336 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

RavenEyry wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...
You make some very good points OP, but one anti-synthesis argument you do not mention is the fact that it doesn't do anything to stop there reapers killing everyone. A vague assurance that there will be peace is all we get.

The Catalyst says "The cycle will end". You might not want to believe it, but if you don't, you might as well choose a random ending, because if the Catalyst lies, you have no information at all on which to make your decision.

All endings require that you believe the Catalyst about their consequences. If you don't, step back and get a "critical mission failure" (which I still hope the EC will extend to an on-screen "Reapers win" scenario where we see the yahg finding Liara's message some time in the future).

My problem is he doesn't say how the cycle will end. Perhaps the reapers wanted to complete their evolution by by harvesting organic-synthetic beings and so they're gonna wipe out all life this time becauese they have no need for the cycle.

And perhaps Shepard will turn Reaper king in Control and continue the cycle. Perhaps Destroy cements the eventual extinction of organics. I think it is dishonest to project negative consequences on a choice you do not like for unrelated reasons, if there is no indication that they will manifest and every indication that they will not. The game plainly tells you that you ended the Reaper threat. The Catalyst tells you the cycle will end. You may consider it a writing failure that you are not shown that you ended the threat in-world, but personally, I can take the Reapers leaving as indicative of what happens, and beyond that 'm fine with speculating.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 09:27 .

[The Night Mammoth]

ardensia wrote...

 Hooray! I get a cookie! 

No, you don't deserve it. 

Anyone coming to a conclusion based on the Catalyst's word's about synthetics wiping out organic life doesn't deserve cookies. 

[RavenEyry]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And perhaps Shepard will turn Reaper king in Control and continue the cycle. Perhaps Destroy cements the eventual extinction of organics. I think it is dishonest to project negative consequences on a choice you do not like for unrelated reasons, if there is no indication that they will manifest and every indication that they will not. The game plainly tells you that you ended the Reaper threat. The Catalyst tells you the cycle will end. You may consider it a writing failure that you are not shown that you ended the threat in-world, but personally, I can take the Reapers leaving as indicative of what happens, and beyond that 'm fine with speculating.

I don't like ANY of the choices, to a completely equal degree. I don't really believe that's what will happen with synthesis, I'm just making it clear how incredibly vague all the choices are. An advertisement pop-up isn't really conclusive information on what happened.

[ardensia]

tufy1 wrote...

Why my Shepard will choose Synthesis

How dare YOU choose MY future and the future of BILLIONS of others? You're not a god, you're a mortal, you make mistakes. Therefore synthesis is your authocratic decision to impose your own will on every single being - nay, on every single thing in the galaxy without the slightest of their say in it.

Basically, it would be like some alien on the other side of the galaxy deciding that the galaxy is better off without Earth and blew it up. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong, he has no right whatsoever to make that decision for someone else.

You may find it incredibly unfair, but if the alien on the other side of the galaxy has determined that something intrisinc to the existence of the Earth is going to devestate life in the rest of the galaxy, and he has a way to stop that from happening, it is his duty to try and stop Earth's existence from doing so. And if the timeclock is almost at midnight when he finds this out, and he doesn't have time to discuss the matters with all life on earth, then it's his duty to the rest of the galaxy to pull the trigger.

I'll take your "how dare yous" and your "you have no rights" if it means the maximum number of people will get to continue their existence... perhaps a little less rich for the loss of Earth, but still full of life and potential.

[ardensia]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

ardensia wrote...

 Hooray! I get a cookie! 

No, you don't deserve it. 

Anyone coming to a conclusion based on the Catalyst's word's about synthetics wiping out organic life doesn't deserve cookies. 

Fine, then. You don't have to give me one. *pout* I'll just take the one offered by the OP, instead. 

And for the record, I came to that conclusion before the Catalyst brought it up.

Modifié par ardensia, 17 mai 2012 - 09:34 .

[The Night Mammoth]

ardensia wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

ardensia wrote...

 Hooray! I get a cookie! 

No, you don't deserve it. 

Anyone coming to a conclusion based on the Catalyst's word's about synthetics wiping out organic life doesn't deserve cookies. 

Fine, then. You don't have to give me one. *pout* I'll just take the one offered by the OP, instead. 

*Grabs* Nope, you don't deserve anycookies. 

And for the record, I came to that conclusion before the Catalyst brought it up.

That's a lie. 

[ardensia]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

ardensia wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

ardensia wrote...

 Hooray! I get a cookie! 

No, you don't deserve it. 

Anyone coming to a conclusion based on the Catalyst's word's about synthetics wiping out organic life doesn't deserve cookies. 

Fine, then. You don't have to give me one. *pout* I'll just take the one offered by the OP, instead. 

*Grabs* Nope, you don't deserve anycookies.

What right do you have to steal cookies given to me by someone else for reasosn that aren't the same reasons you would hand out cookies? 

And for the record, I came to that conclusion before the Catalyst brought it up.

That's a lie. 

*blink* Even if it is, I think my original post shows that it's a distinct possibility that someone can logically reach the conclusion of an eminent technological singularity without ever meeting with the Catalyst.

[The Night Mammoth]

ardensia wrote...

What right do you have to steal cookies given to me by someone else for reasosn that aren't the same reasons you would hand out cookies? 

My right is determined by sanity. You are quite clearly insane, and wrong. You could injure yourself and others with that cookie.

*blink* Even if it is, I think my original post shows that it's a distinct possibility that someone can logically reach the conclusion of an eminent technological singularity without ever meeting with the Catalyst.

Nah. 

You either ignore or kill synthetic life throughout the series, in which case you have nothing to base a conclusion from, or you explore every possible piece of dialogue with them and concerning them, in which case this is an extremely wierd conclusion to come to. 

Note, that a technological singularity isn't what the Catalyst talks about, nor is it something ever referred to in game, nor is the Catalyst's problem ever talked about or foreshadowed until it mentions it. 

So yeah, I think you're lying. Maybe you thought a technological singularity could happen, although that would be projecting from pretty much zero in-game data to extreme lengths, but there's nothing that points to it being anything like what the Catalyst says it will. 

For two reasons really. First: all synthetics I've met have been friendly unless the Reapers get involved, and secondly: because it's not something you can predict, unless it happens, in which case the premise is undermined. The Catalyst defines it as chaotic, and we define it as an event horizion. Neither of those things can be predicted with certainty. 

The Catalyst seems certain. Therefore it is wrong, and I ignore it, and walk straight to red every time. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 17 mai 2012 - 09:51 .

[Silpheed58]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Slipheed58:
Synthetics, however, still need resources to expand, to build their platforms. The premise is that this will eventually lead to conflict with organics who also need resources.

Yes, I agree we don't know enough and that it may be equally likely that organics and synthetics will never need to compete for resources, but that's the premise used in the story here. I can accept it as a plausible premise. Much easier to accept that than to accept the FTL technology used in the ME universe, the reasoning for which is completely bonkers.

Depending on the resources that's not teribly hard to come by, it's a vast galaxy.  What is aslo dependent is how many platforms the synthetics will actually need.  How much physical contact is actually needed?  And what kind of platform is used for that contact.

"
Yes, I agree we don't know enough and that it may be equally likely that organics and synthetics will never need to compete for resources, but that's the premise used in the story here.  "
Unfortunatly that seems to be one of many problems with the story given us, it's very limited in the scope explored and presented.

[Baa Baa]

They are all ****ty endings, nobody is really right about which is best. Enough with the arguing over something so petty.

[The Night Mammoth]

Baa Baa wrote...

They are all ****ty endings, nobody is really right about which is best. Enough with the arguing over something so petty.

No. 

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question one page back. 

[matthewmi]

You can say synthesis is positive when you can explain the soldiers on earth not cheering as the reapers lift off. If they're minds aren't altered since pro synthesis people insist you are not changed, explain why soldiers wouldn't react to their enemies leaving?

[ardensia]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

My right is determined by sanity. You are quite clearly insane, and wrong. You could injure yourself and others with that cookie.

While I think saying one can be right or wrong in their choices in a game as open as Mass Effect (and especially regarding the vaguely defined options at the end) is a bit presumptuous, I'll give you the insane one. Anyone that comes to the conclusions I manage to come to 1) statistically doesn't exist and 2) probably has thought patterns that are out in left field. And concern the life cycle of the Australian regent skipper rather than baseball. Proving my sanity in court might be a bit of a task.

Nah. 

You either ignore or kill synthetic life throughout the series, in which case you have nothing to base a conclusion from, or you explore every possible piece of dialogue with them and concerning them, in which case this is an extremely wierd conclusion to come to. 

Note, that a technological singularity isn't what the Catalyst talks about, nor is it something ever referred to in game, nor is the Catalyst's problem ever talked about or foreshadowed until it mentions it. 

So yeah, I think you're lying. Maybe you thought a technological singularity could happen, although that would be projecting from pretty much zero in-game data to extreme lengths, but there's nothing that points to it being anything like what the Catalyst says it will. 

For two reasons really. First: all synthetics I've met have been friendly unless the Reapers get involved, and secondly: because it's not something you can predict, unless it happens, in which case the premise is undermined. The Catalyst defines it as chaotic, and we define it as an event horizion. Neither of those things can be predicted with certainty. 

The Catalyst seems certain. Therefore it is wrong, and I ignore it, and walk straight to red every time. 

Oooh. In-game data. That's the divergence.

I didn't come to that conclusion based on in-game data. I came to that conclusion outside of it. Just like how in ME1, I came to the conclusion that the geth weren't a bunch of evil robot Bad Guys there for me to shoot, despite the fact that there's only one scene where it's even hinted at that they might have an existence that's arguably on par with organic life in any meaningful way.

I came to that conclusion because it's a logical conclusion to reach out of game in a real world setting and BioWare seemed to be trying very hard to make their world play by real world rules. If it plays by real world rules, then the geth in ME1 either have to be less true AI than is implied by their original question regarding souls, or they have to have a reason for being the Bad Guys... a reason that I can sit down with them and at least attempt to work out. And if we're playing by real world rules, then even though I'm obstensibly making peace with the geth and being buddies with EDI, the possibility of synthetic life eventually becoming an insurmountable threat to organic life has to still be there.

Don't get me wrong; I was about as surprised as everyone else at the sudden presentation of the synthesis option. I was just surprised because they actually went there and made it something solid in the game rather than sweeping it under the rug of idealism. It seems most other people were surprised because it existed in the first place and came seemingly out of nowhere.

Simply put, I came to that conclusion because if BioWare was truly telling a story of the caliber they claimed to be telling, they would have to deal with this sooner or later in a very real sense. That they didn't do that until the last 10 minutes of the game is why I agree with everyone who says the ending is full of fail.

I don't think the Catalyst's predictions are based on the high probability of it happening so much as the non-zero probability of it happening. And if you've lived for 50 bajillion years and seen synthetic life move toward eventual domination of organic life (see: the group in the Prothean cycle who stuck AIs in their heads and eventually became dominated by the AIs), then eventually you just start pouring ant poison on every ant hill you find because, while there are 20 ant hills in your yard that have never so much as sent a scout into your house, that one ant hill didn't just send scouts. They took over that entire counter where you keep bread and various types of cookies for snacks. You couldn't use that counter again for, like, three months 'cause they kept scouting it even after you'd cleared it off and forbidden food from touching it. Like hell you're gonna let that happen again, not when you can prevent it. The ants might get the whole pantry next time.

Then again, they might be content to stay outside the house for the rest of your life. And if you're cool waiting to see and then trying to chase them out of your pantry if and when they get there, then I certainly won't fault you for choosing destroy. Or even control, though I haven't worked out if/how that fits into my metaphor.

I chose to solve the problem of synthetics versus organics once and for all. Others are... not going to be as comfortable with the absolute nature of these methods, even if (or maybe especially if) they take the ending at face value. And really, that's their call. I think one of the reasons BioWare chose to go with their extreme levels of vagueness at the end is because they didn't want to overtly condemn or condone one choice over the other, even if the devs prefer synthesis. The choice, and the consequences, are yours, and that choice has to be based on the conclusions you personally reach. Wwhether or not we recognize it, we all bring something of our own beliefs about life into role-playing games, and it's those differences that will allow two people to be presented with the exact same evidence and reach wildly divergent conclusions.

Modifié par ardensia, 17 mai 2012 - 10:54 .

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Why? 

Why will synthetic life ever do this? Why would they ever think this? How exactly do they ever get to the point where they eradicate every speck of organic matter? 

None of it makes any sense. It's complete imagination, there's no evidence or context for it. 

Life expands. It is the nature of life to expand. The premise is that this also holds true for synthetic life. Because of the factors I already mentioned, synthetic life will expand faster and turn other matter in the universe into extensions of itself, thereby habitually causing the extinction of organic species.

Of course we don't really know if this will happen. From our viewpoint, it's just as plausible that synthetic life will stop expanding and never bother organic life. But the Catalyst has perspective we do not have. The premise is plausible enough that I can accept it in this way. Far easier to accept than the ME universe's method of (non-relay) FTL travel, with which you don't appear to have  a problem even though it's physically impossible.
.
I suggest reading "Accelerando" by Charles Stross and "Neverness" and "A Requiem for ****** Sapiens" (trilogy) by David Zindell. The former features a singularity event and the latter AI gods who would turn all matter into extensions of itself if not prevented. It's not a new or particularly exotic SF concept. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 10:52 .

[Silpheed58]

^^This. I really wish it had been more clearly stated in the ending, since apparently a lot of people missed it/don't buy it.

The reason Shepard makes that horrible and amusing face when EDI suggests she forgets to recycle the Normandy's oxygen is because of this. Yeah, it's funny to us when she says it, becaues EDI is a loyal squadmate and all, but the truth is this is an actual possible threat, and should EDI decide to do this (or open all the airlocks, or several other things that would make life for organics miserable while onboard the Normandy), there's a very real possibility that no one would be able to stop her... or, at least, not without sustaining heavy casualties first.

As things stand in the game before you get to the ending, EDI is loyal originally because she is shackled. She is loyal after that because of her attraction to Joker and to Shepard. But what happens when Joker and Shepard are out of the picture? What happens when she's outlived half a dozen Jokers and Shepards? The lifespans of organics become to her what the lifespans of dogs and cats are to humans. Then they become like the lifespans of gerbils and hamsters to humans. And so on.

Eventually, an effectively immortal artificial intelligence has to come to the conclusion that organic life isn't worth the emotional investment any more than we would invest ourselves emotionally in the life of a single ant. While the continued cycles of the colony might hold some intrigue, the distinction of the individuals gets lost and muddled, and is ultimately seen as largely unimportant. Even the queens of the colony can and will be replaced without much upset to the colony's overall functioning.

Someone asked me in another thread if I could imagine a situation where Shepard wouldn't argue with the Catalyst's logic, and while I didn't answer there ('cause I'm lazy about keeping up with most threads and the thread got away from me before I could reply), the answer is yes prettymuch because of this. As fond as I was of EDI and Legion, and as much effort as I put into bringing synthetic life and organic life to an understanding throughout the entire series, I just couldn't get over this. The best I could hope for was that as synthetic life continued to surpass us in efficiency there would still be a large enough number of them dedicated to preserving our kind.

Oh, wait. That's what the Reapers are already doing. And as Garrus (or maybe it was Victus, can't remember) pointed out, the Reapers are VERY efficient at what they do.

So, if I'm meeting with the Catalyst, which controls the Reapers, and it says a new possibility has been created that will solve this problem, it is in my Shepard's best interest to take that possibility, even if it's just a vaguely explained hope and filled with space magic (which I, personally, was pretty sure existed in ME from the point in time when I read the first codex entry on biotics... but that's just me, apparently, and not quite the issue here).

Destroy, as has been said, banks on the possibility that when the next form of true AI life comes about we are able to strike a comparable peace to the tentative one we struck between the geth and the quarians. Control... I don't know if it's a trap, but especially if you run with the leaked script bit about Shepard basically becoming the Catalyst means there's a distinct possibility that, given time, Shepard will reach the same conclusion the Catalyst did (see above human versus ant lifespan reference), and the cycles will start anew... if the technological singularity isn't reached first.

Yes, it is playing God. All options are, including doing nothing. But sometimes we must play God to the lives of others, whether or not we want to, whether or not it's fair, and whether or not they have any say in it whatsoever, just as parents play God to their young children.

I like the tattoo metaphor. That's more or less how I saw it. Of course, given the vagueness surrounding the ending, that interpretation falls under the category of speculations... but then again, so does every other interpretation of what exactly synthesis does.

Well, this delves into the limited exploration of the narritive once again.  So let's speculate.

1. 
The reason Shepard makes that horrible and amusing face when EDI suggests she forgets to recycle the Normandy's oxygen is because of this. Yeah, it's funny to us when she says it, becaues EDI is a loyal squadmate and all, but the truth is this is an actual possible threat, and should EDI decide to do this (or open all the airlocks, or several other things that would make life for organics miserable while onboard the Normandy), there's a very real possibility that no one would be able to stop her... or, at least, not without sustaining heavy casualties first. 

This assumes EDI, AI's are bound to limited mental/processing cabilities like that of an organic mind.  Or atleast organic minds we are aware of.  AI's like most other OS's use sub-programs and routines that would automatically perform these functions.  Only if she were removed, errored out, or activly chose to disable these would accidents occur.  While the danger is there to go all 2001 SO on organics is ever present, I am sure there is or would have to be a kill switch to stop her or isolate her.  If not that's poor design, to treat her like a regular member of the crew you need a way to subdue her shold she go rogue.

Also, I think EDI's loyalty goes beyond Jeff and Shepard alone.  While they play a large role in this, I think it has more to do with what we don't see alot of but is hinted at through ME3.  That is, EDI's interaction as the ship with all of the rest of the faceless crew as well.  It's easy to forget that Joker and Shep are not the only contact she has with people.

2. 
Eventually, an effectively immortal artificial intelligence has to come to the conclusion that organic life isn't worth the emotional investment any more than we would invest ourselves emotionally in the life of a single ant. While the continued cycles of the colony might hold some intrigue, the distinction of the individuals gets lost and muddled, and is ultimately seen as largely unimportant. Even the queens of the colony can and will be replaced without much upset to the colony's overall functioning. 

I can think of a blue race that could help them cope/understand outliving the shorter lived races.  Maybe not to the extent of immortality but a long life.  Also, who says that the majority of the AI's would keep their current status and not dissemenate themselves across to all the other AI's like Legion did to spread their knowledge gained amongst the race?  Once again, this is an issue not really touched on and only superficial viewed through our own limited organic perspective.  

3. 
Someone asked me in another thread if I could imagine a situation where Shepard wouldn't argue with the Catalyst's logic, and while I didn't answer there ('cause I'm lazy about keeping up with most threads and the thread got away from me before I could reply), the answer is yes prettymuch because of this. As fond as I was of EDI and Legion, and as much effort as I put into bringing synthetic life and organic life to an understanding throughout the entire series, I just couldn't get over this. The best I could hope for was that as synthetic life continued to surpass us in efficiency there would still be a large enough number of them dedicated to preserving our kind. 

I agree.  Better than perserving us, they could, you know, be like the Geth and help organics evolve as well.  No matter how you look at it, after Rannochi missions if you made the peace the Geth are help the Quarians evolve so they can live on their homeworld again.

Modifié par Silpheed58, 17 mai 2012 - 10:51 .

[Ieldra]

matthewmi wrote...
You can say synthesis is positive when you can explain the soldiers on earth not cheering as the reapers lift off. If they're minds aren't altered since pro synthesis people insist you are not changed, explain why soldiers wouldn't react to their enemies leaving?

Because they are confused about what's happening? They have no idea about why the Reapers are leaving. It'S certainly nothing they did or they even know about.

Anyway, I have no idea which detail of the ending sequences is meant to be significant and which is not.

[matthewmi]

They react when they leave in control why not synthesis?

[Silpheed58]

Ieldra2 wrote...

matthewmi wrote...
You can say synthesis is positive when you can explain the soldiers on earth not cheering as the reapers lift off. If they're minds aren't altered since pro synthesis people insist you are not changed, explain why soldiers wouldn't react to their enemies leaving?

Because they are confused about what's happening? They have no idea about why the Reapers are leaving. It'S certainly nothing they did or they even know about.

Anyway, I have no idea which detail of the ending sequences is meant to be significant and which is not.

Devil's Adovacte: Wouldn't the same be said for control?  They cheer in the good ending of that one  

[Gexora]

tufy1 wrote...

Why my Shepard will choose Synthesis

How dare YOU choose MY future and the future of BILLIONS of others? You're not a god, you're a mortal, you make mistakes. Therefore synthesis is your authocratic decision to impose your own will on every single being - nay, on every single thing in the galaxy without the slightest of their say in it.

Basically, it would be like some alien on the other side of the galaxy deciding that the galaxy is better off without Earth and blew it up. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong, he has no right whatsoever to make that decision for someone else.

nlag wrote...

What is the right word to express the fact that i will insert my DNA to someone else, without his consent? Let alone to the entire universe?

Morally, the choice of synthesis is wrong even if you think that there will be a happy ending because of it.

At least this is what I believe.

 
While I respect your rights to hold such believes, and to find Synthesis unacceptable because of them, please note the points I made against this arguement in the original post and a few comments (comments I can copypaste though, if it's a bother) if you wish to continue the discussion and haven't just come here to call me space Satan

@RavenEyry - I believe your comment has already been addressed by Ieldra - Catalyst says it will deal with Reapers, and we have to trust Catalyst (and believe me I cringe at those words) if we are to live with the endings. I am pretty sure the allpowerful ReaperGod out of nowhere (by the way, can I call Sovereign on his bull**** now?) knows that they will go away

@ardensia - incredible analysis, put my points much better than I ever could. I don't agree with everything, but this part this awesome: 
"Destroy, as has been said, banks on the possibility that when the next form of true AI life comes about we are able to strike a comparable peace to the tentative one we struck between the geth and the quarians. Control... I don't know if it's a trap, but especially if you run with the leaked script bit about Shepard basically becoming the Catalyst means there's a distinct possibility that, given time, Shepard will reach the same conclusion the Catalyst did (see above human versus ant lifespan reference), and the cycles will start anew... if the technological singularity isn't reached first.

Yes, it is playing God. All options are, including doing nothing. But sometimes we must play God to the lives of others, whether or not we want to, whether or not it's fair, and whether or not they have any say in it whatsoever, just as parents play God to their young children. "
Can I please quote you in the OP? With copyright and everything. This is what I wanted to say but couldn't quite manage it

[Gexora]

ardensia wrote...


Fine, then. You don't have to give me one. *pout* I'll just take the one offered by the OP, instead. 

And for the record, I came to that conclusion before the Catalyst brought it up.

OP to the rescue!


@Night Mammoth, please refer me to the question you were talking about so I can try and answer it. 
Also please refrain from calling people insane. It's rude. And, worse, it's rude and non-creative

Modifié par Gexora, 17 mai 2012 - 11:23 .

[The Night Mammoth]

ardensia wrote...

While I think saying one can be right or wrong in their choices in a game as open as Mass Effect (and especially regarding the vaguely defined options at the end) is a bit presumptuous, I'll give you the insane one. Anyone that comes to the conclusions I manage to come to 1) statistically doesn't exist and 2) probably has thought patterns that are out in left field. And concern the life cycle of the Australian regent skipper rather than baseball. Proving my sanity in court might be a bit of a task.

I think I might bow out of this little dance from now on. 

Oooh. In-game data. That's the divergence.

I didn't come to that conclusion based on in-game data. I came to that conclusion outside of it. Just like how in ME1, I came to the conclusion that the geth weren't a bunch of evil robot Bad Guys there for me to shoot, despite the fact that there's only one scene where it's even hinted at that they might have an existence that's arguably on par with organic life in any meaningful way.

I came to that conclusion because it's a logical conclusion to reach out of game in a real world setting and BioWare seemed to be trying very hard to make their world play by real world rules. If it plays by real world rules, then the geth in ME1 either have to be less true AI than is implied by their original question regarding souls, or they have to have a reason for being the Bad Guys... a reason that I can sit down with them and at least attempt to work out. And if we're playing by real world rules, then even though I'm obstensibly making peace with the geth and being buddies with EDI, the possibility of synthetic life eventually becoming an insurmountable threat to organic life has to still be there.

Don't get me wrong; I was about as surprised as everyone else at the sudden presentation of the synthesis option. I was just surprised because they actually went there and made it something solid in the game rather than sweeping it under the rug of idealism. It seems most other people were surprised because it existed in the first place and came seemingly out of nowhere.

Simply put, I came to that conclusion because if BioWare was truly telling a story of the caliber they claimed to be telling, they would have to deal with this sooner or later in a very real sense. That they didn't do that until the last 10 minutes of the game is why I agree with everyone who says the ending is full of fail.

Don't get me wrong about synthesis, anyone is free to interperate and choose as they see fit, that goes without saying. I can't really argue against many of them, even though I find everything about each choice to be morally abhorent on practically every level. Even destroy is disgusting. It advocates the extinction of an entire species, mass murder, as a solution to save the greater whole. 

What I can't accept is extrapolating from the basis that first: the Catalyst should be taken at face value, and second: that its dilemma is absolutely real.

I don't think the Catalyst's predictions are based on the high probability of it happening so much as the non-zero probability of it happening. And if you've lived for 50 bajillion years and seen synthetic life move toward eventual domination of organic life (see: the group in the Prothean cycle who stuck AIs in their heads and eventually became dominated by the AIs),

Quick pause here; that was because of the Reapers. Carry on.

then eventually you just start pouring ant poison on every ant hill you find because, while there are 20 ant hills in your yard that have never so much as sent a scout into your house, that one ant hill didn't just send scouts. They took over that entire counter where you keep bread and various types of cookies for snacks. You couldn't use that counter again for, like, three months 'cause they kept scouting it even after you'd cleared it off and forbidden food from touching it. Like hell you're gonna let that happen again, not when you can prevent it. The ants might get the whole pantry next time.

Ants can't be reasoned or communicated with. I would try every other possible solution that doesn't sacrifice them before choosing to destroy, and I would never do so with a clear conscience.

Organic life is intelligent, it can be reasoned with. 

I chose to solve the problem of synthetics versus organics once and for all. Others are... not going to be as comfortable with the absolute nature of these methods, even if (or maybe especially if) they take the ending at face value. And really, that's their call. I think one of the reasons BioWare chose to go with their extreme levels of vagueness at the end is because they didn't want to overtly condemn or condone one choice over the other, even if the devs prefer synthesis. The choice, and the consequences, are yours, and that choice has to be based on the conclusions you personally reach, and whether or not we recognize it, we all bring something of our own beliefs about life into role-playing games. And it's those differences that will allow two people to be presented with the exact same evidence and reach wildly divergent conclusions.

Now I can agree in part. Evidently, it allows for a stupid number of theories, from it being all a dream, to the Catalyst being a liar, even as far as Hackett being indoctrinated. If ever you needed one redeeming factor this would be it.

And the music, BioWare never fail to dissapoint in that regard. Nothing else though. 

However, their attempts at being vague are transparent, ironically. Synthesis is painted as the best conclusion. There are no implied downsides. It requires the most preparation, the most work to achieve, whilst both control and destroy are portrayed with obvious costs. Certain developers have made comments regarding it. I can't accept that. 

The choice of ambiguity will always come with its own cost. People want answers. Leave anything important unanswered and the other flaws become obvious. Suspension of Disbelief needs no other introduction. Mass Effect is probably the definitive case study on its effects. 

There are a lot of problems, a lot of inconsistencies, a lot of unaswered questions. 

I'll make no illusions, if it weren't for the ending I would have loved ME3 in its entirety, hailed it as the best game ever to grace my disc-drive since ME2. 

Once my SoD was firmly smashed to pieces by the appearence of our little glowing friend, the flaws sprung up like hidious weeds on a lovely fresh garden. 

[Gexora]

matthewmi wrote...

You can say synthesis is positive when you can explain the soldiers on earth not cheering as the reapers lift off. If they're minds aren't altered since pro synthesis people insist you are not changed, explain why soldiers wouldn't react to their enemies leaving?

Well, you forget that in synthesis not only are Reapers leaving for no reason, everyone suddenly gets green eyes. So being a little confused is okay

I hate the Catalyst. I would rather never see his face in my game, nuke Reapers face in and remain cheerfully oblivious about their origins. Anв close my game with the sense of deep satisfaction. 
But that won't happen. I have come to terms with it. We will have to trust this little ****, people

[The Protheans]

You're doing exactly what the Reapers wanted.
The only difference is that the cyborgs are now independent from each other.
They're the exact same as the Reapers except they killed all upcoming sentient organics from having a chance and they aren't tied to one another.


They're abominations.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Why? 

Why will synthetic life ever do this? Why would they ever think this? How exactly do they ever get to the point where they eradicate every speck of organic matter? 

None of it makes any sense. It's complete imagination, there's no evidence or context for it. 

Life expands. It is the nature of life to expand. The premise is that this also holds true for synthetic life. Because of the factors I already mentioned, synthetic life will expand faster and turn other matter in the universe into extensions of itself, thereby habitually causing the extinction of organic species.

So I was right: baseless imagination, but I see now it's from outside sources and not from the game itself. 

Still, I don't see why synthetic life would ever disregard organic life to that extent, or ever reach that stage without being contested or even aided by organics.

Of course we don't really know if this will happen. From our viewpoint, it's just as plausible that synthetic life will stop expanding and never bother organic life. But the Catalyst has perspective we do not have. The premise is plausible enough that I can accept it in this way.

Whether is has a different perspective is irrelevant. I have information that points to friendly AI's, and nothing that points to AI's wanting to destroy all organic life. Unless it presents more information I will continue to ignore it, and since it never will, the point about it having a different perspective is moot. 

Far easier to accept than the ME universe's method of (non-relay) FTL travel, with which you don't appear to have  a problem even though it's physically impossible.

I haven't done the research to understand the implications. 

Yet, I fully admit that some things are consciously suspended. This is one of them, it seems.

I suggest reading "Accelerando" by Charles Stross and "Neverness" and "A Requiem for ****** Sapiens" (trilogy) by David Zindell. The former features a singularity event and the latter AI gods who would turn all matter into extensions of itself if not prevented. It's not a new or particularly exotic SF concept. 

Not aware of AI's utilizing all the universe's matter for its own ends, but I know of the basic theory involving self-aware AI's, and how widely used it is in science fiction. 

Of all the sources I've seen though they pull of the theme well enough. Often cliched, but a good cliche is better than breaking the mould and failing completely. 

BioWare's take on the issue is moronic. Poorly explained, baseless, with no foreshadowing. Needlessly abstract yet stupidly simple. It's simply bad. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 17 mai 2012 - 11:43 .

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
BioWare's take on the issue is moronic. Poorly explained, baseless, with no foreshadowing. Needlessly abstract yet stupidly simple. It's simply bad.

Whatever our other disagreements, I certainly agree with that. We shouldn't have to dig through external sources and unpublished material to make sense of things. We shouldn't have to dispose of metaphors so badly used that people take them literally. 

But you know what's totally infuriating? That more of the needed exposition - a Codex entry about singularity events and a different phrasing in the Catalyst dialogue - was in the game at some point, and they cut it to replace things with bullsh*t. I don't know what Hudon and Walters were thinking. Perhaps crunch time affected their intelligence. 

(As an aside I would say that there is some foreshadowing with the geth and their superstructure that will make their intelligence explode and transform them in totally unpredictable ways. Of course the Catalyst dialogue utterly fails to connect the dots.)

Anyway - while all this won't prevent me from choosing Synthesis and interpret it in the way I have done in various threads including this one, it's a sure sign something is wrong with an ending if even those who like the idea complain about the abysmally retarded execution.