say that at all. The Catalyst says the exact opposite in fact - he believes that Synthesis is inevitable eventually, just that the Crucible will speed it up. It will remove the risk that transhumanism is rendered moot by organic annihilation by synthetics before it can happen (via gray goo etc.)

Then why can't we suggest this? My shepard would have simply said "I'm pretty sure we're on the way to a singularity ourselves right now, I mean we have this ship full of digitized organics, two races working together, why can't you just let us achieve the singularity on our own? Or give us some technology we can choose to use if we want to, to achieve it faster?"

But since Shepard can't make that argument, we have to assume that the game doesn't consider that argument valid. If Shepard could make that argument, and the Catalyst could agree, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the ending would not be terrible. As we stand, the game directly contradicts this idea through Shepard's dumb unthinking acceptance of the premise the Starkid is offering.

And this raises even more questions. If what you're afafraid of is grey goo, are you saying that the green beam somehow prevents that from ever happening in the future? I don't see how the green beam has any effect whatsoever on whether or not grey goo would happen.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 09:19 .

[PsyrenY]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Then why can't we suggest this? My shepard would have simply said "I'm pretty sure we're on the way to a singularity ourselves right now, I mean we have this ship full of digitized organics, two races working together, why can't you just let us achieve the singularity on our own? Or give us some technology we can choose to use if we want to, to achieve it faster?"

But since Shepard can't make that argument, we have to assume that the game doesn't consider that argument valid. If Shepard could make that argument, and the Catalyst could agree, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the ending would not be terrible. As we stand, the game directly contradicts this idea through Shepard's dumb unthinking acceptance of the premise the Starkid is offering.

What good would arguing with it have done? Say you can't convince it. You've just made yourself hoarse and wasted valuable time for nothing.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote... 

And this raises even more questions. If what you're afafraid of is grey goo, are you saying that the green beam somehow prevents that from ever happening in the future? I don't see how the green beam has any effect whatsoever on whether or not grey goo would happen.

That was just one example of "synthetics annihilating organics" - there are others.
 As for how Synthesis prevents that - a species with the mental capabilities of AI does not need to create AI. 
Example - if the Quarians had the mental agility to optimize the Geth themselves, they wouldn't have needed the self-optimization heuristic that led to their sapience.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Then why can't we suggest this? My shepard would have simply said "I'm pretty sure we're on the way to a singularity ourselves right now, I mean we have this ship full of digitized organics, two races working together, why can't you just let us achieve the singularity on our own? Or give us some technology we can choose to use if we want to, to achieve it faster?"

But since Shepard can't make that argument, we have to assume that the game doesn't consider that argument valid. If Shepard could make that argument, and the Catalyst could agree, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the ending would not be terrible. As we stand, the game directly contradicts this idea through Shepard's dumb unthinking acceptance of the premise the Starkid is offering.

What good would arguing with it have done? Say you can't convince it. You've just made yourself hoarse and wasted valuable time for nothing.

I... what? Either you completely don't understand what I'm trying to say, or you're backpedaling furiously.  I will try to be more specific and clarify my line of reasoning.

The Catalyst says that the only possible solutions are to destroy all synthetics, control the reapers, or force synthesis on everyone.

As the viewpoint character, you cannot question or contradict this by introducing the idea that transhumanism could arise independently.

Thus, neither Shepard nor the game contradicts the idea that forced synthesis is the only solution. Shepard and the game are admitting that what the Catalyst has said - that forced synthesis is one of the only ways to solve the problem - is accurate.

So... my original quote rationally follows:
"Picking any one of the endings is basically admitting to the Starchild that transhumanism will not happen without direct intervention, when every other narrative voice in the universe is screaming that we're on the threshold of achieving it on our own terms. "

Shepard, and the game itself, chooses not to contradict the Catalyst's idea that the imposition of transhumanistic synthesis from the outside is one of the only possible solutions. This gives the narrative no means by which to express the validity of a voluntary movement towards transhumanism.

Corollary: Either the game is stating that voluntary transhumanism is not a valid solution or Shepard is being forced to submit himself to the machinations of a monster who refuses to accept the valid solution of voluntary transhumanism.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 09:53 .

[PsyrenY]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


The Catalyst says that the only possible solutions are to destroy all synthetics, control the reapers, or force synthesis on everyone.

As the viewpoint character, you cannot question or contradict this by introducing the idea that transhumanism could arise independently.

Thus, neither Shepard nor the game contradicts the idea that forced synthesis is the only solution. Shepard and the game are admitting that what the Catalyst has said - that forced synthesis is one of the only ways to solve the problem - is accurate.

I do understand what you're saying. But from the Catalyst's perspective, even if independent transhumanism is possible, it likely won't arise in time to prevent the organics' destruction at synthetic hands.

EDI tells you as much; only one race in the galaxy in all this time has mostly accepted transhumanism, the Salarians. All the others are still in fierce debate over it.

Now, do I totally agree with the Catalyst? Not at all, I think we could get to Synthesis on our own without the Crucible if the Reapers left us alone long enough. Would I have wanted to argue this point to him? Yes, absolutely. But if he refused to listen, I'd be right back at square one.

[MintyCool]

I feel this video answers most of your questions mate: www.youtube.com/watch

Checkmate.

[Joeybsmooth4]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


The Catalyst says that the only possible solutions are to destroy all synthetics, control the reapers, or force synthesis on everyone.

As the viewpoint character, you cannot question or contradict this by introducing the idea that transhumanism could arise independently.

Thus, neither Shepard nor the game contradicts the idea that forced synthesis is the only solution. Shepard and the game are admitting that what the Catalyst has said - that forced synthesis is one of the only ways to solve the problem - is accurate.

I do understand what you're saying. But from the Catalyst's perspective, even if independent transhumanism is possible, it likely won't arise in time to prevent the organics' destruction at synthetic hands.

EDI tells you as much; only one race in the galaxy in all this time has mostly accepted transhumanism, the Salarians. All the others are still in fierce debate over it.

Now, do I totally agree with the Catalyst? Not at all, I think we could get to Synthesis on our own without the Crucible if the Reapers left us alone long enough. Would I have wanted to argue this point to him? Yes, absolutely. But if he refused to listen, I'd be right back at square one.

But at least you would have tried.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Optimystic_X wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


The Catalyst says that the only possible solutions are to destroy all synthetics, control the reapers, or force synthesis on everyone.

As the viewpoint character, you cannot question or contradict this by introducing the idea that transhumanism could arise independently.

Thus, neither Shepard nor the game contradicts the idea that forced synthesis is the only solution. Shepard and the game are admitting that what the Catalyst has said - that forced synthesis is one of the only ways to solve the problem - is accurate.

I do understand what you're saying. But from the Catalyst's perspective, even if independent transhumanism is possible, it likely won't arise in time to prevent the organics' destruction at synthetic hands.

EDI tells you as much; only one race in the galaxy in all this time has mostly accepted transhumanism, the Salarians. All the others are still in fierce debate over it.

Now, do I totally agree with the Catalyst? Not at all, I think we could get to Synthesis on our own without the Crucible if the Reapers left us alone long enough. Would I have wanted to argue this point to him? Yes, absolutely. But if he refused to listen, I'd be right back at square one.

The fact that these "solutions" are determined by the whims of a monster and not by the necessities of the situation are what make the ending so profoundly dissatisfying.

It's like if, at the end of Diehard, John McClane faces Hans Gruber, and Gruber forces him to pick between killing a puppy, letting Hans Gruber go, or poisoning everyone in the building. While McClain has a choice in that situation, Gruber has all the power. It's the madman who is setting the agenda, so the hero can't win.

That kind of ending is always going to be unsatisfying, especially in a game where you are invited to invest in and identify with the protagonist. All the power at the end of Mass Effect rests in the hands of the Starchild. Shepard is only picking one thing on a list of random choices all of which were deliberately balanced by the Starkid to be in his favor.

"You can do what I want while wearing red, while wearing green, or while wearing blue... but you must do what I want."

Edit: now, it can be argued that "red" is not what the starchild wants, but it's still an option he offers you. He could just pilot the reapers into the sun himself, but chooses not to... thus the requirement that you destroy all synthetics is part of his specific demands. Again, you are bowing to circumstances he created, not to the actual necessities of the situation.

This is why the ending is badly written. It's the ending to a story about a hero who is always powerlessly being manipulated by the universe, not the ending to a story about a hero who has true agency. If the rest of the story were about Shepard never getting to do what he really wanted to and having no real power, but instead dancing on the machinations of an unfeeling, actively malevolent force, then this would be thematically consistent.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 mai 2012 - 11:45 .

[Calamity]

Eire Icon wrote...

Calamity wrote...

I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics?

Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieves nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how

This still does not make sense to me. Even though organics would build synthetics again, it would be the most expedient route to go. We all know they changed the original ending so I guess it wasnt thought out all the way. I will leave it at that...

[ardensia]

 

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I'm too far behind to discuss this appropriately, but good job Cypher, please continue.

 

This. Good job Cypher... and others. I don't have NEARLY the patience to debate through... what are we at now? 13 pages? If I have to repeat myself twice, I usually get bored and wander off to find a burrito.

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.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THAT PAPER NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN!!!

JShepppp wrote...

A bunch of awesome stuff again, 'cause that's what he does.

 

[Noatz]

Calling pro enders out to defend actual points made with logic doesn't work. Its like callng a vampire out to contest garlic or a crucifix.

The best you'll get is some troll saying how easy the points are to refute but without actually doing so (because it cannot be done).

[Vlta]

Even if if people can or do defend the ending and the theme of machine vs man. It's still one of the most boring and over used themes out there. Matrix and Terminator are two of the big ones that have already used it. I mean really why would a machine care to wipe out organics especially if they were far more advanced then humans and other organic races, I can't imagine the logic of why they'd even give them the time of day let alone start a crusade to wipe out all life. That's more a human approach to things...

[Cypher_CS]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Picking any one of the endings is basically admitting to the Starchild that transhumanism will not happen without direct intervention, when every other narrative voice in the universe is screaming that we're on the threshold of achieving it on our own terms.

Bullcrap, it doesn't say that at all. The Catalyst says the exact opposite in fact - he believes that Synthesis is inevitable eventually, just that the Crucible will speed it up. It will remove the risk that transhumanism is rendered moot by organic annihilation by synthetics before it can happen (via gray goo etc.)

Then why can't we suggest this? My shepard would have simply said "I'm pretty sure we're on the way to a singularity ourselves right now, I mean we have this ship full of digitized organics, two races working together, why can't you just let us achieve the singularity on our own? Or give us some technology we can choose to use if we want to, to achieve it faster?"

But since Shepard can't make that argument, we have to assume that the game doesn't consider that argument valid. If Shepard could make that argument, and the Catalyst could agree, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the ending would not be terrible. As we stand, the game directly contradicts this idea through Shepard's dumb unthinking acceptance of the premise the Starkid is offering.

And this raises even more questions. If what you're afafraid of is grey goo, are you saying that the green beam somehow prevents that from ever happening in the future? I don't see how the green beam has any effect whatsoever on whether or not grey goo would happen.

And again we return to the problem of more conversation.
To that I fully agree. Yes, it should have been talked about more.
Not necessarily before the ending - but definitely during a discourse between Shepard and Starkid.
Read my Bolded comments on Page 2 of this thread.

[Cypher_CS]

I love it how people enter a topic on page 12 and making it seems as if nothing has been reached in the discourse.

Nyoka wrote...

I think the synthetics against organics issue came out of nowhere. Gamble tweeted that it was a theme of the series, quote, "organics vs geth, organics vs reapers", but that doesn't really work. First, reapers aren't purely synthetics, that's the whole point about them. Second, we have characters that contradict that idea. Legion says the geth oppose the reapers and that cooperation furthers mutual goals, so "organics vs geth" became obsolete in ME2. And in ME3 things go beyond that, with the geth acquiring fleshy cellular structure and Legion acquiring individuality and EDI's disturbing obsession with becoming human and finding herself a boyfriend. Now it's free races in the galaxy against reapers, that's all. What materials the races are made of is irrelevant.

Important note - Synthetics != Mechanics.

Nyoka wrote... 
It's pretty dumb to spend a game encouraging EDI to date Joker and then pick destroy because clearly synthetics are evil. Just no. I have my own reasons to kill the geth (we're roleplaying after all), but the reason space kid gives you at the end to do it is definitely at odds with the rest of the game.

Yes, it is.
That's why, probably, anyone who actually CHOSE to encourage such things, did NOT pick Destroy.
Well, most....

Nyoka wrote... 
Before ME3 was released, there were many speculation threads, and one of the things I thought they would do is to make the earth hostage in a choice, as in if you want to destroy the reapers, the earth is going to be destroyed as well. It was fitting to the tweets that kept coming about how super grim ME3 was going to be (search the forums for a thread called "Let me save them"). And in my opinion it still suits ME3 more, since the citadel is in orbit around the earth. The explosion would damage it.

That does happen, depending on low EMS.

Nyoka wrote... 
Organics vs synthetics worked in ME1 because the geth were simply mooks to be killed, but given ME2 and the first 99% of ME3, organics vs synthetics no longer works as a theme and for this reason making synthetics the drawback of the destroy ending doesn't make sense.

It still works, depending on YOUR CHOICES.
Read comments made on Page 2 and onward.

[Cypher_CS]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

The fact that these "solutions" are determined by the whims of a monster and not by the necessities of the situation are what make the ending so profoundly dissatisfying.

We've discussed this. They aren't determind by it.
They were determined by the cyclic creation and evolution of the Crucible.

 

CulturalGeekGirl wrote... 
"You can do what I want while wearing red, while wearing green, or while wearing blue... but you must do what I want."

Edit: now, it can be argued that "red" is not what the starchild wants, but it's still an option he offers you. He could just pilot the reapers into the sun himself, but chooses not to... thus the requirement that you destroy all synthetics is part of his specific demands. Again, you are bowing to circumstances he created, not to the actual necessities of the situation.

It's not about doing what it wants.
It's not of it's creation.
It can't send them into the sun, because that way the solution no longer works.
Neither with Destroy, mind you, but that's not it's choice to make.
None of it is the Catalyst's choice.
Not even Synthesis. For the sole reason it can't make that choice.
It, basically, lost. It can only "plea" for Shepard to make a choice that will not go against his Solution - since he still believes in the Problem.

[Cypher_CS]

Calamity wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

Calamity wrote...

I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics?

Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieves nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how

This still does not make sense to me. Even though organics would build synthetics again, it would be the most expedient route to go. We all know they changed the original ending so I guess it wasnt thought out all the way. I will leave it at that...

How is expediency relevant?

[Cypher_CS]

Noatz wrote...

Calling pro enders out to defend actual points made with logic doesn't work. Its like callng a vampire out to contest garlic or a crucifix.

The best you'll get is some troll saying how easy the points are to refute but without actually doing so (because it cannot be done).

Yay!
Sure, come in on Page 12, dismiss everything that's been said for 11 pages and walk away.

If that's not the definition of trolling, I don't know what is.

[Calamity]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Calamity wrote...

Eire Icon wrote...

Calamity wrote...

I know it has been said before but I just want to reiterate. If the god child thing was so concerned about organics being wiped out by synthetics, why didnt his solution instead include wiping out the synthetics?

Because once Organics evolve to a certain point technologically, wiping out syntethics achieves nothing. If you destroy all toasters in the world, organics will just build more toasters, they already pocess the know how

This still does not make sense to me. Even though organics would build synthetics again, it would be the most expedient route to go. We all know they changed the original ending so I guess it wasnt thought out all the way. I will leave it at that...

How is expediency relevant?

I would think that machines would logically go the most expedient route. If they have instructions to ensure that organics do not build synthetics to wipe out all organics. It just doesnt make sense to me with those instructions that they would then wipe out organics. Yes, I understand that they dont wipe out all organics...but why wipe them out at all? If it isnt instructions(code) and it is just what they do... Why would they care about organics at all.

As VIta said:

Vlta wrote...



Even if if people can or do defend the ending and
the theme of machine vs man. It's still one of the most boring and over used
themes out there. Matrix and Terminator are two of the big ones that have
already used it. I mean really why would a machine care to wipe out organics
especially if they were far more advanced then humans and other organic races,
I can't imagine the logic of why they'd even give them the time of day let
alone start a crusade to wipe out all life. That's more a human approach to things...

Edit: spelling

Modifié par Calamity, 04 mai 2012 - 04:07 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

All of these are incredibly, amusingly easy to attack, but I don't really have the time. I'm playing Myst IV!

Ah yes, the "I'm so smart and above you that I don't want to wast my super important time explaining to you why you are so intellectually inferior to me" ...defense.

Yes, flawless logic, that. It doesn't make you sound like a pretentiously condescending and arrogant person with nothing but a more finely worded puerile "NUH-UH!!!".

No, not at all....<_<

Good grief...

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Hey, that was actually easy, what do I win?

You don't even know what a debate is and you expect to win?

He didn't say rate my arguements. Hell I could argue against some of them but I am an anti ender. And the fact that pro-enders can't even if it is possible speaks even louder than the fact that they are simply wrong about things. They also couldn't make a point if they were right. That's laughable dude.

Sorry Alex (not really), but in debates the reliance on fallacies negates the argument.

You don't argue against a fallacy: it's a already internally flawed.

[Dean_the_Young]

shurikenmanta wrote...

Torrible wrote...

shurikenmanta wrote...

ardensia wrote...
((Note: The term "pro-enders" has been placed in quotes because a lot of people who are more in the middle ground are getting tossed in this category simply because we don't find the endings incinerator-worthy. Sucks for us, I guess.))

Quoted for truth and sanity

+1 Unfortunately, people who are actually pro-patience, pro-neutrality or anti-petulance get lumped together with pro-enders. Eventually it became commonly accepted that a pro-ender is anyone who disagrees with an anti-ender. I used to call myself a neutral-ender but then I took a BSN arrow to the knee.

Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been accused of being a pro-ender - like I'm a Communist in the 50s or something. They tend to go rather quiet when I tell them I dislike the ending but hate hysteria

Hell, I got a reputation for being pro-Cerberus because I kept quibbling against common misconceptions.

Eventually you just accept it.

[Cypher_CS]

Calamity, the Zero Law that Isaac Asimov created eventually created the Foundation.
A system where humanity is controlled by a Big Brother (Second Foundation), more or less. Not masters of their own true destiny (Mule being the one factor they couldn't predict or see).

It's not necessarily Synths vs. Organics. It's just Order vs. Chaos.
And even Chaos Theory states that there is an order in the universe - cold mathematical order.

All it takes is one man to create an unshackled AI without any such restrictions. And it won't have any emotional motivations - only logical ones. To bring order.

[Ender Ghost]

I'm pro Ender... but I think you're talking about a different ender...

[Sisterofshane]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Calamity, the Zero Law that Isaac Asimov created eventually created the Foundation.
A system where humanity is controlled by a Big Brother (Second Foundation), more or less. Not masters of their own true destiny (Mule being the one factor they couldn't predict or see).

It's not necessarily Synths vs. Organics. It's just Order vs. Chaos.
And even Chaos Theory states that there is an order in the universe - cold mathematical order.

All it takes is one man to create an unshackled AI without any such restrictions. And it won't have any emotional motivations - only logical ones. To bring order.

Isn't this what people do anyways?  Try to bring order to their lives?  The horror doesn't come from when it is a purely logical imposition (ie, one must set their alarm clock in order to wake up in time for work) or an emotional one (buying someone a gift in order to facilitate friendship), but rather when one tries to impose order upon somebody else.

Which, in the Mass Effect world, it seems to me like the Synthetics we encounter are the only ones in the galaxy who DON'T actively impose their wills upon one another (unless you count the Catalyst, which I don't because I suspect he may not be synthetic).