9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The leaked script had things cut out, and as such should not be considered canon. When you edit something out, it is no longer a part of the story.

They can however, implement it.

I wouldn't have used it as a reference had the current version made any sense. But since the organic/synthetic conflict only makes sense if you work with the singularity (which was cut) - and that applies to ALL endings - I already needed to refer to it make any sense of the ending at all. After that, referring to the Synthesis phrasing as well was a small step. I could just have cut my losses and go Control but I like the ascension theme. So I'm lobbying for Bioware to restore the cut version.

The link to the thread with the complete text is in the OP.

In an early draft it made us one with the Reapers.

How does that sit with everyone?

If anyone thinks Synthesis is a hard sell, just throw that variant into the debate. You know, I can see where they might have wanted to go with that option, but it would have required presenting the Reapers in a totally different way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 05:16 .

[Heeden]

[quote]Taboo-XX wrote...

Ethics ALWAYS matter. Destroy is the only choice that leaves the Galaxy in the state it belongs, chaos. That order should be maintained. If we are to die at the hands of synthetics then so be it. Such is the nature of the Universe. They too, will eventually be wiped out.[/quote]

Blood for the blood god? My ethics say a balance needs to be found with chaos to allow the growth and diversification of life.

[quote]You propose a perpetual Shangri La then?

And make everyone into some sort of connected concioussness?[/quote]

Not exactly Shangri-La, but certainly a connected consciousness yes.

[quote]I can't help but imagine the last images in Akira. A bloated mass of flesh and machine, with the power to create an entire universe inside of it.

[/quote]

Not impossible I guess, Bioware seem to have somehow incorportated the ending from nearly every sci-fi of the twentieth century.

[/quote]

[Taboo]

Yes, I feel that the cut version was better. I still don't like it but at least it makes some semblance of sense. That can always be restored with expanded.

It's just an early draft by the way, so it really isn't a viable ground for criticism. The only thing that remains is the merging.

The Reapers would also be "blessed" with Shepard's essence as well wouldn't they?

[Subguy614]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
The leaked script had things cut out, and as such should not be considered canon. When you edit something out, it is no longer a part of the story.

They can however, implement it.

I wouldn't have used it as a reference had the current version made any sense. But since the organic/synthetic conflict only makes sense if you work with the singularity (which was cut) - and that applies to ALL endings - I already needed to refer to it make any sense of the ending at all. After that, referring to the Synthesis phrasing as well was a small step. I could just have cut my losses and go Control but I like the ascension theme. So I'm lobbying for Bioware to restore the cut version.

The link to the thread with the complete text is in the OP.

In an early draft it made us one with the Reapers.

How does that sit with everyone?

If anyone thinks Synthesis is a hard sell, just throw that variant into the debate. You know, I can see where they might have wanted to go with that option, but it would have required presenting the Reapers in a totally different way.

Finally the admission (almost) that I asked for 15-20 pages ago.

[Taboo]

Huitzilopochtli? The Aztec's actively sought out people for sacrifice. There's a big difference there. I can just as easily argue that in a time of need that I decided the best way to balance the Universe was to reset the doomsday clock to zero, removing the Reaper threat and in an unfortunate blowback, synthetics.

We don't know what Synthesis does.

[alienatedflea]

jtav wrote...

As I see it, the big problem with Synthesis is that it doesn't fit the narrative. There are the bits and pieces you've outlined, but the idea of a singularity comes out of nowhere for more people. Rannoch can be resolved to both geth and quarian satisfaction. The organic-organic conflict of the genophage is a zero-sum game. Either the krogan remain sterile or the salarians let the galaxy rot. Add in the overarching themes of unity in diversity and a WTF reaction is understandable.

I like your Synthesis. But it feels like it wandered in from another story.

Thats not true...ALL i have ever read is paragon this...renegade that.  No one ever looks at the Neutral side of things.  People of these forums have this certain mentality that is disgusting and boils down to the point where you can not really debate anything about this game bc of it: "you are either with me or against me".  If Control is the "peaceful" solution to the reaper threat by taking over them and If Destroy is the renegade/ruthless solution to the reapers is by destroying all synthetics and technology then synthesis can either be a lose-lose situation or win-win.  Synthesis makes it so that everyone can live in peace...and that clearly FITS with the narrative..

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Ethics ALWAYS matter. Destroy is the only choice that leaves the Galaxy in the state it belongs, chaos. That order should be maintained. If we are to die at the hands of synthetics then so be it. Such is the nature of the Universe. They too, will eventually be wiped out.

Forgive me if I don't agree with that kind of fatalism. You'd accept your death at the hand of synthetics for the sake of a moral principle? Well, I think we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion there. Morality is not the ultimate arbiter of life. 
Also, there is no inherent virtue in the "natural", untouched, unchanged-by-human-hands state. Assert that and I'll tell you to sell your car, break down all roads and buildings and all other human-made infrastructre and live in the woods. If you think that "nature knows best" applies there but not here I'd like to know why you're applying different principles.

And make everyone into some sort of connected concioussness?

I can't help but imagine the last images in Akira. A bloated mass of flesh and machine, with the power to create an entire universe inside of it.

That is *your* image. I'm sure Heeded has a different one. The point is you can be an individual and part of a greater whole at the same time. Just as you are an individual and may be part of a close-knit group at the same time. Heeden's vision just applies that truth of the human condition galaxy-wide and replaces speech with mental communication. I don't see the problem.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 05:30 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Heeden wrote...

That works for me too, organics gain the ability to live as a consensus like the geth, synthetics get the abilty to "live" like we do (by live I'm referring to the changes in Legion when he begins referring to himself as "I"or EDI when she gives her little speach about Shepard making her "feel alive").

"...a path you have already started down."

The aforementione changes in AI and the Zhu's Hope colonists post-Thorian.

But the Geth achieved individuality without having any organic matter crammed into them by space magic.  Ditto EDI's self-determined evolution.

If this is a path we were already on, then why wipe everyone out?  Doesn't that prove the Catalyst wrong?

Why not help people along?  The Reapers have already shown that they're good at acting from behind the scenes through agents; why not use them to encourage people down a path of coexistence with synthetics?  Are they just really impatient?

[Ieldra]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Heeden wrote...

That works for me too, organics gain the ability to live as a consensus like the geth, synthetics get the abilty to "live" like we do (by live I'm referring to the changes in Legion when he begins referring to himself as "I"or EDI when she gives her little speach about Shepard making her "feel alive").

"...a path you have already started down."

The aforementione changes in AI and the Zhu's Hope colonists post-Thorian.

But the Geth achieved individuality without having any organic matter crammed into them by space magic.  Ditto EDI's self-determined evolution.

If this is a path we were already on, then why wipe everyone out?  Doesn't that prove the Catalyst wrong?

Why not help people along?  The Reapers have already shown that they're good at acting from behind the scenes through agents; why not use them to encourage people down a path of coexistence with synthetics?  Are they just really impatient?

The path you're already on in the cut description of Synthesis refers to the eventual merging of organics and synthetics. And the Synthesis is still necessary because with a more natural pace of development, organics would become extinct before the required level of merging was reached.

I would love a variant where you encourage people down that path, instead of forcing it, but that would be the "best of both worlds transhumanist ending", and Bioware didn't want any best-of-both-worlds endings.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 05:33 .

[PsyrenY]

dreman9999 wrote...

.....So a person is not a person if they are created via artifical insemination?
Being is not a being if they were cloned?

Neither of those processes are "totally different." Artificial insemination duplicates natural insemination on a cellular level almost identically - the only part that is changed is the least consequential part, the intercourse. Similarly, cloning is just cell division that occurs in a lab rather than within a mother.

You'll need better examples than that if your point is to make any sense.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Forgive me if I don't agree with that kind of fatalism. You'd accept your death at the hand of synthetics for the sake of a moral principle? Well, I think we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion there. Morality is not the ultimate arbiter of life. 
Also, there is no inherent virtue in the "natural", untouched, unchanged-by-human-hands state. Assert that and I'll tell you to sell your car, break down all roads and buildings and all other human-made infrastructre and live in the woods. If you think that "nature knows best" applies there but not here I'd like to know why you're applying different principles.

I live and work with artists, I am accustomed to such things. In fact, this weekend I'm going to my families condominium and am meeting Gerald Molen, one of Steven Spielberg's producers. I've seen some awful things were I come from and it has almost certainly affected my view of the world. I am always willing to tell him how much I dislike Saving Private Ryan because of the way it treats Germans. Not every soldier that was fighting was a sociopath, intent on doing awful things. They had families and loved them very much. Ethics mean a great deal to me.

Yes, I would. I find the idea of dying to be a far better solution than damning everyone else's rights before my own. If we are fated to be wiped out by a larger force then it's going to happen. You can always do things to prevent it, but in the end, fate will decide what happens.

Destroy resets everything to zero, much like Synthesis does, but it violates far less beings than Synthesis does.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 23 mai 2012 - 05:37 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The path you're already on in the cut description of Synthesis refers to the eventual merging of organics and synthetics. And the Synthesis is still necessary because with a more natural pace of development, organics would become extinct before the required level of merging was reached.

I would love a variant where you encourage people down that path, instead of forcing it, but that would be the "best of both worlds transhumanist ending", and Bioware didn't want any best-of-both-worlds endings.

I agree, that would be a great option.  I'm more concerned about why the Reapers haven't been trying to do it themselves at any point in the last 35 million years.  They had the means to avoid the pointless death of trillions, but never used it.  They even subverted the zha'til, apparently the race to come closest to their ideal, and used them as canon fodder.

Why are the only options genocide or space magic?  Why didn't they help anyone? 

[Taboo]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The path you're already on in the cut description of Synthesis refers to the eventual merging of organics and synthetics. And the Synthesis is still necessary because with a more natural pace of development, organics would become extinct before the required level of merging was reached.

I would love a variant where you encourage people down that path, instead of forcing it, but that would be the "best of both worlds transhumanist ending", and Bioware didn't want any best-of-both-worlds endings.

I agree, that would be a great option.  I'm more concerned about why the Reapers haven't been trying to do it themselves at any point in the last 35 million years.  They had the means to avoid the pointless death of trillions, but never used it.  They even subverted the zha'til, apparently the race to come closest to their ideal, and used them as canon fodder.

Why are the only options genocide or space magic?  Why didn't they help anyone? 

Because the Star Child hit a feedback loop. Had he become as powerful as everyone seems to think he is he would have found a better solution. He needed a variable to introduce change and Shepard's intervention causes that.

He is nothing more than a piece of programming that is stuck in a logic loop.

[Heeden]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Heeden wrote...

That works for me too, organics gain the ability to live as a consensus like the geth, synthetics get the abilty to "live" like we do (by live I'm referring to the changes in Legion when he begins referring to himself as "I"or EDI when she gives her little speach about Shepard making her "feel alive").

"...a path you have already started down."

The aforementione changes in AI and the Zhu's Hope colonists post-Thorian.

But the Geth achieved individuality without having any organic matter crammed into them by space magic.  Ditto EDI's self-determined evolution.

Both of them had intimate contact with Shepard, it's not necessarily magic (although there is enough of that going around) but it could be the fact Shepard was willing to see them as individuals in their own right and not treat their AI as a dangerous abomination. More likely a combination of the two - we've always known Shepard has something a bit special about him, not only the way the Prothean device opened up to him but also the way everyone keeps calling him "the finest humanity has to offer" (don't forget Harbinger considered humanity to be the best out of the current crop of Involveds making Shepard the best of the best).

If this is a path we were already on, then why wipe everyone out?  Doesn't that prove the Catalyst wrong?

Considering you need certain conditions to do with the geth (i.e. organic-synthetic relationships to be at a certain level) and building the Crucible to a certain standard, it is possible the Catalyst did not know (or was not certain) that Synthesis was a viable option for our cycle. He may not have known it was even possible until the Crucible was plugged in,

Why not help people along?  The Reapers have already shown that they're good at acting from behind the scenes through agents; why not use them to encourage people down a path of coexistence with synthetics?  Are they just really impatient?

Maybe he does, maybe that's what the Mass Relay system and Citadel are for - to give organics a step-up so hopefully they'll make peaceful AI this time. Maybe he just doesn't want quite that much level of control. Maybe organics have to evolve randomly to make Synthesis possible. Maybe it takes some sort of crisis (Reaper invasion) to push organics towards the possibility of Synthesis and the Crucible is a test.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I would. I find the idea of dying to be a far better solution than damning everyone else's rights before my own. If we are fated to be wiped out by a larger force then it's going to happen. You can always do things to prevent it, but in the end, fate will decide what happens.

This is quite frankly irresponsible behavior. Moreover, it completely goes against Commander Shepard's own beliefs (regardless of alignment) as everything you do in all three games is a denial of fate. In fact, one would be inclined to wonder why Shepard bothered joining the military at all if fate, rather than active defense, should be the sole arbiter of who lives and who dies to a conflict.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
Destroy resets everything to zero, much like Synthesis does,

You and I clearly have very different ideas of what synthesis does if that's what you believe. For Synthesis to be the solution the Catalyst believes it to be, it can't simply start the galaxy over, either technologically or culturally. Nor can it simply hand the reins to the Reapers, as that is something they have achieved before anyway without being able to end the cycle.

[antares_sublight]

And, again, how does plant life and microorganisms and fish and all the non-intelligent life forms being networked together with everyone else work? I keep seeing this from pro-synthites, and it leads to discussions of plants deliberately deciding how to produce vegetation for harvesting by also-networked-together-consumers and forests controlling their growth in collaboration with other plant life and all kinds stuff like that...

If you want to talk about how "people" are "networked" into some kind of global super-being, don't forget that ALL LIFE is changed, not just intelligent life.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I would. I find the idea of dying to be a far better solution than damning everyone else's rights before my own. If we are fated to be wiped out by a larger force then it's going to happen. You can always do things to prevent it, but in the end, fate will decide what happens.

This is quite frankly irresponsible behavior. Moreover, it completely goes against Commander Shepard's own beliefs (regardless of alignment) as everything you do in all three games is a denial of fate. In fact, one would be inclined to wonder why Shepard bothered joining the military at all if fate, rather than active defense, should be the sole arbiter of who lives and who dies to a conflict.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
Destroy resets everything to zero, much like Synthesis does,

You and I clearly have very different ideas of what synthesis does if that's what you believe. For Synthesis to be the solution the Catalyst believes it to be, it can't simply start the galaxy over, either technologically or culturally. Nor can it simply hand the reins to the Reapers, as that is something they have achieved before anyway without being able to end the cycle.

Shepard choosing Synthesis, affecting ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY with a totally unknown and probably unknowable process and result, based on a 2 minute content-free, overly-agreeable chat with the most evil and
destructive force in the galaxy, especially when you've had allies hinting that such a thing is bad and enemies proclaiming it's their goal, would be the most irresponsible act possible in the history of the universe.

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

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Shepard choosing Synthesis, affecting ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY with a
totally unknown and probably unknowable process and result, based on a 2
minute content-free, overly-agreeable chat with the most evil and
destructive force in the galaxy, especially when you've had allies
hinting that such a thing is bad and enemies proclaiming it's their
goal, would be the most irresponsible act possible in the history of the universe.

After a 2 minute conversation with Vigil, he uploaded an alien virus to the Citadel.
After a 2 minute conversation with Kirrahe, he destroyed the first Genophage cure.
After a 2 minute conversation with Amanda Kenson, he destroyed an entire Batarian star system.
After a 2 minute conversation with the Rachni Queen, he decided to release them on the galaxy once more/doom them to extinction.

What do all these events, including yours, have in common? Simply: desperation. No time for lengthy deliberation, galactic polls, or ivory tower ethics.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

And, again, how does plant life and microorganisms and fish and all the non-intelligent life forms being networked together with everyone else work?

You're still overthinking it. How do your cells work together to form tissues and organs? It's the same thing. Are your cells sentient? How about your organs? Your digestive system? No, only the entire macro-organism is, and millions of the individual components die and are replaced every single day.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, I would. I find the idea of dying to be a far better solution than damning everyone else's rights before my own. If we are fated to be wiped out by a larger force then it's going to happen. You can always do things to prevent it, but in the end, fate will decide what happens.

This is quite frankly irresponsible behavior. Moreover, it completely goes against Commander Shepard's own beliefs (regardless of alignment) as everything you do in all three games is a denial of fate. In fact, one would be inclined to wonder why Shepard bothered joining the military at all if fate, rather than active defense, should be the sole arbiter of who lives and who dies to a conflict.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
Destroy resets everything to zero, much like Synthesis does,

You and I clearly have very different ideas of what synthesis does if that's what you believe. For Synthesis to be the solution the Catalyst believes it to be, it can't simply start the galaxy over, either technologically or culturally. Nor can it simply hand the reins to the Reapers, as that is something they have achieved before anyway without being able to end the cycle.

Irresponsible? That's the way the world is now. Did you miss the last part of the bloody paragraph? You can fight the inevitable, but if odds are not in your favor you are going to be wiped out. You can always stop it, as I have said before, which Destroy does. The odds are in our favor at the end. The cycle was fated to be broken at some point, that was an inevitability. The only thing that matters is how you decide to end it.

If you cherry pick these quotes it's very easy to become confused.

Destroy resets the doomsday clock to zero with Synthetics, rendering the galaxy capable of rebulding or not building them as they see fit. The only threat we have is with each other.

Synthesis, resets the doomsday clock to zero as well, but only against Synthetics. The Krogans still hate the Salarians and vice versa. To achieve this you violate every single organic and synthetic beings right to consent.

Destroy removes the presence of the Synthetic threat (albeit in an awful manner) and keeps everything else intact. Synthesis violates everyone, synthetic and organic and still doesn't remove our own prejudices and fears about each other.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 23 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Shepard choosing Synthesis, affecting ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY with a
totally unknown and probably unknowable process and result, based on a 2
minute content-free, overly-agreeable chat with the most evil and
destructive force in the galaxy, especially when you've had allies
hinting that such a thing is bad and enemies proclaiming it's their
goal, would be the most irresponsible act possible in the history of the universe.

After a 2 minute conversation with Vigil, he uploaded an alien virus to the Citadel.
After a 2 minute conversation with Kirrahe, he destroyed the first Genophage cure.
After a 2 minute conversation with Amanda Kenson, he destroyed an entire Batarian star system.
After a 2 minute conversation with the Rachni Queen, he decided to release them on the galaxy once more/doom them to extinction.

What do all these events, including yours, have in common? Simply: desperation. No time for lengthy deliberation, galactic polls, or ivory tower ethics.

You understand that the difference in scale is different? That you are assigning meaning to things that are much smaller? Is this how you justify Synthesis?

You make it sound like a progression of a criminal. They descend into futher and further crimes.

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Shepard choosing Synthesis, affecting ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY with a
totally unknown and probably unknowable process and result, based on a 2
minute content-free, overly-agreeable chat with the most evil and
destructive force in the galaxy, especially when you've had allies
hinting that such a thing is bad and enemies proclaiming it's their
goal, would be the most irresponsible act possible in the history of the universe.

After a 2 minute conversation with Vigil, he uploaded an alien virus to the Citadel.

No choice offered. No reason to distrust Vigil. Evidence and reason presented and accepted. 

After a 2 minute conversation with Kirrahe, he destroyed the first Genophage cure.

No choice offered. Kirrahe does not present you with an option. Context missing. 

After a 2 minute conversation with Amanda Kenson, he destroyed an entire Batarian star system.

No choice offered. Context missing. 

After a 2 minute conversation with the Rachni Queen, he decided to release them on the galaxy once more/doom them to extinction.

Choice offered. Alternative is her death, you can freely choose this. Information given by the buckets up until that point, it is an informed choice.

What do all these events, including yours, have in common? Simply: desperation. No time for lengthy deliberation, galactic polls, or ivory tower ethics.

Not much, to be honest. 

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Shepard choosing Synthesis, affecting ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY with a
totally unknown and probably unknowable process and result, based on a 2
minute content-free, overly-agreeable chat with the most evil and
destructive force in the galaxy, especially when you've had allies
hinting that such a thing is bad and enemies proclaiming it's their
goal, would be the most irresponsible act possible in the history of the universe.

After a 2 minute conversation with Vigil, he uploaded an alien virus to the Citadel.
After a 2 minute conversation with Kirrahe, he destroyed the first Genophage cure.
After a 2 minute conversation with Amanda Kenson, he destroyed an entire Batarian star system.
After a 2 minute conversation with the Rachni Queen, he decided to release them on the galaxy once more/doom them to extinction.

What do all these events, including yours, have in common? Simply: desperation. No time for lengthy deliberation, galactic polls, or ivory tower ethics.

Those events had knowable outcomes and effects on a limited population. Synthesis is completely unknown and affects ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY. You cannot make a comparison.

[Taboo]

You justify your actions based upon smaller decisions that do not affect everyone immediately.

That's faulty logic.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

And, again, how does plant life and microorganisms and fish and all the non-intelligent life forms being networked together with everyone else work?

You're still overthinking it. How do your cells work together to form tissues and organs? It's the same thing. Are your cells sentient? How about your organs? Your digestive system? No, only the entire macro-organism is, and millions of the individual components die and are replaced every single day.

My cells are not independent life forms competing in an ecosystem that they've evolved to fit into in just a certain way. You're not only oversimplifying it, you're making a false comparison.