9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I don't know if you guys would agree with this but I remember seeing someone post that Destroy was a pro organic choice, control was a pro synthetic choice, and synthesis was a pro reaper choice. Food for thought

Synthesis is a pro-everyone choice. Everyone benefits - organics, synthetics...and the Reapers. If Destroy is your measuring stick of if you believe the Reapers don't deserve any consideration, I can see how Synthesis can come across as pro-Reaper, but Reapers are not thematically dominant in Synthesis, as organics are in Destroy and synthetics in Control.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:44 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
Do you think Shepard's sacrifice is only there for emotional impact, or does it serve another purpose?

It is there for thematic reasons.

In Destroy, Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect to create a thematically pro-organic future.
In Control, Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect to create a thematically pro-synthetic future.
In Synthesis, Shepard sacrifices all that he is to create a bright future for everyone.

It would be a nice balance, were the ending not so riddled with other problems.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:50 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Do you think Shepard's sacrifice is only there for emotional impact, or does it serve another purpose?

It is there for thematic reasons.

In Destroy, Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect to create a thematically pro-organic future.
In Control, Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect to create a thematically pro-synthetic future.
In Synthesis, Shepard sacrifices all that he is to create a bright future for everyone.

It would be a nice balance, were the ending not so riddled with other problems.

. And in refuse you don't sacrifice anything and everybody gets harvested..........

[ghost9191]

that is part of the reason i dislike it also. says pretty much that synthetics and organics cannot coexist without synthesis . but the geth and quarians were rebuilding and the geth were even helping to adapt their immune systems in my ending. all without synthesis

even in control it shows the geth and quarians apart. and that just goes against what my shepard achieved. i would like if ( which is possible , there is no evidence of the geth destruction ) the geth weren't a casualty of destroy., just seems like unnecessary sacrifice to deter from the option. but i think that control and synthesis would appeal even without that being the case

edi is understandable because of the reaper tech used in her creation ., but the geth were just based on it. idk just my opinion on it. just seems like something to influence the choice is all

but always thought of synthesis as the whole remove organic and synthetics from the equation , making a new type of species in order to achieve peace between them

[Ieldra]

ghost9191 wrote...
but always thought of synthesis as the whole remove organic and synthetics from the equation , making a new type of species in order to achieve peace between them

As of the EC, that doesn't happen anymore. It's true that organics and synthetics gain certain of each others' traits, but as I pointed out in the OP, they're based on mutually exclusive design principles, there can't be an in-between form that isn't in some way one or the other. It's the difference between a "grown" and a "built" life forms. You can integrate "built" parts into "grown" life forms and vice versa, but a fundamentally in-between form can't exist. That's the mistake the original ending made.

Even the "blurring of lines" between organics and synthetics EDI speaks of as being in the future of post-Synthesis civilization won't be able to overcome that. The only development possible - and I think that's what it is all intended to mean - is that the distinction will no longer be significant as the two forms of life become closer to each other in capabilities and specific traits.

[ghost9191]

yeah makes sense . will have to read through the op again. last time i did was when you originally put it up lol

way back when everyone was talking about the technological singularity

but i still don't like the change . always seemed to change what made us human , taking away the differences in order to coexist , rather then coexisting despite those deferences

that is what i got from it. but again will go through the op again

Modifié par ghost9191, 31 octobre 2012 - 11:21 .

[Sinekein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis is a pro-everyone choice. Everyone benefits - organics, synthetics...and the Reapers. If Destroy is your measuring stick of if you believe the Reapers don't deserve any consideration, I can see how Synthesis can come across as pro-Reaper, but Reapers are not thematically dominant in Synthesis, as organics are in Destroy and synthetics in Control.

What is the point in having the Reapers gain anything ? The poor babies are misunderstood, they need more love ?

In Destroy, you perform a Mercy Kill, in Control, you make them serve a Greater Good. In Synthesis, you just say "Hey, trillions of dead, it's no big deal. Now you are free, have fun remembering that you were once a civilization, and that you are now stuck forever in a giant squid."

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Do you think Shepard's sacrifice is only there for emotional impact, or does it serve another purpose?

It is there for thematic reasons.

In Destroy, Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect to create a thematically pro-organic future.
In Control, Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect to create a thematically pro-synthetic future.
In Synthesis, Shepard sacrifices all that he is to create a bright future for everyone.

It would be a nice balance, were the ending not so riddled with other problems.

Ieldra, how is control a pro-synthetic future?

I can't believe I am going through this again after months of debating the same thing with you again and again, there is no such thing as "pro", destroy cannot be pro-organic because the Geth is dead, people could never interact with, learn from them again, organics are losing a piece of their "humanity" because they killed their kids that they have created. Better yet, in the Catalyst's twisted vision, synthetics will come back and wipe all organics out, does this sound pro-organic to you?

@ghost: you cannot say  stuff like "I don't like the change" because Ieldra will come back at you and say "oh, you are so backward looking, but I am sorry the world is changing"

Modifié par Vigilant111, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:14 .

[ghost9191]

well i meant the forcing of the change lol . i do however dislike change in rl . pain in the a*s to deal with sometimes but that is beside the point

[Ieldra]

ghost9191 wrote...
but i still don't like the change . always seemed to change what made us human , taking away the differences in order to coexist , rather then coexisting despite those deferences

that is what i got from it. but again will go through the op again

There is this theme of fundamental change, yes. In any ascension worth the name, something will be lost as something else is gained. The question is: is what is gained worth the cost? Is there any actual harm in the change? Isn't everyone still who they were before, only more so? And what exactly is it that makes us "human" in that way? The whole trilogy we're told superficial differences, biochemical differences, don't matter. In every way that counts, aliens are as "human" as we are. If you think that to the end, there is no reason to believe post-Synthesis organics will have lost anything essential. Except perhaps, a certain physical innocence, if you get what I mean.

I'm not saying I like the fact that I have to change the life of the whole galaxy in order to get this new and exciting future. But as I see it, it's totally worth the cost.  

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
Control is a pro-synthetic future because the galaxy is now dominated by an "AI god". The central thematic message of Control is that organics are currently unable to govern themselves without having their own creations destroy them so it's best to have a synthetic "AI god" do it for now until organics have grown up a bit.
(It doesn't matter if you don't choose Control for that reason. It may not matter for any specific playthrough, but the theme is still present)

BTW, my answer to ghost wasn't quite what you expected, right? Don't judge me by my answers to the ITists. "I don't like that big change Synthesis makes. It's a price I won't pay" is a perfectly legitimate reason to reject it. "You are indoctrinated" is not.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:27 .

[Ieldra]

Sinekein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis is a pro-everyone choice. Everyone benefits - organics, synthetics...and the Reapers. If Destroy is your measuring stick of if you believe the Reapers don't deserve any consideration, I can see how Synthesis can come across as pro-Reaper, but Reapers are not thematically dominant in Synthesis, as organics are in Destroy and synthetics in Control.

What is the point in having the Reapers gain anything ? The poor babies are misunderstood, they need more love ?

In Destroy, you perform a Mercy Kill, in Control, you make them serve a Greater Good. In Synthesis, you just say "Hey, trillions of dead, it's no big deal. Now you are free, have fun remembering that you were once a civilization, and that you are now stuck forever in a giant squid."

Read my thread On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers, and why Synthesis is such an attractive choice. The Reapers were mind-controlled by the Catalyst, they have, if any, only limited responsibility for what they did. Also, we gain the cultural and technological legacy of past cycles, including everything that the Reapers know now. 

If some of the Reapers don't want to live because they find their existence intolerable, they can go and fly into the next star. I won't prevent them. But as the EC suggests, at least some of them won't do that.

[ghost9191]

yeah which i understand. but would prefer it like. in most futuristic novels, a select group of ppl advance , and there are those that wish to stay as they are. usually in those futures the groups don't get along but still lol. prefer to have the option , rather then forcing it on everyone and everything

and i mean humans as a species, what makes us human. not so much the humanity, it does show in ME that despite the species all are the same in that regard. they are more like us , but not so much species wise. diversity and all that. but our vice and virtues usually carry over. though some would see them differently

but synthesis would make us be advanced humans but not what we are now, which might not be a bad thing but still it is a change not everyone will like , but if it is to be achieved by their own freewill then so be it.

[Ieldra]

I agree that it would have been desirable to make Synthesis a gradual development, started perhaps by a Shepard synthesized by the Crucible and gradually adopted by the species of the galaxy in the epilogue, instead of this global change we got. We weren't to have that, so I'll do with what we get and minimize the direct impact in my interpretations, putting most of the essential development towards ascension into the future. This is compatible with the EC.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant111:
Control is a pro-synthetic future because the galaxy is now dominated by an "AI god". The central thematic message of Control is that organics are currently unable to govern themselves without having their own creations destroy them so it's best to have a synthetic "AI god" do it for now until organics have grown up a bit.

BTW, my answer to ghost wasn't quite what you expected, right? Don't judge me by my answers to the ITists. "I don't like that big change Synthesis makes. It's a price I won't pay" is a perfectly legitimate reason to reject it. "You are indoctrinated" is not.

Oh Ieldra you just trolled me:o:lol:, next time I am holding my cards closer to my chest

Now, read the bolded part carefully, could control really be pro-synthetic? when AI Shepard presents itself as a god that dominates? (Notice here we are using the term "god" loosely, AI is not the same as God, far from it) I'd expect someone be at awe, envious, even jealous, and no good could come from this, because people would be more resentful towards AIs

"Shhhhh, the reapers took Shepard and made him into an AI"

"These bastards!!!"

The option of control creates this illusion that every synthetic being likes to convert living things into something artificial, that synthetics just do not respect organic life

To me, the "pro-whatever" sentiment is entirely irrelevant, I seriously only expected people who chose control wanted some form of safety measure against the premise "Organics vs Synthetics"

Now read the bolded part again, doesn't control also sound pro-organic to you? because ultimately it is looking out for organics' best interest when they are mature enough to create life so to avoid immenent extinction? Who exactly is the endangered species here? who is the real beneficiaries of such a mechanism (control)?

The answers are not that hard to find

Modifié par Vigilant111, 31 octobre 2012 - 12:48 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree that it would have been desirable to make Synthesis a gradual development, started perhaps by a Shepard synthesized by the Crucible and gradually adopted by the species of the galaxy in the epilogue, instead of this global change we got. We weren't to have that, so I'll do with what we get and minimize the direct impact in my interpretations, putting most of the essential development towards ascension into the future. This is compatible with the EC.

one issue I have with the Catalyst is that he flat out says that synthesis is now inevitable for galactic society.  If that is the case then why doesn't he pack up and leave since his goal will be accomplished without his intervention.

[Vigilant111]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree that it would have been desirable to make Synthesis a gradual development, started perhaps by a Shepard synthesized by the Crucible and gradually adopted by the species of the galaxy in the epilogue, instead of this global change we got. We weren't to have that, so I'll do with what we get and minimize the direct impact in my interpretations, putting most of the essential development towards ascension into the future. This is compatible with the EC.

one issue I have with the Catalyst is that he flat out says that synthesis is now inevitable for galactic society.  If that is the case then why doesn't he pack up and leave since his goal will be accomplished without his intervention.

The best way I could think of to explain this is that the Catalyst thought that it was always going to be in the equation to solve the "problem", until the Crucible changed everything... The Catalyst is probably convinced that organics are now able to achieve synthesis on their own because they defied all the odds and changed the Catalyst by docking the Crucible, very far-fetched I know

The Catalyst can be rebuilt, the citadel can be rebuilt and synthesis can be

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree that it would have been desirable to make Synthesis a gradual development, started perhaps by a Shepard synthesized by the Crucible and gradually adopted by the species of the galaxy in the epilogue, instead of this global change we got. We weren't to have that, so I'll do with what we get and minimize the direct impact in my interpretations, putting most of the essential development towards ascension into the future. This is compatible with the EC.

one issue I have with the Catalyst is that he flat out says that synthesis is now inevitable for galactic society.  If that is the case then why doesn't he pack up and leave since his goal will be accomplished without his intervention.

I mentally edit out any mention of "inevitable", "infinite", "final" etc.. from Mac Walters' writing. He is altogether too fond of using those words where they don't make sense.

However, if Synthesis is indeed inevitable, it won't hurt to speed the process along, although it also makes Control a viable alternative path to Synthesis. Choosing Control with a headcanon scenario where the Control entity encourages the galaxy towards Synthesis is a scenario I often play with in my mind.

Anyway, the Catalyst says: "Now that we know it is possible, it is inevitable that we achieve Synthesis." It also said similar solutions had been tried but failed. That can only mean that the Catalyst knew that it was the theoretically best solution, only it didn't work in practice so far, and that once a civilization is ready for it, it will naturally gravitate towards Synthesis. So why not leave things alone? The only explanation I can see is that there is a high probability a civilization will destroy itself before achieving Synthesis. Synthesis is inevitable - conditional on the civilization surviving until it has achieved it. The Crucible's process is a shortcut that let civilization skip that dangerous period.

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
The difference is that post-Destroy, organic life is dominant, while post-Control, synthetic life (in form of the Control entity - with the EC slide implying that the geth will be its servants) is dominant. That's why those endings are thematically pro-organic/synthetic, most people's assumption that eventually all will benefit notwithstanding.

I agree it may not be a significant aspect on most players' minds, but it exists nonetheless, just as the theme "only physical unification makes peace possible" is likely irrelevant for most people who choose Synthesis, but it's still present as a theme, even though the EC made it almost disappear.

[Sinekein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sinekein wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis is a pro-everyone choice. Everyone benefits - organics, synthetics...and the Reapers. If Destroy is your measuring stick of if you believe the Reapers don't deserve any consideration, I can see how Synthesis can come across as pro-Reaper, but Reapers are not thematically dominant in Synthesis, as organics are in Destroy and synthetics in Control.

What is the point in having the Reapers gain anything ? The poor babies are misunderstood, they need more love ?

In Destroy, you perform a Mercy Kill, in Control, you make them serve a Greater Good. In Synthesis, you just say "Hey, trillions of dead, it's no big deal. Now you are free, have fun remembering that you were once a civilization, and that you are now stuck forever in a giant squid."

Read my thread On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers, and why Synthesis is such an attractive choice. The Reapers were mind-controlled by the Catalyst, they have, if any, only limited responsibility for what they did. Also, we gain the cultural and technological legacy of past cycles, including everything that the Reapers know now. 

If some of the Reapers don't want to live because they find their existence intolerable, they can go and fly into the next star. I won't prevent them. But as the EC suggests, at least some of them won't do that.

I read it, and disagreed with it.

Even if the Reapers are indeed controlled by the Catalyst - "guilty but not responsible" - that doesn't make their mere existence more justified. Their creation is based on the assumption that no matter what, synthetics will prevail and destroy organics.

Assumption that you can prove to be wrong on Rannoch, or by the simple existence of EDI.

Synthesis is seen as the best choice by the Catalyst, once again. The Catalyst that seems to think that it is the final stage of life. But he also thought that the Reapers were not only the best, but the only idea to protect life.

When someone or somethings thinks the Reapers are a good idea, I tend to dismiss its other opinions.

[Ieldra]

I don't think the Reapers are a good idea, but once they have come to exist, they are as valid a life form as any other. You just don't kill anyone based on an origin you find disagreeable. If you start down that road, I can only ask: which "invalid" life form will you be killing next?

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I don't think the Reapers are a good idea, but once they have come to exist, they are as valid a life form as any other. You just don't kill anyone based on an origin you find disagreeable. If you start down that road, I can only ask: which "invalid" life form will you be killing next?

Is life not valid before Synthesis?

*leans back in chair and lights pipe*

This is the type of philosophy that frustrates me the most about most people who choose Destroy. The Reapers ARE a valid form of life and that should be taken into account.

Vengeance is a petty way to justify the action. 

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind as Gahndi once stated.

Wouldn't there be one guy left with one eye though? 

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I mentally edit out any mention of "inevitable", "infinite", "final" etc.. from Mac Walters' writing. He is altogether too fond of using those words where they don't make sense.

However, if Synthesis is indeed inevitable, it won't hurt to speed the process along, although it also makes Control a viable alternative path to Synthesis. Choosing Control with a headcanon scenario where the Control entity encourages the galaxy towards Synthesis is a scenario I often play with in my mind.

Anyway, the Catalyst says: "Now that we know it is possible, it is inevitable that we achieve Synthesis." It also said similar solutions had been tried but failed. That can only mean that the Catalyst knew that it was the theoretically best solution, only it didn't work in practice so far, and that once a civilization is ready for it, it will naturally gravitate towards Synthesis. So why not leave things alone? The only explanation I can see is that there is a high probability a civilization will destroy itself before achieving Synthesis. Synthesis is inevitable - conditional on the civilization surviving until it has achieved it. The Crucible's process is a shortcut that let civilization skip that dangerous period.

. Strange you see Control as a way to achieve that, I see destroy as a way to achieve.  We will get there at our own pace.  No reapers influencing it

[Steelcan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't think the Reapers are a good idea, but once they have come to exist, they are as valid a life form as any other. You just don't kill anyone based on an origin you find disagreeable. If you start down that road, I can only ask: which "invalid" life form will you be killing next?

Is life not valid before Synthesis?
*leans back in chair and lights pipe*
This is the type of philosophy that frustrates me the most about most people who choose Destroy. The Reapers ARE a valid form of life and that should be taken into account.
Vengeance is a petty way to justify the action. 
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind as Gahndi once stated.
Wouldn't there be one guy left with one eye though? 

. I admit the reapers and geth are valid forms, but really I view their demise almost apathetically.  If I didn't trust Legion, the geth would have died over Rannoch.  I don't kill the reapers for vengeance or justice.  I just don't think we can evolve freely with them imposing restrictions on us.