196 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

Ok, so you have just been melted and then uploaded into a space squid body where your mind becomes meshed with thousands of others. You think you're going to stay sane? Hardly.

I have no idea, and neither do you. Assumptions about anothers' state of mind are cheap to come by. Much harder to make an informed decision. Of course for that, you'd have to break the Catalyst's mind control first...and for that you need Synthesis.

To kill and say "it's an act of mercy" without any indication about anothers' state of mind is forced euthanasia.

Plus, the Reapers are murders of untold billions and they need to go.

The Catalyst is responsible, and it will be gone in all the endings as it's either rewritten with Shepard's code (Control) or destroyed as its main seat of consciousness is destroyed (Destroy and Synthesis)

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And even if the process weren't so horrific and the result so butt-ugly, we are not ready for the Reaper's kind of ascension, that "Unity". We want to remain individuals physically and mentally, thank you very much.

Isn't it clear, however, that most people aren't ready for Synthesis, either? Many people have expressed utter disgust at the whole concept. Should Synthesis be forced on them?

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
And even if the process weren't so horrific and the result so butt-ugly, we are not ready for the Reaper's kind of ascension, that "Unity". We want to remain individuals physically and mentally, thank you very much.

Isn't it clear, however, that most people aren't ready for Synthesis, either? Many people have expressed utter disgust at the whole concept. Should Synthesis be forced on them?

Unfortunately, I don't have the choice to ask beforehand. Also, If I had, I could point out a few things that might change peoples' minds, and I think that the hate faction here on BSN is hardly representative of the population of the ME universe. For instance, I'm pretty sure a great majority of the salarians would see the benefits of Synthesis. 

In the end, I count the continued existence of the geth and countless minds of past cycles higher than some people's normative notions of the biochemistry of life. Sure, ideally everyone should have the choice, but if it's all or nothing, in this specific case, in these specific circumstances, I choose all.

Or I'll write my own version of the Synthesis ending, but that hardly counts as an argument since our choice in the context of the game *is* all or nothing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 octobre 2012 - 10:11 .

[Sonashi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have no idea, and neither do you. Assumptions about anothers' state of mind are cheap to come by. Much harder to make an informed decision. Of course for that, you'd have to break the Catalyst's mind control first...and for that you need Synthesis.

To kill and say "it's an act of mercy" without any indication about anothers' state of mind is forced euthanasia.

mhmmm......can you explain what is so called forced euthanasia? You've made that up by your own? Have you ever heard a word murder?

There's no such a thing like forced euthanasia, for God's sake. Either you have a permission from that terminally ill person or you haven't. Either you save him/her a lot of pain or you're murderer. Clear enough? Stop using that nonsense, please. 

Modifié par Sonashi, 27 octobre 2012 - 10:36 .

[CINCTuchanka]

How do we know Synthesis breaks the Catalyst's control of the Reapers? Is it still an attractive choice if the Catalyst still controls the Reapers yet simply ends the cycle of its own volituon because Synthesis removes all truly organic life?

[rekn2]

"normative notions of the biochemistry of life" seriously? is normative even a word?

[Reptilian Rob]

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explaining anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

Modifié par Reptilian Rob, 28 octobre 2012 - 09:16 .

[rekn2]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explain anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

exactly, even as a transhumanist, i will never understand anyone who chooses synthesis given the games narrative. the ONLY things people bring up as a posstive for it are the slides from EC. i.e. after the fact. in context, shep would have no idea synthesis was a good ending.

it really has nothing to do with synthetics being seen as less than human either, even though a lot of forum posters will say organic > synthetic. the reason they say that is because of the context of the games prior. if synthesis was written as something good from the begining everyone here would have a definitive change of tune.

the whole thing reminds me of darth vader in return of the jedi. you can have "saving grace" toward the end but not THEE end. this is why darth vader is seen as a tragity instead of ultimate evil. he had conflict inside him and his last decision was to side with his son and not the emp. this completely changed everyones view of him. had he died in the middle of the film his death wouldve been cheered and he wouldve been seen as one of the most evil villains of all time, yet, we the audience are rewarded, yes i said rewarded, with one of the best twists to ever be shown on a screen. the whole reason....it makes sense in the narrative.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
And even if the process weren't so horrific and the result so butt-ugly, we are not ready for the Reaper's kind of ascension, that "Unity". We want to remain individuals physically and mentally, thank you very much.

Isn't it clear, however, that most people aren't ready for Synthesis, either? Many people have expressed utter disgust at the whole concept. Should Synthesis be forced on them?

Unfortunately, I don't have the choice to ask beforehand. Also, If I had, I could point out a few things that might change peoples' minds, and I think that the hate faction here on BSN is hardly representative of the population of the ME universe. For instance, I'm pretty sure a great majority of the salarians would see the benefits of Synthesis. 

In the end, I count the continued existence of the geth and countless minds of past cycles higher than some people's normative notions of the biochemistry of life. Sure, ideally everyone should have the choice, but if it's all or nothing, in this specific case, in these specific circumstances, I choose all.

Or I'll write my own version of the Synthesis ending, but that hardly counts as an argument since our choice in the context of the game *is* all or nothing.

Here's a scenario.  Just go with it.

At the moment of truth, when Shepard speaks with the Catalyst and is presented with the infamous RGB choice, he/she instantly texts the following message to every sapient being in the galaxy:

"Hello everyone.  This is Commander Shepard.  I am here talking to a little boy.  He says the Reapers have just been following his orders. Because I was really awesome and managed to plug a giant battery into the Citadel, he has given me three choices.  I can destroy all the Reapers, but the geth would die too.  Or I can sacrifice myself to create an AI copy that would be able to boss the Reapers around.  Or I can sacrifice myself to hybridize all organics and synthetics in the galaxy, including the Reapers.  The boy seems to really like that last one.  Anyway, this seems like a really big decision, so I thought I'd let you all weigh in."

I wonder how that would turn out?

[Ieldra]

You are leaving out significant details about the nature of the Reapers, about the Catalyst's mind controlling of them, about the future Synthesis brings etc. etc..

I guess given all the information in a less weighted way, there would be more controversy but most humans would still choose Destroy. On the other hand, the other species: I can see the salarians and the turians going for Synthesis, the krogan for Destroy, and nobody would want Control. Still, Control might be the best decision just because it keeps all options open for the future and has no immediate downside. There's actually a point to you making the decision and not deferring it to anyone else.

[Reptilian Rob]

rekn2 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explain anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

exactly, even as a transhumanist, i will never understand anyone who chooses synthesis given the games narrative. the ONLY things people bring up as a posstive for it are the slides from EC. i.e. after the fact. in context, shep would have no idea synthesis was a good ending.

it really has nothing to do with synthetics being seen as less than human either, even though a lot of forum posters will say organic > synthetic. the reason they say that is because of the context of the games prior. if synthesis was written as something good from the begining everyone here would have a definitive change of tune.

Not only that, but the fact the player has no control over the entire end narrative is a detacement schenario that does not bode well for the sci fi genre. 

Even destroy is just an option given to YOU by the Reapers. The power and heroism of Shepard is stripped at that moment, and instead given to the Reapers themselves. 

[Sinekein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

In this thread, I'll present some evidence for the hypothesis that the Reapers are as much victims of the cycle as the species they were made from, and that it is the Catalyst who makes them do what they do. As a consequence of insights into the Reapers' nature, the Synthesis ending becomes more attractive.

On the nature of the Reapers:
(2) The Catalyst in ME3: "We helped them ascend, so that they could make way for new life, storing the old life in Reaper form."

I'll just talk about this sentence, because it's exactly why, in my opinion, Synthesis isn't a good idea.

The Catalyst was given a task by the Leviathans : save the organics from their inevitable eradication by the synthetics they will create.

The only solution the Catalyst found was to "save" organics by creating Reapers. Which is perfectly fine in a "mathematical" point of view. The Catalyst probably considers that DNA is the fundamental basis of life, and that in this DNA was stored both the life, the history and the culture of an organic being. So if all the DNA of a Civilization is "stored" in a Reaper, then nothing of value is lost. Freedom, especially, has no mathematical value, is "irrelevant". Even better, since the Leviathans "are the apex of life" - it was Leviathan-programmed, once again -, then turning a Civilization into something looking like a giant Leviathan is an improvement. It's being closer from perfection. And since the "culture" is stored in the DNA, then the Culture still exists. The fact that this same culture has absolutely NO WAY to evolve or to express itself, is irrelevant. It's there, and it is all that matters.

When facing Shepard, the Catalyst acknowledged its limits - and proposed in the first place "Destroy", which was the reason the Crucible was built in the first place. Then, he told Shepard that, since Shep's view on the conflict was better than its own, he could make Shepard replace him - Control.

And then comes "the best" solution, Synthesis. It's the best solution for the Catalyst. Considering its original design, it is the only one that ensures that its task is fulfilled. But again, the Catalyst has no consideration whatsoever for individuals. It controlled machines that enslaved and killed billions or trillions of people while performing its orders.

Synthesis is an acknowledgement of the Catalyst's logic. If you are fine with everything the Reapers have done before, with their purpose, then sure, pick it, it is the ending that fits the better. But it is once again taking a decision, as an individual, that influes on all organic beings in the galaxy. Pretty much like harvesting a civilization : you don't ask first, you just do. The individuals point of views of organic beings during Synthesis are irrelevant.

It's probably the most "God-like" ending of the three. In Control, you don't become a God, you become an eternal Guardian, but a Guardian that leaves everyone pick his own future. In Synthesis, you choose for them.

[MegaSovereign]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explaining anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

I'm not a English major so this may sound ignorant, but isn't Mass Effect technically classified as a postmodern form of art? The kind that is filled with dramatic irony and plays with people's expectations? That's not anything like classical opera.

I agree that Synthesis is a pretty weak ending, but the Control and Destroy endings were pretty predictable. 

[Hrothdane]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explaining anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

I'm not a English major so this may sound ignorant, but isn't Mass Effect technically classified as a postmodern form of art? The kind that is filled with dramatic irony and plays with people's expectations? That's not anything like classical opera.

I agree that Synthesis is a pretty weak ending, but the Control and Destroy endings were pretty predictable. 

Postmodern is a lot of things, but it is not Mass Effect. While you are correct that postmodernism relies greatly on irony and playing with expectations of the audience, Mass Effect doesn't partake of either of those enough to be called postmodern. It also lacks a certain "meta" sefl-knowledge that tends to characterize most postmodern art.

ME has always been a Space Opera from the very beginning, which is very different from what you think of as classical Opera.

(I am an English major, btw)

Modifié par Hrothdane, 28 octobre 2012 - 10:00 .

[rekn2]

Hrothdane wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explaining anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

I'm not a English major so this may sound ignorant, but isn't Mass Effect technically classified as a postmodern form of art? The kind that is filled with dramatic irony and plays with people's expectations? That's not anything like classical opera.

I agree that Synthesis is a pretty weak ending, but the Control and Destroy endings were pretty predictable. 

Postmodern is a lot of things, but it is not Mass Effect. While you are correct that postmodernism relies greatly on irony and playing with expectations of the audience, Mass Effect doesn't partake of either of those enough to be called postmodern. It also lacks a certain "meta" sefl-knowledge that tends to characterize most postmodern art.

ME has always been a Space Opera from the very beginning, which is very different from what you think of as classical Opera.

(I am an English major, btw)

like in the military? did you go to the event in london? i kid lol

[DoomsdayDevice]

[Reptilian Rob]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

OP brings up points and counter points without actually explaining anything.

In the writing business we call that "Layman's folly."

Basically wanting to make a point or statement but not knowing enough about the subject matter (DNA/Synthetic theory in this case) to effectively explain it fully.

IE, synthesis in narrative terms is circular logic. It forces the player to follow along with the enemies he/she had been in conflict with for three games. The purpose of the Reapers is to harvest all life into a synthetic and organic hybrid, the same exact end goal the Catalyst gives you with the synthesis choice. Narrative wise, it makes the entire three games pointless being that letting the Reapers harvest the galaxy would have come to the same conclusion as synthesis only in Reaper form.

It's a bad narrative structure, all three choices are in bad narrative taste. The entire concept of the last twenty minutes of ME3 is what would be expected of a high school student who has just learned to write a narrative. I don't understand how anyone can like any of the endings if they know how operatic form is written, especially synthesis with it's extreme use of both circular and nonsensical logic.

I'm not a English major so this may sound ignorant, but isn't Mass Effect technically classified as a postmodern form of art? The kind that is filled with dramatic irony and plays with people's expectations? That's not anything like classical opera.

I agree that Synthesis is a pretty weak ending, but the Control and Destroy endings were pretty predictable. 

It's a blend of post modernist space opera (circa 1960-1980) mixed with various tones of modern day sci fi narrative structure. Characters are written classically, while the narrative itself is written from a modern perspective. 

[The Night Mammoth]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Whilst this is almost an association fallacy, you can't really argue against why this kind of thing makes synthesis such an odd, and really stupid, thing, to even have at the end of the game, let alone to choose.

It has no support except that which you imagine. 

The only few times it's even been remotely conceptualized it has always involved the enemy of the player. Saren's in the picture. He esssentially advocated synthesis in a slightly different form, but basically the same. Saren was insane, and indoctrinated.

[DoomsdayDevice]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Whilst this is almost an association fallacy, you can't really argue against why this kind of thing makes synthesis such an odd, and really stupid, thing, to even have at the end of the game, let alone to choose.

It has no support except that which you imagine. 

The only few times it's even been remotely conceptualized it has always involved the enemy of the player. Saren's in the picture. He esssentially advocated synthesis in a slightly different form, but basically the same. Saren was insane, and indoctrinated.

Yeah, Saren advocated synthesis, and was indoctrinated.
Illusive Man advocated control, and was indoctrinated.

Funny how two indoctrinated villains advocate two of the ending choices, but most people still think IT is retarded because EC slide show.

Saren: "The relationship is symbiotic, organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel, the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither! I am a vision of the future, Shepard, the evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign, and experience a true rebirth."


Project Overlord:

Gavin Archer: This is a hybrid intelligence the likes of which I have never seen. I don't know where the man ends and the machine begins.

Shepard: You should have considered that before you started the experiment.
_______________________________________________

Gavin Archer: I'm begging you, don't do anything rash.

Shepard: Rash? Like forcing your brother into an experiment?

Gavin Archer: I know how this must look, but I never intended any harm to come to him. You must believe me
______________________________________________

Gavin Archer: Any war we fight with the Geth will be bloody. I was asked to find a way to avoid that.

Shepard: Who gave you the right to play God?

Gavin Archer: People who were too afraid to make difficult decisions themselves. When they pray for a miracle, they're really praying for men like me to make the tough choices. If my work spares a million mothers morning the
loss of a million sons, my conscience will rest easy.
_______________________________________________

Gavin Archer: It would be the perfect weapon. -- Victory without casualties! We could avoid war with the Geth altogether. That was the plan, anyway.
_______________________________________________

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?

Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.

Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

_______________________________________________

Victory without casualties, playing god, giving genuine consciousness to an AI, doesn't that sound familiar?

Just replace 'David' with 'Shepard' in that last bolded sentence.

Yeah.

So, in Project Overlord we have a case of someone undergoing synthesis (hooks himself up to an AI), in an attempt to control an entire race, in the hopes of avoiding a destructive war.

The man who wants to control machines ends up being enslaved by the machine. Gee, I wonder what Bioware was trying to tell us.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 29 octobre 2012 - 03:53 .

[rekn2]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Whilst this is almost an association fallacy, you can't really argue against why this kind of thing makes synthesis such an odd, and really stupid, thing, to even have at the end of the game, let alone to choose.

It has no support except that which you imagine. 

The only few times it's even been remotely conceptualized it has always involved the enemy of the player. Saren's in the picture. He esssentially advocated synthesis in a slightly different form, but basically the same. Saren was insane, and indoctrinated.

Yeah, Saren advocated synthesis, and was indoctrinated.
Illusive Man advocated control, and was indoctrinated.

Funny how two indoctrinated villains advocate two of the ending choices, but most people still think IT is retarded because EC slide show.

Saren: "The relationship is symbiotic, organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel, the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither! I am a vision of the future, Shepard, the evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign, and experience a true rebirth."


Project Overlord:

Gavin Archer: This is a hybrid intelligence the likes of which I have never seen. I don't know where the man ends and the machine begins.

Shepard: You should have considered that before you started the experiment.
_______________________________________________

Gavin Archer: I'm begging you, don't do anything rash.

Shepard: Rash? Like forcing your brother into an experiment?

Gavin Archer: I know how this must look, but I never intended any harm to come to him. You must believe me
______________________________________________

Gavin Archer: Any war we fight with the Geth will be bloody. I was asked to find a way to avoid that.

Shepard: Who gave you the right to play God?

Gavin Archer: People who were too afraid to make difficult decisions themselves. When they pray for a miracle, they're really praying for men like me to make the tough choices. If my work spares a million mothers morning the
loss of a million sons, my conscience will rest easy.
_______________________________________________

Gavin Archer: It would be the perfect weapon. -- Victory without casualties! We could avoid war with the Geth altogether. That was the plan, anyway.
_______________________________________________

Shepard: What went wrong with the experiment?

Gavin Archer: David volunteered to interface with the VI to give it genuine consciousness. Theoretically it should have been safe, but... with artificial intelligence there is no such thing as safe.

Shepard: Then you shouldn't have attempted it.

_______________________________________________

Victory without casualties, playing god, giving genuine consciousness to an AI, doesn't that sound familiar?

Just replace 'David' with 'Shepard' in that last bolded sentence.

Yeah.

So, in Project Overlord we have a case of someone undergoing synthesis (hooks himself up to an AI), in an attempt to control an entire race, in the hopes of avoiding a destructive war.

The man who wants to control machines ends up being enslaved by the machine. Gee, I wonder what Bioware was trying to tell us.

the same damn thing in all 3 games, synthesis is bad, mkay

[CosmicGnosis]

You know, I don't know what the hell BioWare was trying to say with this series. With the threat of indoctrination from Reaper tech and all those other examples that DoomsdayDevice posted, there really does seem to be a recurring anti-technology sentiment. It's incredibly inconsistent.

[Bill Casey]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

You know, I don't know what the hell BioWare was trying to say with this series. With the threat of indoctrination from Reaper tech and all those other examples that DoomsdayDevice posted, there really does seem to be a recurring anti-technology sentiment. It's incredibly inconsistent.

It's not inconsistent at all once you realize the ending is a boss battle between the player and indoctrination...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 octobre 2012 - 06:56 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Bill Casey wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

You know, I don't know what the hell BioWare was trying to say with this series. With the threat of indoctrination from Reaper tech and all those other examples that DoomsdayDevice posted, there really does seem to be a recurring anti-technology sentiment. It's incredibly inconsistent.

It's not inconsistent at all once you realize the ending is a boss battle between the player and indoctrination...

But that's the problem: indoctrination. It implies that Reaper technology is itself inherently evil. And that makes no sense.

Meanwhile, people don't seem to care that the mass relays and the Citadel are Reaper technology. In fact, why don't those things indoctrinate everyone?

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 29 octobre 2012 - 07:14 .