233 réponses à ce sujet

[Ring1]

The worst thing about the synthesist ending is that it implies there is an apex of evolution. All of the endings have downsides. I imagine that the ends were designed to appeal to different people in different ways.
I
As for Wrex being like Hitler, well I don't know if Wrex planned a fire at the Reichstag to declare a state of emergency when he was Chancellor of Germany. Maybe you were referring to Otto Von Bismarck about the unification of Germany. While I do understand that Germans were the largest minority in Europe following the First World War, and many of the places Hitler invaded first had large segments of Germans I would not say he "unified" them.

Modifié par Ring1, 04 mai 2012 - 08:01 .

[Wabajakka]

The Angry One wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

/thread

Loved that part. Brought Legion and Tali on that mission my first time just to see the interaction between them. Was amazed when that was said.

Edit: Oh yea.

/thread lol

Modifié par Orange Tee, 04 mai 2012 - 05:30 .

[PsyrenY]

balance5050 wrote...

Written by Mac Walters in early development, handed to Geoff Keighly in early summer, the "Brave New World" part is on the lower left. One theme of "A Brave New World" is using technology to control people.

 

Actually, it's "using technology to make people docile and complacent" which isn't the same thing, but anyway.

Besides the fact that merely writing "brave new world" does not necessarily invoke Huxley (he didn't even capitalize it), he also links it to "End of the First Matrix." If you recall it, this scene (Neo both understands and overcomes the system, and issues a challenge to the machines) has absolutely nothing to do with any theme from Huxley's Brave New World, in which the people become unknowing/unquestioning slaves to the system.

So thank you for that context, because I now believe it does not mean in the slightest what you and Taboo think it means. 

[balance5050]

Optimystic_X wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Written by Mac Walters in early development, handed to Geoff Keighly in early summer, the "Brave New World" part is on the lower left. One theme of "A Brave New World" is using technology to control people.

 

Actually, it's "using technology to make people docile and complacent" which isn't the same thing, but anyway.

Besides the fact that merely writing "brave new world" does not necessarily invoke Huxley (he didn't even capitalize it), he also links it to "End of the First Matrix." If you recall it, this scene (Neo both understands and overcomes the system, and issues a challenge to the machines) has absolutely nothing to do with any theme from Huxley's Brave New World, in which the people become unknowing/unquestioning slaves to the system.

So thank you for that context, because I now believe it does not mean in the slightest what you and Taboo think it means. 

"docile and complacent" -

sounds like Shepard in the Gaurdian chamber.

He's not saying the first Matrix has anything to do with a Brave New World, he's saying the "ending of the first Matrix" has to do with the end of Mass Effect, as does the entire sheet.

[PsyrenY]

balance5050 wrote...

He's not saying the first Matrix has anything to do with a Brave New World, he's saying the "ending of the first Matrix" has to do with the end of Mass Effect, as does the entire sheet.

Then why is there only an arrow connecting "brave new world" and "end of the first Matrix?" If it referred to the whole sheet, such a connector wouldn't be necessary.

[balance5050]

Optimystic_X wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

He's not saying the first Matrix has anything to do with a Brave New World, he's saying the "ending of the first Matrix" has to do with the end of Mass Effect, as does the entire sheet.

Then why is there only an arrow connecting "brave new world" and "end of the first Matrix?" If it referred to the whole sheet, such a connector wouldn't be necessary.

An arrow and a + sign. Like saying "the ending of the first Matrix AND a Brave New World"

[Sisterofshane]

Optimystic_X wrote...


Actually, it's "using technology to make people docile and complacent" which isn't the same thing, but anyway.

Besides the fact that merely writing "brave new world" does not necessarily invoke Huxley (he didn't even capitalize it), he also links it to "End of the First Matrix." If you recall it, this scene (Neo both understands and overcomes the system, and issues a challenge to the machines) has absolutely nothing to do with any theme from Huxley's Brave New World, in which the people become unknowing/unquestioning slaves to the system.

So thank you for that context, because I now believe it does not mean in the slightest what you and Taboo think it means. 

A quick Google search of the phrase "brave new world" turns up interesting results...it seems the phrase is credited with the Free Mason's and New World Order - you know, the people who are obsessed with controlling everything to create a "utopia"?

Just because Aldous Huxley used the phrase as a title of his book to be satirical to the original meaning does not mean that the theme as the producers of ME3 meant it is lost as a point of contention.  Ironically, they wanted the Synthesis ending to be relatable to some sort of Utopia - and we all know that Huxley believed that the concept of Utopia was flawed from the start.  Utopia requires the sacrifice of the very essence of human nature - the ability to determine for ourselves and define our own "hapiness".

And this is exactly what Shepard does in the Synthesis ending - he/she sacrifices the Galaxy's ability to determine for itself what it's fate should be by forcing a premature, predetermined "evolution" upon every soul.  He/She does this in the name of "peace".

They
that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.  ~Benjamin Franklin

And sadly, the endings to ME3 give us neither.

[PsyrenY]

balance5050 wrote...

An arrow and a + sign. Like saying "the ending of the first Matrix AND a Brave New World"

1) Again, he did not capitalize it - you are the one trying to draw that parallel merely to fit your interpretation of a piece of paper.

2) That still does not link the entirety of the paper, just those two terms. 

Sisterofshane wrote...

A quick Google search of the phrase "brave new world" turns up interesting results...it seems the phrase is credited with the Free Mason's and New World Order - you know, the people who are obsessed with controlling everything to create a "utopia"?

Meaningless. If you Google "big brother," you'll get a reality show first, 1984 references somewhere further down the page, a mention or two of a charity, and no reference at all to the familial relationship that the phrase actually meant before either of those two existed.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 04 mai 2012 - 06:37 .

[ArchDuck]

ArchDuck wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...
I believe what people, myself included, are trying to say is that there is no way of knowing what this "synthesis" does. It doesn't have any obvious improvements, it is based off of junk science (even for the Mass Effect universe), it does cause harm, doesn't take out the enemy that we have been fighting since day one and it is ethically unsound.

ArchDuck wrote...

Sythesis is ethically unsound.

Unless you or the catalyst has precognition (can see the future with 100% accuracy) then you don't know if these changes are for better or worse.

Is it OK to gamble the future of all life (that we know of) on information presented by a being that does not understand DNA or evolution? And on top of that, do it without asking or informing people it will happen?

Can you even imagine the panic that would take place in self aware and other species? Whole species would die out because their mates look sick and are unsuitable as far as their instincts (from evolution) are telling them. Not to mention the rioting and mass suicides that would happen. How many beings would kill themselves because they thought they were being turned into husks?

If you think it is fine then you wouldn't mind someone walking up to you tomorrow and jabbing you in the arm with a syringe full of a unknown retrovirus? Oh and when you ask what the hell they are doing they respond "It will rewrite your DNA to make you the final evolution of life".

If you say that's all good, then ...

I would love to hear a pro-sythesis counter to this.

The only one I have heard so far is that the green wave also rewrites the beings it changes so that they understand said changes or that it controls them until they 'calm down' so they don't hurt themselves or others.

But then anyone presenting that quickly ignores it or retracts it to avoid the logical next question of "if it changes the person's mind then doesn't it have the potential to be advanced indoctrination or make them not themselves?".

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Read these other responses I've been making, it pretty much answers the same questions you made.

I read through them. I think maybe one was answered. Mind trying again?

[balance5050]

Optimystic_X wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

An arrow and a + sign. Like saying "the ending of the first Matrix AND a Brave New World"

1) Again, he did not capitalize it - you are the one trying to draw that parallel merely to fit your interpretation of a piece of paper.

2) That still does not link the entirety of the paper, just those two terms. 

Seems like you have been reduced to arguing semantics, seems like my work is done here.

[PsyrenY]

ArchDuck wrote...


I would love to hear a pro-sythesis counter to this.

The only one I have heard so far is that the green wave also rewrites the beings it changes so that they understand said changes or that it controls them until they 'calm down' so they don't hurt themselves or others.

But then anyone presenting that quickly ignores it or retracts it to avoid the logical next question of "if it changes the person's mind then doesn't it have the potential to be advanced indoctrination or make them not themselves?".

EDI and Joker seem to have understood what happened instantly. The claims of mass panic seem pretty unfounded.

And even if some people freak out, you're talking about a galaxy that adapted pretty damn quickly to genocidal space cthulhu rolling through. Have a little faith.

balance5050 wrote...

Seems like you have been reduced to arguing semantics, seems like my work is done here.

If you're trying to read the author's mind based on a piece of paper, then yes I'm going to point out all the myriad ways in which your clairvoyance is fallible. If you don't like it, make sounder arguments.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 04 mai 2012 - 06:42 .

[Sisterofshane]

Optimystic_X wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

An arrow and a + sign. Like saying "the ending of the first Matrix AND a Brave New World"

1) Again, he did not capitalize it - you are the one trying to draw that parallel merely to fit your interpretation of a piece of paper.

2) That still does not link the entirety of the paper, just those two terms. 

Sisterofshane wrote...

A quick Google search of the phrase "brave new world" turns up interesting results...it seems the phrase is credited with the Free Mason's and New World Order - you know, the people who are obsessed with controlling everything to create a "utopia"?

Meaningless. If you Google "big brother," you'll get a reality show first, 1984 references somewhere further down the page, a mention or two of a charity, and no reference at all to the familial relationship that the phrase actually meant before either of those two existed.

Yup, let's forget everything about searching the internet that has ever made sense.  I didn't just type in brave new world and pick the first link on the page.  I investigated, reworded the search phrase once or twice to find the "origin" of the phrase.

Oh, and forget all about the second paragraph of my post that made the search relevent.  Ignorance is bliss.

[PsyrenY]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Yup, let's forget everything about searching the internet that has ever made sense.  I didn't just type in brave new world and pick the first link on the page.  I investigated, reworded the search phrase once or twice to find the "origin" of the phrase.

If it's the origin of Huxley's title you wanted, the wikipedia article (and the Shakespeare line contained within) could have saved you a lot of time.

Sisterofshane wrote... 
Oh, and forget all about the second paragraph of my post that made the search relevent.  Ignorance is bliss.

You mean the concept that Utopia is a lie?
If the game wanted to portray Synthesis that way - as a false ideal/idyll - it easily could have. Joker and EDI's simple contentment was anything but.

[Bill Casey]

The Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. Triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as the consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being.

[ArchDuck]

Optimystic_X wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...


I would love to hear a pro-sythesis counter to this.

The only one I have heard so far is that the green wave also rewrites the beings it changes so that they understand said changes or that it controls them until they 'calm down' so they don't hurt themselves or others.

But then anyone presenting that quickly ignores it or retracts it to avoid the logical next question of "if it changes the person's mind then doesn't it have the potential to be advanced indoctrination or make them not themselves?".

EDI and Joker seem to have understood what happened instantly. The claims of mass panic seem pretty unfounded.

And even if some people freak out, you're talking about a galaxy that adapted pretty damn quickly to genocidal space cthulhu rolling through. Have a little faith.

Sorry but I don't have "faith" as it is just wishful thinking. Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

And also, all those non-intelligent species would just grow a brain and understand the what happened? Or are their instincts no longer applicable? If they aren't then they aren't the same creatures. If they are then at least some of them will not recognize others of their species as healthy mates (extinction through lack of breeding) or they might try to destroy the perceived sickly looking members of the species (extinction through unintend self genocide). After all there are species on earth, where if you made them all green and glowy, this would occur.
And speaking of green and glowy, what about all the predators and prey? Nocturnal creatures can forget about blending in with the dark.
Species went extinct, saying none did is a copout and illogical unless you add more and more layers to the space magic.

Why would everyone just understand? Their personal experiences, knowledge, personality types and world view play no part in how they react? Everyone reacts the same?

Some would say I am thinking about this too hard. I say the creators of this ending didn't think hard enough.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 04 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[balance5050]

Bill Casey wrote...

The Architect: The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. Triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as the consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being.

I always liked that part, humans simply can't be satisfied, even in a perfect world.

[PsyrenY]

ArchDuck wrote...

Sorry but I don't have "faith" as it is just wishful thinking. Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Except there IS material evidence. See all the not-panicking EDI and Joker are doing? Just look at them keep their marbles all over the place. It's absolute sanity, I tell you.

ArchDuck wrote... 
And also, all those non-intelligent species would just grow a brain and understand the what happened? Or are their instincts no longer applicable?

Who cares what a cow would think of Synthesis?

ArchDuck wrote...  
And speaking of green and glowy, what about all the predators and prey? Nocturnal creatures can forget about blending in with the dark.

Assuming they even need to eat anymore, but anyway I agree with you - too much is left vague.
I merely see no reason to assume the negative as a default.

ArchDuck wrote...  
Species went extinct, saying none did is a copout and illogical unless you add more and more layers to the space magic.

And this is based on....?
And as long as the major players don't go extinct I don't care about pyjaks and yahg.

ArchDuck wrote...  
Why would everyone just understand? Their personal experiences, knowledge, personality types and world view play no part in how they react? Everyone reacts the same?

Ah, so you agree it preserves diversity 
No, I'm not claiming that every single individual would embrace it. But I think the "freak-outs" would be a minority, because the ones prone to lethal levels of panic likely died during the Reaper invasion anyway.

ArchDuck wrote...  
Some would say I am thinking about this too hard. I say the creators of this ending didn't think hard enough.

Those aren't mutually exclusive...

[OblivionDawn]

ArchDuck wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...
I believe what people, myself included, are trying to say is that there is no way of knowing what this "synthesis" does. It doesn't have any obvious improvements, it is based off of junk science (even for the Mass Effect universe), it does cause harm, doesn't take out the enemy that we have been fighting since day one and it is ethically unsound.

ArchDuck wrote...

Sythesis is ethically unsound.

Unless you or the catalyst has precognition (can see the future with 100% accuracy) then you don't know if these changes are for better or worse.

Is it OK to gamble the future of all life (that we know of) on information presented by a being that does not understand DNA or evolution? And on top of that, do it without asking or informing people it will happen?

Can you even imagine the panic that would take place in self aware and other species? Whole species would die out because their mates look sick and are unsuitable as far as their instincts (from evolution) are telling them. Not to mention the rioting and mass suicides that would happen. How many beings would kill themselves because they thought they were being turned into husks?

If you think it is fine then you wouldn't mind someone walking up to you tomorrow and jabbing you in the arm with a syringe full of a unknown retrovirus? Oh and when you ask what the hell they are doing they respond "It will rewrite your DNA to make you the final evolution of life".

If you say that's all good, then ...

I would love to hear a pro-sythesis counter to this.

Why? Your argument is so full of speculation and logical fallacy that no one really thinks it's worth the time to construct a counter-argument.

Can you even imagine the panic that would take place in self aware and
other species? Whole species would die out because their mates look sick
and are unsuitable as far as their instincts (from evolution) are
telling them. Not to mention the rioting and mass suicides that would
happen

Lol, do you really think that's a sound argument? Have you even seen the synthesis ending? No one starts losing their **** because they start glowing green.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 04 mai 2012 - 08:05 .

[soapmode]

Incidentally, it's another Miranda who speaks the line 'brave new world', when she first spots the group of drunken sailors marooned on her island. This is clear indication that in the original ending Joker crash lands because he's DUI.

[PsyrenY]

soapmode wrote...

Incidentally, it's another Miranda who speaks the line 'brave new world', when she first spots the group of drunken sailors marooned on her island. This is clear indication that in the original ending Joker crash lands because he's DUI.

Intoxication Theory ftw

[Mylia Stenetch]

Sisterofshane wrote...
Yup, let's forget everything about searching the internet that has ever made sense.  I didn't just type in brave new world and pick the first link on the page.  I investigated, reworded the search phrase once or twice to find the "origin" of the phrase.

Oh, and forget all about the second paragraph of my post that made the search relevent.  Ignorance is bliss.

I decided to seach brave new world on google and my first hit linked me to the album Brave New World by Iron Maiden. So looking into this Eddie is really the Catalyst and Shepard is blasting our epic metal music cause he is Bruce Dickenson. I can live with that.

[Reth Shepherd]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Can you even imagine the panic that would take place in self aware and
other species? Whole species would die out because their mates look sick
and are unsuitable as far as their instincts (from evolution) are
telling them. Not to mention the rioting and mass suicides that would
happen

Lol, do you really think that's a sound argument? Have you even seen the synthesis ending? No one starts losing their **** because they start glowing green.

Correct, they don't. But why? No one knew this was coming. They were fighting a war against hybrid organic/synthetic creatures only moments ago and now suddenly THEY are part synthetic. You'd think at least someone would have a panicked meltdown because they think they're being indoctrinated/huckified, and yet no one does. (I'd bring up the fact that they should at least be upset about the crash, ESPECIALLY Joker, but since that part goes across the ending(s), it would seem to be just a piece of bad writing.) They seem peaceful, with big serene smiles. No one is even looking themselves over to see what these new parts are. Quite frankly, that says to me that the changes are not just physical, and that they extend to the brain as well. Altered? Controlled? We don't know, all we can see is that they are not reacting to something they should by rights be reacting to.

Moreover, mass Indoctrination would actually be a VERY elegant solution to the 'problem', if one believes that the Star Kid is telling the truth as it sees it. If the problem is organics and synthetics killing one another and the ultimate solution is to hybridize them (which I will point out that the Reapers are ALREADY hybridized), why does that work? Look at humans. We run around picking on each other for far fewer anatomical differences than having spikes or being made out of metal. On a personal note: one of my greatest childhood shames is picking on my younger, red-headed sister, for no other reason THAN that red hair. (I have since apologized, but can't wholly make up for what I did.) We tend to create an 'us vs them', and simply giving everyone machine parts won't change that. Further, later evolution (evolution is simply change over time. Unless Synthesis prevents ALL future change, there will eventually be evolutionary changes) runs the risk of a species either adapting to become less reliant on the technological parts, or altering to use them in ways that were never intended. Chaos continues. But if everyone THINKS the same, then the problem goes away. Easiest way to do this, and to ensure that personal experiences or evolution doesn't destroy the 'everyone thinks the same' solution? Puppet masters. The Reapers monitor all thoughts from above and take action if problematic thoughts arise. Or, since there are a LOT of people in the galaxy, the Reapers simply rule from above, and like husks, all lower units take instructions from above and relay situational issues from below. The fact that Reapers already huskify 'lower' life forms proves that they have no moral objections to this solution, and to their way of thinking this solution it is elegant and effective.

[PsyrenY]

Synthesis isn't meant to stop organic-organic conflicts. The Catalyst doesn't care about those. So conflict with each other for "anatomical differences" and picking on your sister or whatever really aren't relevant to his goals.

[ArchDuck]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Who cares what a cow would think of Synthesis?

ArchDuck wrote...  
And speaking of green and glowy, what about all the predators and prey? Nocturnal creatures can forget about blending in with the dark.

Assuming they even need to eat anymore, but anyway I agree with you - too much is left vague.
I merely see no reason to assume the negative as a default.

ArchDuck wrote...  
Species went extinct, saying none did is a copout and illogical unless you add more and more layers to the space magic.

And this is based on....?
And as long as the major players don't go extinct I don't care about pyjaks and yahg.

ArchDuck wrote...  
Some would say I am thinking about this too hard. I say the creators of this ending didn't think hard enough.

Those aren't mutually exclusive...

You are clear about your opinion and though we dont agree on everything I can respect it.

[ArchDuck]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Why? Your argument is so full of speculation and logical fallacy that no one really thinks it's worth the time to construct a counter-argument.

Lol, do you really think that's a sound argument? Have you even seen the synthesis ending? No one starts losing their **** because they start glowing green.

I would say the sample size of what they show us is too low to make blanket statements like " No one starts losing their **** because they start glowing green." 60 secs of reaction from 3 people and a plant aren't exactly indicative of how every person or even every species reacts. And has been pointed out the reactions we do see don't exactly match what you would expect from 3 ship wreck survivors moments after crashing.

Do I think my argument is speculative? Yes. Is it illogically so? No, I don't believe it is. It is based off of real world ideas and consequences. Just ask a biologist if they think any species on earth would be likely to go extinct if it started to have glowing green markings on it.

If you, like Optimystic_X, don't really care what happens to non-sentient species then you can feel free to ignore it because you don't care about the answers either way.

So I agree it has plenty of speculation (as per ending overseers orders) but please tell me which logical fallacies I am using and I will look into that.

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