9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Heeden]

Optimystic_X wrote...

"But the Reapers will obey me?"
"Yes."

Cut and dried.

Ah, but there's a bit of a pause for thought before "yes", plenty of room for things to get complicated :-)

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

She won't. She builds the Relays, helps construct some infrastructure, then flies the Reapers into the sun. 

Who is "she", since the Catalyst says that Shepard will die and lose everything? Certain it's the same person with the same motivations, convictions and strength?

"But the Reapers will obey me?"
"Yes."

Cut and dried.

"You will die"

Mangled and confusing. Don't try and defend any of this as sensible, regardless of which horrible ending you prefer.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 08:29 .

[PsyrenY]

Heeden wrote...

Doesn't the Citadel fall apart in the control ending too?

Oddly enough, no. The Relays don't blow apart like they do in D/S either.

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...
"You will die"

Mangled and confusing. Don't try and defend any of this as sensible.

That too :-P

Shepard dies but his mind-state survives in the control centre of each Reaper.

[Lugaidster]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You already have the fate of the galaxy in your hands when you're making your decision about how the Crucible is to be used. You're deciding everyone's fate. All sapient life including the Reapers is affected by your decision.

It's not about having them for one decision, it's about holding on to it. Many dictators also claimed they give their power away once the problem was fixed, but they didn't. I'm not holding my breath for that to change. At the moment he speaks with the catalyst he has the galaxy's fate in his hands, choosing control is keeping that power in his hands rather than giving it away in the other two options.

Ieldra2 wrote... 
Pretending humility is hypocritical. You have the responsibility. Control may actually be the least drastic choice if you look at the consequences. 

 

No one is pretending humility, I'm taking the risk of another dictator/catalyst away by not taking that choice. I'm of the opinion of not creating another possible cycle, which is what I believe a Control-like ending would give. Moreover, that look about consequences is a bit short-sighted, giving the power of the reapers to another single entity can be equally catastrophic. We aren't speaking about a perfect being, we are talking about a being that is equally capable of taking out entire species on the blink of an eye based on some ulterior purpouse (Doom the krogans and geth/quarians).

At this moment no decision is simple or easy, but taking one that let's me keep this amount of power is overly greedy and the consequences could be much worse than control or synthesis.

Ieldra2 wrote... 
I won't argue for Synthesis being "objectively" better than Control. I have my reasons why I prefer it, which includes that it sets the Reapers free from the Catalyst's control and gives the species of the galaxy an upgrade, but I can see the arguments for Control.

My preferring Synthesis is not based on morality. As I said, (deontological) morality isn't everything.

Clearly not, as you seem to prefer the "practical solution." The thing is, Synthesis is a solution to a non-issue. It's a preemtive solution to a possible singularity.

[Heeden]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Heeden wrote...

Doesn't the Citadel fall apart in the control ending too?

Oddly enough, no. The Relays don't blow apart like they do in D/S either.

Well now, that makes control a lot more tempting.

[Lugaidster]

Uncle Jo wrote...

P:S: 'cause you suck at reading...

Haha, good one . If you think that what you wrote was sarcasm, you don't know it's meaning.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

"You will die"

Mangled and confusing. Don't try and defend any of this as sensible, regardless of which horrible ending you prefer.

Clearly you're able to give some kind of order before you die, because (a) the Reapers do leave, and ( you "end the Reaper threat" in Control. 

I'm capable of separating the parts that make sense from the parts that don't. Are you?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I know I wrote kind of tongue in cheek about the endings back several pages, but it's all there.

Control: "You will die. You will lose everything you have."

So what will you lose? Your sense of self? Your emotions?  Your moral values? Your spiritual values? Your moral judgement? Your humanity? These are things you have, and you will lose them.

But the reapers will obey you because you will be the AI. And now you have at your "fingertips" all the data and information the Catalyst had about the technological singularity and what all the models predict. Perhaps like Mordin had about the Krogan when the Salarians were discussing the genophage. Now you're in a sticky wicket. It's your job to prevent that.

So maybe you think you should fly them all into the sun, but now find out you will need them. So what have you accomplished? You ended THIS cycle. There is now a human reaper -- they did harvest enough humans for a capital ship, and only the cuttlefish shell needs to be built. The reapers will return to dark space. The Citadel will return to the Widow cluster. But you'll be back in 50,000 yrs, and everyone you knew will think you saved the galaxy. See?

And so you will wait for another to create what you helped create.

[Uncle Jo]

Lugaidster wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

P:S: 'cause you suck at reading...

Haha, good one . If you think that what you wrote was sarcasm, you don't know it's meaning.

Thanks for the advice bro.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

"You will die"

Mangled and confusing. Don't try and defend any of this as sensible, regardless of which horrible ending you prefer.

Clearly you're able to give some kind of order before you die, because (a) the Reapers do leave, and ( you "end the Reaper threat" in Control. 

I'm capable of separating the parts that make sense from the parts that don't. Are you?

You mean being selective in what you choose to believe instead of seeing the reality of the whole?

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 08:39 .

[Lugaidster]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Lugaidster wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

P:S: 'cause you suck at reading...

Haha, good one . If you think that what you wrote was sarcasm, you don't know it's meaning.

Thanks for the advice bro.

No problem bro.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

You mean being selective in what you choose to believe instead of seeing the reality of the whole?

All interpretations are "selective."

The "reality of the whole" is conveyed through the tone of the endings. The only one with a deliberately negative tone is Vaporize; all the others invoke images and emotions of hope and new beginnings.

The facts, ill-explained as they are, can be interpreted in good and bad ways. However, with the tone to convey the writer's intent, I can confidently choose the good interpretations regardless of their poor execution.

[Ieldra]

About Control:

"You will lose everything you have" means you'll lose all the trappings of your organic existence. Your body, your friends, your possessions. You will die as an organic and be reborn as an AI god, the successor to the Catalyst.

Damned metaphors. The writers shouldn't use them where they'll be misunderstood. But Bioware has never been good at being subtle, particulary in ME. Everything comes with the subtlely of a sledgehammer.

@Optimystic_X:
Indeed.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 08:50 .

[Heeden]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

You mean being selective in what you choose to believe instead of seeing the reality of the whole?

All interpretations are "selective."

The "reality of the whole" is conveyed through the tone of the endings. The only one with a deliberately negative tone is Vaporize; all the others invoke images and emotions of hope and new beginnings.

The facts, ill-explained as they are, can be interpreted in good and bad ways. However, with the tone to convey the writer's intent, I can confidently choose the good interpretations regardless of their poor execution.

This, a thousand times. The Mass Effect series throws a number of dilemmas at you which have no concrete resolution, Once you get beyond the game the galaxy has to be shaped by your personal feelings on the matters. Even the negative tone of the Destroy option is mitigated by Shepards survival.

[antares_sublight]

When the only way you can explain or try to logically defend your preferred ending requires selectively removing proportionally very large amounts of canon dialog and scenes, as well as developer comments, I think the wisest course is to recognize it's all nonsense and stupid and none of it deserves an attempt at logical explanation because it's all speculation and headcanon.

Attempts to philosophize and be literary is only personal justification of your fanfiction.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Attempts to philosophize and be literary is only personal justification of your fanfiction.

On the contrary - the endings clearly happened, and the Reaper threat was "ended." Believing otherwise is the fanfiction, not explaining how.

[Ieldra]

@antares:
I have reinterpreted the "final evolution" as "the possible end of random chance-based natural evolution" and I have *recognized* the "new DNA" as a metaphor. The latter at least should be obvious to anyone who listens to the dialogue. That's it.

You're trying to add nonsense to discredit the Synthesis option. You insist in literal interpretations of metaphors in order to further your agenda. Your agenda is running away with your reason, antares.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Attempts to philosophize and be literary is only personal justification of your fanfiction.

On the contrary - the endings clearly happened, and the Reaper threat was "ended." Believing otherwise is the fanfiction, not explaining how.

To the contrary, when you have to disregard the game to explain an ending that happened, then you've gone squarely into the fanfiction realm. It's all fine, but don't try and make it out to be some genius work on BioWare's part instead of a mash of nonsense that is impossible to be defended logically.

Ieldra2 wrote...

@antares:
I have reinterpreted the
"final evolution" as "the possible end of random chance-based natural
evolution" and I have *recognized* the "new DNA" as a metaphor. The
latter at least should be obvious to anyone who listens to the dialogue.
That's it.

You're trying to add nonsense to discredit the
Synthesis option. You insist in literal interpretations of metaphors in
order to further your agenda. Your agenda is running away with your
reason, antares.

You've created a fine piece of fanfiction, congrats. My incredibly long list of very fair questions about Synthesis are there to poke holes in the concept that it's possible to logically defend Synthesis.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 09:04 .

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

To the contrary, when you have to disregard the game to explain an ending that happened, then you've gone squarely into the fanfiction realm.

In what way is the game being "disregarded?"

You've created a fine piece of fanfiction, congrats. My incredibly long list of very fair questions about Synthesis are there to poke holes in the concept that it's possible to logically defend Synthesis.

Which of your questions have not yet been answered?

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...
My incredibly long list of very fair questions about Synthesis are there to poke holes in the concept that it's possible to logically defend Synthesis.

Your questions are about completely undefined areas, thus they can have an infinite number of possible answers. I would do nothing but pull one of them out of my ass, which would be followed by your accusation of me doing exactly that in order to discredit the whole concept. Very transparent. As I've repeatedly said, I won't be baited on that.

BTW, I never claimed canon status. There are other possible interpretations, though I'd only accept those based on the principle that all endings are good endings in their own way. And I agree the description is bogus if you take it literally. So I don't. Because I prefer to be constructive instead of destructive, and I think there are ideas behind the Synthesis option and I found one of them in the leaked script. The bogus writing was done to obfuscate them, but they're still implicit in the story if you know what to look for.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 09:34 .

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

To the contrary, when you have to disregard the game to explain an ending that happened, then you've gone squarely into the fanfiction realm.

In what way is the game being "disregarded?"

The direct quotes that must be "reinterpreted" or totally ignored.

Optimystic_X wrote...

You've created a fine piece of fanfiction, congrats. My incredibly long list of very fair questions about Synthesis are there to poke holes in the concept that it's possible to logically defend Synthesis.

Which of your questions have not yet been answered?

It's a never-ending list. Off the top of my head:

How many species will be extinct because of Synthesis? (due to total upheaval of established ecosystems)
How many ecosystems and biosystems will be eliminated or become irrelevant?
What do the reapers do after Synthesis? Are they docile now? Their purpose is somehow waved away, so what do
they do now? Participate in galactic civilization and politics? Colonize
some place? Go back to sleep? Watch jeopardy reruns?
If the reapers are supposedly the pinacle of evolution, but now Synthesis is the "end of evolution" and yet it has made the reapers more like organics somehow, was Harbinger just wrong? What does Harbinger have to say about it?
How much more energy do organisms require now?
How has Synthesis affected the edibility of foods?
Does wood still burn in the same way?
Does hybridized fungus consume synthetic material now?
How has Synthesis affected venus fly traps?
Joker's (maybe cotton?) hat is glowing, does all previously-organic material glow now?
Is pollination unnecessary now?
Is cotton still soft?
What happens to the Levo/Dextro difference?
Does cork still work the way it did before?
(many others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming Synthesis is done via symbiotic parasitic "nanites":
What do nanites taste like?
Do nanites die with their host?
Do nanites decay? How does this affect the ecology of where they lie?
If nanites are inert in non-sentient organic life: where do they lie and why? Are they just waiting, monitoring their hosts until they see some spark of sentience and then they go to work manipulating the life form?
How do nanites reach all life in the galaxy, including forms deep within planetary crust, bottom of the ocean, etc?
How much control do these parasitic nanites have over their hosts?
Would an EMP destroy all the nanites and devastate hybrid life forms?
(many others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming Synthesis means all life is networked and "working together"
Why would an organism deliberately arrange for itself to be overcome or harvested for food if it was not self-beneficial?
(others I'd have to go through my history to remember)
-- assuming this synthesis is reversible
So if pure synthetics are still creatable and there can still be pure organics... what exactly was accomplished?
If Synthesis imposes a singularity on hybrid life forms in order to keep up with potential pure synthetic singularities, then what does that mean for pure organics, Extinction? So what was the point?
...

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 09:36 .

[Ieldra]

I've actually answered some of those. You just didn't accept the answers. Unsurprisingly. So, please tell me: why should I bother with the rest?

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I've actually answered some of those. You just didn't accept the answers. Unsurprisingly. So, please tell me: why should I bother with the rest?

Evasions and declarations that the question is irrelevant aren't "answers".

[antares_sublight]

There aren't "answers" anyway, that aren't full-on speculation and fanfiction. All the endings are full of problems that make any logical defense of them untenable.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 23 mai 2012 - 09:44 .