267 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

nategator wrote...

Agreed, the idea that most alien species would be humanoid or bipedal with similar height and weight is "space magic" as well.  If you look at the biodiversity of just this planet the idea that alien life would look anything like a human being is wishful thinking.  

Most popular science fiction is merely fantasy with scientific overtones instead of fantasy with medieval overtones.

Whether it's (soft-ish) science fiction or fantasy both have to establish their rules early on and live within them to keep suspension of disbelief within acceptable levels. The "It's fantasy so anything goes" argument is bad writing from authors either too lazy or too stupid to make an effort and I pity any reader or player who accepts it.

[Sisterofshane]

nategator wrote...

Respectfully, I think people are leaking their dislike of the style of how the endings were presented with the assumption that synthesis is "stagnation" or "destroying diversity". There is nothing in the game that suggests this. Instead, the Adam/Eve scene between Joker and EDI indicate that synthesis preserved individuality but seemed to tear down the barriers between organic and synthetic life (represented by EDI laying her head on Joker's shoulder) and thus possibly break the cycle of organic extinction by synthetics.

I also add the twitter responses by the BW staff indicating that all three choices were "correct".

Except for the fact that those barriers were already broken -- Joker and EDI at that point already had a friendly relationship, if not more, depending upon whether the player decides to help them hook up.  Synthesis was not necessary to make people more accepting of AI.

Besides, if the changes made with Synthesis were purely superficial (meaning on a physical level only), and people retained their minds and wills, then Synthesis solves nothing.  Imagine you were one of the soldiers on Earth - you're fighting for your life, everything you've ever loved or owned has been utterly destroyed.  Then you are bathed in a green light, and realize that you are now different then you were before.  After the initial confusion wears off, would you ever to be able to accept the apology of a reaper?  Would they even feel a need to apologize?  It's hard to say, but I'm thinking that the majority of Reapers/Others would not be able to just "coexist".

So, in order for synthesis to make people more accepting, then something other than just our physical nature has to be changed -  something deep within our subcounscious.  It would have to make us forget everything we have ever learned about the concepts of justice and individuality (after all, we can posture that most of the "barriers" between Synthetic and Organic reside within our own perceptions of one another, not within our physicality). 

So, exactly how does Synthesis not mess with the individual and free will?

[Kroguard]

Grimwick wrote...

Kroguard wrote...
And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

It actually makes a lot more sense than changing matter on a molecular level.
And I disagree, making it so unrealistic that it ignores your previously established lore destroys your immersion, your attatchment and understanding of the game. Breaking immersion does anything but make it more fun. It ruins it.

If your post was just a vis-a-vis to destroy, then it's simply pointless. It's like comparing a cowpat to bird droppings.
At least destroy makes sense from one side of the argument. I can't see that at all with synthesis.

Well now I'll have to tell you scientifically why it doesn't. The Crucible is based off of the idea that it is a superweapon capable of dispersing levels of energy never before seen. I won't get into all the math and bore you, I'll leave you with some simple facts about physics.
(1) The fact that the Crucible "fires" energy at wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum is indicative of a weapon that isn't as powerful as believed, as energy in the form desired is dissipated by the fact that the weapon fires in this spectrum. 
(2) The fact that (with a certain level of EMS) the Crucible is able to target only specific entities (advanced synthetics) with this energy. Some would point out EMP, but EMP is not in the visible spectrum and would target everything electronic. 

[nategator]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I'm sorry but I'm finding it hard to be unbiased because the writing is just not all that great - I am unable to suspend enough disbelief to see the geth as anything other than toasters, and godchild as anything other than a confused hallucination.

OP: Google golden mean fallacy. Also, the immediate body count does not determine the morality of the choice.

Synthetic and organic civilizations no longer have a reason to clash and the reapers have no further need to harvest advanced life.

You literally have to take godchilds word for this. There is no explanation. You are not given any reason to trust him. What little Godchild says makes no sense.

You are given plenty of reasons to trust him, they were just clumsily executed.  Shepard trusts him.  You're never given the option to disagree or call into question his answer.  The game's narrative structure gives you reason to trust him, he's at the very end of the game and everything you see afterwards in the cutscenes indicates he was probably telling the truth.  Finally, Bioware has pretty much said that the Godchild was telling the truth, at least from its perspective by saying that all of the choices were "correct".

The reason why the fan base wants to say that the Godchild is flat-out lying is because they don't like the choices given (thematically inconsistent), the consequences of those choices, and the style of the ending.  All of those are fair criticisms and I didn't care for them either.  But since this is probably the endings we're going to have -- just further detail added in -- I think trying to push the idea of a deceptive Godchild is futile unless BW opens that door in the EC. 

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 10:22 .

[Reorte]

Kroguard wrote...

Well now I'll have to tell you scientifically why it doesn't. The Crucible is based off of the idea that it is a superweapon capable of dispersing levels of energy never before seen. I won't get into all the math and bore you, I'll leave you with some simple facts about physics.
(1) The fact that the Crucible "fires" energy at wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum is indicative of a weapon that isn't as powerful as believed, as energy in the form desired is dissipated by the fact that the weapon fires in this spectrum. 
(2) The fact that (with a certain level of EMS) the Crucible is able to target only specific entities (advanced synthetics) with this energy. Some would point out EMP, but EMP is not in the visible spectrum and would target everything electronic.

Where does it say that its entire output is in the visible spectrum? Also, you seem to be thinking that because something is rather ridiculous and far-fetched others can't be far more ridiculous and far-fetched.

Modifié par Reorte, 06 mai 2012 - 10:23 .

[Meltemph]

The biggest problem with synthesis is that one must be willing to experiment on the entire galaxy without any idea of what synthesis will do outside of creating a new DNA. Everything else is assumption and hope and faith. The only real rational for picking snythesis is creating a eugenics fantasy in your head and hten telling yourself that is what synthesis will do.

[Grimwick]

Kroguard wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Kroguard wrote...
And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

It actually makes a lot more sense than changing matter on a molecular level.
And I disagree, making it so unrealistic that it ignores your previously established lore destroys your immersion, your attatchment and understanding of the game. Breaking immersion does anything but make it more fun. It ruins it.

If your post was just a vis-a-vis to destroy, then it's simply pointless. It's like comparing a cowpat to bird droppings.
At least destroy makes sense from one side of the argument. I can't see that at all with synthesis.

Well now I'll have to tell you scientifically why it doesn't. The Crucible is based off of the idea that it is a superweapon capable of dispersing levels of energy never before seen. I won't get into all the math and bore you, I'll leave you with some simple facts about physics.
(1) The fact that the Crucible "fires" energy at wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum is indicative of a weapon that isn't as powerful as believed, as energy in the form desired is dissipated by the fact that the weapon fires in this spectrum. 
(2) The fact that (with a certain level of EMS) the Crucible is able to target only specific entities (advanced synthetics) with this energy. Some would point out EMP, but EMP is not in the visible spectrum and would target everything electronic. 

Did I say that destroy actually makes sense? No. I said it makes more sense.  Just because 0.00000001 > 0 doesn't make it more significant. It makes the argument rather moot.
I also doubt that you have any of the math that is involved in a fictional superweapon which deliberately stretches the imagination.
If you do, please enlighten me - I study physics and chemistry and would probably be able to understand anything on a sub-university level.

[Kroguard]

Reorte wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Well now I'll have to tell you scientifically why it doesn't. The Crucible is based off of the idea that it is a superweapon capable of dispersing levels of energy never before seen. I won't get into all the math and bore you, I'll leave you with some simple facts about physics.
(1) The fact that the Crucible "fires" energy at wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum is indicative of a weapon that isn't as powerful as believed, as energy in the form desired is dissipated by the fact that the weapon fires in this spectrum. 
(2) The fact that (with a certain level of EMS) the Crucible is able to target only specific entities (advanced synthetics) with this energy. Some would point out EMP, but EMP is not in the visible spectrum and would target everything electronic.

Where does it say that its entire output is in the visible spectrum?

Did I say the game said this? No. The fact I can see the weapon firing within the visible spectrum makes it inherently flawed. This is one of the major reasons you will never see lasers used by the military that operate within the visible spectrum. 

[Sisterofshane]

nategator wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I'm sorry but I'm finding it hard to be unbiased because the writing is just not all that great - I am unable to suspend enough disbelief to see the geth as anything other than toasters, and godchild as anything other than a confused hallucination.

OP: Google golden mean fallacy. Also, the immediate body count does not determine the morality of the choice.

Synthetic and organic civilizations no longer have a reason to clash and the reapers have no further need to harvest advanced life.

You literally have to take godchilds word for this. There is no explanation. You are not given any reason to trust him. What little Godchild says makes no sense.

You are given plenty of reasons to trust him, they were just clumsily executed.  Shepard trusts him.  You're never given the option to disagree or call into question his answer.  The game's narrative structure gives you reason to trust him, he's at the very end of the game and everything you see afterwards in the cutscenes indicates he was probably telling the truth.  Finally, Bioware has pretty much said that the Godchild was telling the truth, at least from its perspective by saying that all of the choices were "correct".

The reason why the fan base wants to say that the Godchild is flat-out lying is because they don't like the choices given (thematically inconsistent), the consequences of those choices, and the style of the ending.  All of those are fair criticisms and I didn't care for them either.  But since this is the probably the endings we're going to have -- just further detail added in -- I think trying to push the idea of a deceptive Godchild is futile unless BW opens that door in the EC. 

No, that's the reason why some of us feel that the ending has poor writing.

Most of us do not trust the catalyst because it is an ancient, unknown being that uses faulty logic to justifiy the genocide of untold millions every fifty-thousand years.  The inability to challenge is just a betrayal of Shepard's character.

[Grimwick]

Reorte wrote...

nategator wrote...

Agreed, the idea that most alien species would be humanoid or bipedal with similar height and weight is "space magic" as well.  If you look at the biodiversity of just this planet the idea that alien life would look anything like a human being is wishful thinking.  

Most popular science fiction is merely fantasy with scientific overtones instead of fantasy with medieval overtones.

Whether it's (soft-ish) science fiction or fantasy both have to establish their rules early on and live within them to keep suspension of disbelief within acceptable levels. The "It's fantasy so anything goes" argument is bad writing from authors either too lazy or too stupid to make an effort and I pity any reader or player who accepts it.

^ This is the point I was trying to make.
This human understands!

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Or you could just select control.

Seriously, it's ironically the most Paragon of the choices IMO.

[nategator]

Sisterofshane wrote...

nategator wrote...

Respectfully, I think people are leaking their dislike of the style of how the endings were presented with the assumption that synthesis is "stagnation" or "destroying diversity". There is nothing in the game that suggests this. Instead, the Adam/Eve scene between Joker and EDI indicate that synthesis preserved individuality but seemed to tear down the barriers between organic and synthetic life (represented by EDI laying her head on Joker's shoulder) and thus possibly break the cycle of organic extinction by synthetics.

I also add the twitter responses by the BW staff indicating that all three choices were "correct".

Except for the fact that those barriers were already broken -- Joker and EDI at that point already had a friendly relationship, if not more, depending upon whether the player decides to help them hook up.  Synthesis was not necessary to make people more accepting of AI.

Besides, if the changes made with Synthesis were purely superficial (meaning on a physical level only), and people retained their minds and wills, then Synthesis solves nothing.  Imagine you were one of the soldiers on Earth - you're fighting for your life, everything you've ever loved or owned has been utterly destroyed.  Then you are bathed in a green light, and realize that you are now different then you were before.  After the initial confusion wears off, would you ever to be able to accept the apology of a reaper?  Would they even feel a need to apologize?  It's hard to say, but I'm thinking that the majority of Reapers/Others would not be able to just "coexist".

So, in order for synthesis to make people more accepting, then something other than just our physical nature has to be changed -  something deep within our subcounscious.  It would have to make us forget everything we have ever learned about the concepts of justice and individuality (after all, we can posture that most of the "barriers" between Synthetic and Organic reside within our own perceptions of one another, not within our physicality). 

So, exactly how does Synthesis not mess with the individual and free will?

Messing with the individual and free will can be defensible if you believe the Godchild's perspective that status-quo but without the Reapers will ALWAYS result in extinction of all organic life through synthetic armageddon.

I would argue that Shepard's synthesis solution preserves relatively more free will and individualism than the Reaper's decision based on the Joker/Edi Adam-Eve analogy.  But that's my interpretation and you could see it differently.

Remember, the Reapers are really, really, old.  At some time, either an organic or synthetic race saw the consequences of previous cycles and throught that the horrors of Reaperism were preferrable to armageddon cycles.  

You, as the player, can choose to accept this perspective or reject it.  But all endings are designed to be hopeful.  It's your decision on whether the compromises to free-will and individualism are acceptable.

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 10:28 .

[Reorte]

Kroguard wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Where does it say that its entire output is in the visible spectrum?

Did I say the game said this? No. The fact I can see the weapon firing within the visible spectrum makes it inherently flawed. This is one of the major reasons you will never see lasers used by the military that operate within the visible spectrum.

Nonsense. Of course you can only see it firing in the visible spectrum because the cinematics only try to show what we can see with our own eyes (there are flaws there but for other reasons). You may as well complain that the Normandy's stealth drive is a load of nonsense because we don't see strong infra-red emissions from other ships not equipped with it. You're doing the equivalent of pretending that the ultraviolet lines in the Balmer series don't exist because you just see a nice red hydrogen alpha signature.

[Kroguard]

Grimwick wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Kroguard wrote...
And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

It actually makes a lot more sense than changing matter on a molecular level.
And I disagree, making it so unrealistic that it ignores your previously established lore destroys your immersion, your attatchment and understanding of the game. Breaking immersion does anything but make it more fun. It ruins it.

If your post was just a vis-a-vis to destroy, then it's simply pointless. It's like comparing a cowpat to bird droppings.
At least destroy makes sense from one side of the argument. I can't see that at all with synthesis.

Well now I'll have to tell you scientifically why it doesn't. The Crucible is based off of the idea that it is a superweapon capable of dispersing levels of energy never before seen. I won't get into all the math and bore you, I'll leave you with some simple facts about physics.
(1) The fact that the Crucible "fires" energy at wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum is indicative of a weapon that isn't as powerful as believed, as energy in the form desired is dissipated by the fact that the weapon fires in this spectrum. 
(2) The fact that (with a certain level of EMS) the Crucible is able to target only specific entities (advanced synthetics) with this energy. Some would point out EMP, but EMP is not in the visible spectrum and would target everything electronic. 

Did I say that destroy actually makes sense? No. I said it makes more sense.  Just because 0.00000001 > 0 doesn't make it more significant. It makes the argument rather moot.
I also doubt that you have any of the math that is involved in a fictional superweapon which deliberately stretches the imagination.
If you do, please enlighten me - I study physics and chemistry and would probably be able to understand anything on a sub-university level.

I don't have the math on a fictional superweapon... you misunderstand. Since you study Physics, you should already know the math behind how weapons firing in the visible spectrum of light are less poweful than those that don't. In any case, this is derailing our train of thought which is exclusively focused upon the morality of the different endings. 

[Kroguard]

Reorte wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Where does it say that its entire output is in the visible spectrum?

Did I say the game said this? No. The fact I can see the weapon firing within the visible spectrum makes it inherently flawed. This is one of the major reasons you will never see lasers used by the military that operate within the visible spectrum.

Nonsense. Of course you can only see it firing in the visible spectrum because the cinematics only try to show what we can see with our own eyes (there are flaws there but for other reasons). You may as well complain that the Normandy's stealth drive is a load of nonsense because we don't see strong infra-red emissions from other ships not equipped with it. You're doing the equivalent of pretending that the ultraviolet lines in the Balmer series don't exist because you just see a nice red hydrogen alpha signature.

I think you are reading too much into this. I am trying to say that as a work of science fiction, the game is not wholly explainable scientifically. Can we get back to the topic at hand now? 

I could rant about any number of things in mass effect from a scientific standpoint, first and foremost being the fact that sound somehow travels through space. It is a game which I seek entertainment from, not necessarily a scientific explanation. This post is entirely based on moral issues.

Modifié par Kroguard, 06 mai 2012 - 10:32 .

[Grimwick]

nategator wrote...

You are given plenty of reasons to trust him, they were just clumsily executed.  Shepard trusts him.  You're never given the option to disagree or call into question his answer.  The game's narrative structure gives you reason to trust him, he's at the very end of the game and everything you see afterwards in the cutscenes indicates he was probably telling the truth. 

But since this is probably the endings we're going to have -- just further detail added in -- I think trying to push the idea of a deceptive Godchild is futile unless BW opens that door in the EC. 

1) What happens after the choice is irrelevant. The point is whether you should have trusted him in the first place and so taking the consequences of trusting him as evidence is illogical.
2) Narrative structure has nothing to do with trust. If you replaced SC with Harbinger would you be so inclined to suddenly trust him because he's the last person you talk to? No.
3) He's the guardian of the reapers and has been trying to wipe out your civilisation from day one. You have NO reason to trust any of his words, it is perfectly reasonable for Shepard to assume all he says is a lie and that he's trying to trick you into killing everyone/yourself.
4) The inability of being able to question his logic/choices is also irrelevant of trust.

Shepard overall has more reason to distrust him than anything else. Although this irritates me slightly, I put it simply down to the fact that Shepard was bleeding out and was desperate - therefore was forced into this decision.

[Grimwick]

Kroguard wrote...

I don't have the math on a fictional superweapon... you misunderstand. Since you study Physics, you should already know the math behind how weapons firing in the visible spectrum of light are less poweful than those that don't. In any case, this is derailing our train of thought which is exclusively focused upon the morality of the different endings. 

Yes, true.
Last thing I would say is that any frequency above visible light tends to be fatal for humans/organic life anyway and so the entire concept is flawed ion the first place isn't it?

I agree, we are getting off topic re: your original arguments. Please see my first post on technological stagnation leading to war as per a more moral argument.

[Mara Shep]

For me, Synthesis seemed like a possible option, until I remembered the Brutes, the Banshees, and all the other horrible amalgamations made by the Reapers. And I thought, sure, the result was not as horrifying, but it is still giving over to what the Reapers wanted. And when considering the Destroy option, I imaged my Shepard talking to Edi and Legion about the choice, and (just my view), I imagined in that talk they would understand.

In talks with Garrus you talk about Ruthless Calculus, and even though my Shep said she wouldn't do that, in the end she realised it must be done.

[Sisterofshane]

nategator wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

*snip*

So, exactly how does Synthesis not mess with the individual and free will?

Messing with the individual and free will can be defensible if you believe the Godchild's perspective that status-quo but without the Reapers will ALWAYS result in extinction of all organic life through synthetic armageddon.

I would argue that Shepard's synthesis solution preserves relatively more free will and individualism than the Reaper's decision based on the Joker/Edi Adam-Eve analogy.  But that's my interpretation and you could see it differently.

Remember, the Reapers are really, really, old.  At some time, either an organic or synthetic race saw the consequences of previous cycles and throught that the horrors of Reaperism were preferrable to armageddon cycles.  

You, as the player, can choose to accept this perspective or reject it.  But all endings are designed to be hopeful.  It's your decision on whether the compromises to free-will and individualism are acceptable.

The problem I have with this is that it cheapens the weight of your choice, and it's just not realistic.  I understand why it was depicted this way, (not wanting to punish anyone for choices, or to make an obviously "best" choice) but when we were given consequences in the other story arcs that were colored that way (good vs. bad, pragmatic vs. optimistic), it just kind of flies in the face of everything we have seen before.

However, I do agree that it is up to the individual player to determine whether to "trust" in the Catalyst and it's premise, and then either reject it (destroy), plan for the worst (control) or to embrace it (synthesis).

[nategator]

Grimwick wrote...

nategator wrote...

You are given plenty of reasons to trust him, they were just clumsily executed.  Shepard trusts him.  You're never given the option to disagree or call into question his answer.  The game's narrative structure gives you reason to trust him, he's at the very end of the game and everything you see afterwards in the cutscenes indicates he was probably telling the truth. 

But since this is probably the endings we're going to have -- just further detail added in -- I think trying to push the idea of a deceptive Godchild is futile unless BW opens that door in the EC. 

1) What happens after the choice is irrelevant. The point is whether you should have trusted him in the first place and so taking the consequences of trusting him as evidence is illogical.
2) Narrative structure has nothing to do with trust. If you replaced SC with Harbinger would you be so inclined to suddenly trust him because he's the last person you talk to? No.
3) He's the guardian of the reapers and has been trying to wipe out your civilisation from day one. You have NO reason to trust any of his words, it is perfectly reasonable for Shepard to assume all he says is a lie and that he's trying to trick you into killing everyone/yourself.
4) The inability of being able to question his logic/choices is also irrelevant of trust.

Shepard overall has more reason to distrust him than anything else. Although this irritates me slightly, I put it simply down to the fact that Shepard was bleeding out and was desperate - therefore was forced into this decision.

1) I disagree what happens the choice is irrelevant when folks are determining whether the Godchild was being intentionally deceptive.  What BW shows us was that he was being truthful, at least from his perspective.

2) Choosing to replace Godchild with Harbinger brings a completely different narrative structure.  You replace a diablo ex machina with the second game's antagonist. 

3) That's a fair viewpoint partly supported in the Destruction ("Maybe") and perhaps Control options.  Or you can choose to see him as Japan's emperor ready to throw in the towel because of your superweapon and having thoughts of how to forge a peace.  Also, he's hardly a guardian.

4) It's a clumsy attempt at showing that Shepard trusts him and BW is trying to at least set up the argument that what the Godchild says to you, the player, is cannon.  It was bad writing and I think you're feeling the same frustration as our high school teachers were when trying to read crappy writing we telephoned in and make sense of it to give a grade.  While I might go through the effort and give it a solid D, I think a lot of folks are throwing up their hands and assigning an F with some nasty comments in red ink.  Your game, your class.  My game, my class.  :-)

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 10:56 .

[nategator]

Sisterofshane wrote...

nategator wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

*snip*

So, exactly how does Synthesis not mess with the individual and free will?

Messing with the individual and free will can be defensible if you believe the Godchild's perspective that status-quo but without the Reapers will ALWAYS result in extinction of all organic life through synthetic armageddon.

I would argue that Shepard's synthesis solution preserves relatively more free will and individualism than the Reaper's decision based on the Joker/Edi Adam-Eve analogy.  But that's my interpretation and you could see it differently.

Remember, the Reapers are really, really, old.  At some time, either an organic or synthetic race saw the consequences of previous cycles and throught that the horrors of Reaperism were preferrable to armageddon cycles.  

You, as the player, can choose to accept this perspective or reject it.  But all endings are designed to be hopeful.  It's your decision on whether the compromises to free-will and individualism are acceptable.

The problem I have with this is that it cheapens the weight of your choice, and it's just not realistic.  I understand why it was depicted this way, (not wanting to punish anyone for choices, or to make an obviously "best" choice) but when we were given consequences in the other story arcs that were colored that way (good vs. bad, pragmatic vs. optimistic), it just kind of flies in the face of everything we have seen before.

However, I do agree that it is up to the individual player to determine whether to "trust" in the Catalyst and it's premise, and then either reject it (destroy), plan for the worst (control) or to embrace it (synthesis).

I agree with the critique that having what 3 huge options result in essentially the same consequences with the only a light-show variety was a very, very bad call on Bioware's part.  My best guess is that they agree with this criticism and it will be the focus on their efforts in the EC, which may work but I'm skeptical.  I'm willing to accept Bioware trying to fix the endings as is because they did provide me 120 hours of awesome with 10 minutes of suckage.

I'm also fine with what most players want, which is that the entire ending up to Harbinger's beam be scrapped and rewritten.  I just don't think it will happen in the EC.  EA might, however, force this on Bioware through a paid "optional ending" DLC over BW's objections but that won't be anytime soon. 

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 11:15 .

[Grimwick]

nategator wrote...

1) I disagree what happens the choice is irrelevant when folks are determining whether the Godchild was being intentionally deceptive.  What BW shows us was that he was being truthful, at least from his perspective.

2) Choosing to replace Godchild with Harbinger brings a completely different narrative structure.  You replace a diablo ex machina with the second game's antagonist. 

3) That's a fair viewpoint enshrined in the Destruction and perhaps Control options.  Or you can choose to see him as Japan's emperor ready to throw in the towel because of your superweapon and having thoughts of how to forge a peace.  Also, he's hardly a guardian.

4) It's a clumsy attempt at showing that Shepard trusts him and BW is trying to at least set up the argument that what the Godchild says to you, the player, is cannon.  It was bad writing and I think you're feeling the same frustration as our high school teachers were when trying to read crappy writing we telephoned in and make sense of it to give a grade.  While I might go through the effort and give it a solid D, I think a lot of folks are throwing up their hands and assigning an F with some nasty comments in red ink.  Your game, your class.  My game, my class.  :-)

1) Intentionally deceptive? Yes, it does provide some evidence that he wasn't intentionally deceptive. Trustworthy? No, it provides no evidence as to whether or not we should have trusted the SC.

2) I was trying to point out that it doesn't matter. Just because a character is at the end of the game doesn't mean we should trust them 100%. More often than not they are used, with 100% truth, to explain the summary of the game/story. But in this case, with the SC being such an abstract antagonist I don't believe that the position in the story makes him any more/less trustworthy.

3) He declares himslef the guardian of the cycle. It's a term he makes himself, not I. But it justifies untrustworthiness far more than speculation that he is trustworthy.

4) It is indeed poor writing.

[nategator]

Grimwick wrote...

nategator wrote...

1) I disagree what happens the choice is irrelevant when folks are determining whether the Godchild was being intentionally deceptive.  What BW shows us was that he was being truthful, at least from his perspective.

2) Choosing to replace Godchild with Harbinger brings a completely different narrative structure.  You replace a diablo ex machina with the second game's antagonist. 

3) That's a fair viewpoint enshrined in the Destruction and perhaps Control options.  Or you can choose to see him as Japan's emperor ready to throw in the towel because of your superweapon and having thoughts of how to forge a peace.  Also, he's hardly a guardian.

4) It's a clumsy attempt at showing that Shepard trusts him and BW is trying to at least set up the argument that what the Godchild says to you, the player, is cannon.  It was bad writing and I think you're feeling the same frustration as our high school teachers were when trying to read crappy writing we telephoned in and make sense of it to give a grade.  While I might go through the effort and give it a solid D, I think a lot of folks are throwing up their hands and assigning an F with some nasty comments in red ink.  Your game, your class.  My game, my class.  :-)

1) Intentionally deceptive? Yes, it does provide some evidence that he wasn't intentionally deceptive. Trustworthy? No, it provides no evidence as to whether or not we should have trusted the SC.

2) I was trying to point out that it doesn't matter. Just because a character is at the end of the game doesn't mean we should trust them 100%. More often than not they are used, with 100% truth, to explain the summary of the game/story. But in this case, with the SC being such an abstract antagonist I don't believe that the position in the story makes him any more/less trustworthy.

3) He declares himslef the guardian of the cycle. It's a term he makes himself, not I. But it justifies untrustworthiness far more than speculation that he is trustworthy.

4) It is indeed poor writing.

1) Again, I have to go back to the EDI/Joker Adam & Eve scene.  Plus, you get the same "the Shepard" discussion with Buzz Alderan.  The game was designed with replay in mind.  Additionally, there were a few homages to Battlestar Galactica (Battlestar News, Memorial Wall, and Tricial Helfer voicing an android).  So, the player could pick up those cues and want to see whether BW was adopting the same solution -- combining synthetic (Cylon) and organic (human) DNA to create a hybrid -- during the first playthrough.  Notably, the rush-through gameplay (creating a low EDS) creates only a Destroy or Control option depending on the player's decisions in Mass Effect 2.

2) For me, completely new character at the very end with 3 drawn out choices suggests that he's an exposition character and I can rely on what he says.  That's the narrative structure I was alluding to.  If you have Harbringer then of course I don't trust him since he's an established antagonist in my mind.  

3) Sorry, I was focused on "of the reapers" rather than "guardian"  I see the reapers as his tools and he's the **** farmer reaping organics to according to his design and goals. 

4) :-)

Added comment: BW never wanted you to 100% trust Starchild.  If you did, then people would argue that Synthesis is 100% the right choice.  So they made sure there was stuff for fans to justify Destruction or Control as correct choices as well and then let the fans argue about it.  

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 11:13 .

[Belisarius09]

Oh look, its this thread again.

Reapers "harvest" advanced races so they may "ascend" and become new reapers joining the reaper forces. Reapers themselves are a fusion of synthetic and organic.

Synthesis takes all organic and synthetic life and alters their dna (harvests) so that they become hybrids and this marks the final evolution of humantiy (acension).

Is it really that hard to see? Congrats, by choosing synthesis you performed the reapers jobs for them and turned everyone into husks/reapers.

[matthewmi]

If I was the catalyst I'd just have the reapers be space police like gort in the day the earth stood still. Just tell organics " yo if you create a synthetic A.I. Race of robots my reapers will destroy you" that seems more straightforward than the cycle he's running.