9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Obadiah wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
...
It's still changing them.  They'll be altered, but won't reap the benefits.  So it really sucks for them come to think of it.
...

It means that when they develop new technology they'll be able to integrate it. So it doesn't really suck for them at all.

. It's still not a choice they had any part in.

And in and of itself that does not mean the choice is bad or wrong.

like learning to fly by falling off cliffs...

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

It isn't arrogant to assume some people don't like the ending's because they are not straightforward.  It is absolutly true, there were many people who just wanted a standard galactic victory type of ending, and sometimes when I explain my interpretations to people, there response is just 'why didn't they just show us that!'.

And I never claimed that not being straightforward wasn't one of the reasons people dislike the endings.  That can be a reason, but I'm saying it is far from being the only one.

Shaigunjoe wrote...

What is arrogant is thinking that people who prefer straight forward storytelling don't 'get it'.  Which is what you are doing, not me.  Not 'getting' art is not the same as not 'getting' calculus.  People approach art from different angles, a lot of which has to do with what paths they have taken in their own lives.  I don't think there is anything wrong with liking story telling like that (There is a reason why most of the people I know don't like reading Gene Wolfe, or believe Slaughterhouse 5 is science fiction), mearly that would be the only reason to not like the endings, because it is open enough to do whatever you like with it.  You are wrong, the puzzle pieces they left behind can easily be used to explain the reapers just about anyway you like, or the Catalyst, and each ending.  The problems you are listing have to do with taken what is given at face value.

You're not understanding what I'm saying again; I never said people who prefer straightforward storytelling don't get it. I'm saying people who defend the endings by playing the "open to interpretation" and "use your imagination" cards, by association, lay blame on those that criticize the endings for not being able to do so.  By claiming it is "open enough to do whatever you like" you effectively grant yourself carte blanche to dismiss any sort of criticism of the endings in favor of an interpretation that is convienent.  Some people may want a straightforward ending, yes, yet others might actually have bothered to interpret the endings, decided "hey, the interpretation I get from all this makes the entire story and the Reapers themselves ridiculous and idiotic" and they don't like it.

Umm, here are your words:

" And it is insulting because the implication behind saying such is that
they don't like the endings because they don't "get" them and thus are
evaluating them from a somehow "less enlightened" or "unimaginative"
standpoint"

So why do you feel that it is implied that  people who like straighforward story telling don't get it and are less enlightened?  You are the one saying that, nobody else is.  Given the complaints you had, it seems that you are someone who prefers straight forward storytelling, and I understand why you have issues with what was given.

It is clear you don't understand how interpretations work, its not one that is 'convienent', but mearly one I think that satisfies all the constraints (which there are few) of the ending that was presented.  Sure, people can come up with different ones, but if you come up with one you don't like, why not identify why you don't like it and see if you can amend it, instead of resigning yourself that that is the only possible interpretation and one is doomed to be miserable with it.

[Auld Wulf]

I have to ask here as I feel the trolling is less profound here than in other parts of the forums.

I choose Synthesis because of the freedom it represents. Related to that, does anyone else personally find it repugnant that Destroy represents the death of so many people? There are many sources in the three games (including Legion) that tell us that the Reapers contain essentially what is needed to recreate an entire race. They are like the Titan A.E. ship, but even better. The very essence of every individual they harvest is contained.

Their memories, their personality, and their genetic material. In a Synthesis or Control ending, there's enough there to reconstitute those people, to restore them to life. And those people aren't really culpable for any wrongs, because we learn from ME3 and the Leviathan DLC that the Reapers are basically being controlled by a control program. It would be unethical to hold a person guilty for actions they were responsible for under mind control. The person or persons responsible for creating and activating the mind control program (the Leviathans) are the only ones culpable. At least, that's what I believe would be ethical.

Essentially, there are billions of people trapped within the Reapers, then. Since each Reaper represents a civilisation. Those civilisations, those people could be reconstituted. They could once again rebuild their civilisations and become a part of the galactic community. Do they at least deserve that chance? In my country, we believe in the credo of "innocent until proven guilty," and that guilt is contained within the person responsible and culpable. Not the slave, not the family line, not the friends or relatives.

Those peoples could have much to teach and much wisdom and culture to share.

So each Reaper is a potential civilisation that could be reconstituted. Their only sin was being mind controlled and not being able to resist it. Is it right, then, to kill all of those innocent people? When I think of innocent people dying, I think of gas chambers or school gunning runs. Because those were people who weren't holding guns or doing anything wrong, they were effectively innocent and victimised. The people contained within the Reapers are victims of the Leviathan control program.

If a human Reaper was created and it contained full backups of humans (genetic material and all) and we knew that they could be reconstituted as full humans, would it be right to kill the human Reaper? Even before we get to the ending of ME3, we know the truth about the Reapers, so ignorance cannot be claimed. We know what they are, and in that moment it's our choice whether we kill them. If there was a human Reaper as well, you could bet that would have changed the decision from Destroy for the many.

To me, it seems like the prevailing opinion is "it's okay to kill these slaves because they're aliens." Now we know many vile people found within earth's history have had similarly vile opinions about minorities. And I'm not okay with that kind of opinion.

Thus I find the choice of Destroy repugnant because it unconscionably kills so many innocent people. And in the Reapers those people are mostly civilians, since the Reapers are fighting and killing the military, but harvesting the civilians. The Reapers tend to put a greater sense of worth upon civilians. So many of these people might be people who've never lifted a gun in their life. Do they deserve to die?

That's why it's repugnant to me. Am I the only person who feels this way?

[Taboo]

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

[Auld Wulf]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

Except that multiple sources within the canon contradict this. So it's your headcanon that it is 'dead goo.' If you listen to what Legion has to say, then you'll understand that the memories, personalities, and genetic material of each person harvested is contained within a Reaper. This is enough to reconstitute the person.

Okay, say you find an archive in space which contained the consciousnesses (personalities and memories) and genetic materials of humans. Would you blow it up or choose to initiate the reconstitution system? I'd reconstitute them, because they deserve the chance to live. I can't know their motivations otherwise. Would you just kill them all without knowing that? How can you do that? What is your justification?

Taboo-XX wrote...

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and all that. So, uh... what?

[Ieldra]

Auld Wulf wrote...
I choose Synthesis because of the freedom it represents. Related to that, does anyone else personally find it repugnant that Destroy represents the death of so many people? There are many sources in the three games (including Legion) that tell us that the Reapers contain essentially what is needed to recreate an entire race. They are like the Titan A.E. ship, but even better. The very essence of every individual they harvest is contained.

Their memories, their personality, and their genetic material. In a Synthesis or Control ending, there's enough there to reconstitute those people, to restore them to life. And those people aren't really culpable for any wrongs, because we learn from ME3 and the Leviathan DLC that the Reapers are basically being controlled by a control program. It would be unethical to hold a person guilty for actions they were responsible for under mind control. The person or persons responsible for creating and activating the mind control program (the Leviathans) are the only ones culpable. At least, that's what I believe would be ethical.

Essentially, there are billions of people trapped within the Reapers, then. Since each Reaper represents a civilisation. Those civilisations, those people could be reconstituted. They could once again rebuild their civilisations and become a part of the galactic community. Do they at least deserve that chance? In my country, we believe in the credo of "innocent until proven guilty," and that guilt is contained within the person responsible and culpable. Not the slave, not the family line, not the friends or relatives.

Those peoples could have much to teach and much wisdom and culture to share.

So each Reaper is a potential civilisation that could be reconstituted. Their only sin was being mind controlled and not being able to resist it. Is it right, then, to kill all of those innocent people? When I think of innocent people dying, I think of gas chambers or school gunning runs. Because those were people who weren't holding guns or doing anything wrong, they were effectively innocent and victimised. The people contained within the Reapers are victims of the Leviathan control program.

If a human Reaper was created and it contained full backups of humans (genetic material and all) and we knew that they could be reconstituted as full humans, would it be right to kill the human Reaper? Even before we get to the ending of ME3, we know the truth about the Reapers, so ignorance cannot be claimed. We know what they are, and in that moment it's our choice whether we kill them. If there was a human Reaper as well, you could bet that would have changed the decision from Destroy for the many.

To me, it seems like the prevailing opinion is "it's okay to kill these slaves because they're aliens." Now we know many vile people found within earth's history have had similarly vile opinions about minorities. And I'm not okay with that kind of opinion.

Thus I find the choice of Destroy repugnant because it unconscionably kills so many innocent people. And in the Reapers those people are mostly civilians, since the Reapers are fighting and killing the military, but harvesting the civilians. The Reapers tend to put a greater sense of worth upon civilians. So many of these people might be people who've never lifted a gun in their life. Do they deserve to die?

That's why it's repugnant to me. Am I the only person who feels this way?

You're not at all the only one. Legion makes it pretty clear what the Reapers are, which is not "dead remnants fo species" but collectives of living minds. In my thread on the nature of the Reapers, which is 11 months old, I have called Destroy "multiple genocide". I can justify Destroy, but it doesn't sit well with me. At all. Thinking of all that is lost - at the very least, it's such a horrible waste. At worst, it's...well...multiple genocide.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 mars 2013 - 08:17 .

[Obadiah]

I'd say that the uploaded minds are information, and not actually the lives of the individuals themselves who were killed in the process. Their minds created a new being - a new Reaper which is alive. Destroying a Reaper kills the one Reaper life.

[Steelcan]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and all that. So, uh... what?

. That is the worst excuse imaginable for a problem that BioRe doesn't want to acknowledge.  The Catalyst drips with Vitalism and mystical language.

[Steelcan]

The people inside a reaper are deader than the dodo.

[Taboo]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and all that. So, uh... what?

In the origin comic of TIM, TIM states that that quote is literally full of crap. And guess what? It was written by Mac Walters!

The process literally requires soul energy. FROM A SOUL.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 20 mars 2013 - 08:58 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and all that. So, uh... what?

I'm struggling to discern how some moderately well known idea concieved by another fiction writer decades ago, lacking in any sort of applicable meaning or given context, absolves it of being stupid. 

Is it too difficult to think of your own argument? 

I don't really mind Synthesis anymore. It's no better or worse than any of the other three options, and yeah, having a nice technology based optimistic outlook of the future where it's up to the player to imagine the new world is a little refreshing. Lots of big ideas at play. 

In saying that though, there are lots of other things that present a barrier, logical problems, downright stupid stuff like glowing lines on everything, magically curing the Genophage no matter what, the apparent disregard for any of EDI's character development, and the nonsensical sacrifice of Shepard's body. Presentation and execution, rather than the basic idea of it. It's a shame though that my biggest problem is one the things I think was a positive.

Letting the player imagine the new world, like I said, is nice, but it's a double edged sword. What I don't like about it on the other hand is the almost complete lack of direction or foundation the game gives. before or after the Crucible fires. A blank page, but where to start? It's a real weakness in my eyes, and coupled with the other problems means I don't think Synthesis is all that interesting as a result. No, I don't lack imagination, I have plenty of that, and I don't advocate any other ending any more or less, but Synthesis is just kinda, well, meh. Yay, limitless possibilites, so now what? Are there any problems to solve, conflicts to overcome, new ideas to explore, or is it really just a blank slate. 

Thinking of it now, it's maybe too optimistic. Synthetics are our friends, everyone cooperates, the genophage is gone, etc. What's there to do now? More power to the creative headcanoners, but I don't work in that way. 

[Wayning_Star]

Obadiah wrote...

I'd say that the uploaded minds are information, and not actually the lives of the individuals themselves who were killed in the process. Their minds created a new being - a new Reaper which is alive. Destroying a Reaper kills the one Reaper life.

tell that to the computer alien people who are often uploaded. Nations independent does tend to infer more than dead goo. Actually all we are is just a few chems and minerals contemplating the efforts of some apex race nightmare on elm street...

[Steelcan]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

I'd say that the uploaded minds are information, and not actually the lives of the individuals themselves who were killed in the process. Their minds created a new being - a new Reaper which is alive. Destroying a Reaper kills the one Reaper life.

tell that to the computer alien people who are often uploaded. Nations independent does tend to infer more than dead goo. Actually all we are is just a few chems and minerals contemplating the efforts of some apex race nightmare on elm street...

. Sovereign's lines could also be I ferreted as saying each individual Reaper is a nation, all are equal.

Besides we have no way of knowing the finer details of the Machine race.  Maybe their transfer wasn't destructive.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

It's not magic. It's nanite transfusion through a wave of dark energy.

[GreyLycanTrope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

It's not magic. It's nanite transfusion through a wave of dark energy.

nanites which magically appear out of a giant battery

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

It's not magic. It's nanite transfusion through a wave of dark energy.

. Not what the Catalyst says.  He says "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are will be broken down and dispersed"

[Wayning_Star]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

It's not magic. It's nanite transfusion through a wave of dark energy.

on the quantum level, most things are related to as just energy. What do we know about the basis of energy in relation to life giving properties?

[Wayning_Star]

Steelcan wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

It's not magic. It's nanite transfusion through a wave of dark energy.

. Not what the Catalyst says.  He says "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are will be broken down and dispersed"

isn't 'it all' based in evolution as base level alteration, that is, if evolution provides changes 'within' the given cohort, wouldn't that consist of 'essence', if evolution is actually the teacher and Shepard/Us be the student?

If not, then evolution doesn't work too well..

[ghost9191]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Except that multiple sources within the canon contradict this. So it's your headcanon that it is 'dead goo.' If you listen to what Legion has to say, then you'll understand that the memories, personalities, and genetic material of each person harvested is contained within a Reaper. This is enough to reconstitute the person.

eh that is iffy, if mean if it is the same person don't you think they would have a small problem with being turned like that. and if you can explain to me how reducing someone to "goo" allows them to retain their memories and thoughts i would welcome it

but point is don't you think they would be upset lol

[Steelcan]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Whatever is in there is dead. A dead Reaper is a pile of dead goo. Bioware has made that pretty clear.

You literally perform magic to enact Synthesis. How offensive is that?

It's not magic. It's nanite transfusion through a wave of dark energy.

. Not what the Catalyst says.  He says "Your organic energy, the essence of who and what you are will be broken down and dispersed"

isn't 'it all' based in evolution as base level alteration, that is, if evolution provides changes 'within' the given cohort, wouldn't that consist of 'essence', if evolution is actually the teacher and Shepard/Us be the student?

If not, then evolution doesn't work too well..

. Evolution is random.  Synthesis is not.  Evolution doesn't work well or badly, it just works.

Modifié par Steelcan, 20 mars 2013 - 09:23 .

[Wayning_Star]

if you go 'out' in space it never ends, so if you go IN it's just as far?

the old timers were correct, anywhere you are is the center of the universe.

yay

[Ieldra]

ghost9191 wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Except that multiple sources within the canon contradict this. So it's your headcanon that it is 'dead goo.' If you listen to what Legion has to say, then you'll understand that the memories, personalities, and genetic material of each person harvested is contained within a Reaper. This is enough to reconstitute the person.

eh that is iffy, if mean if it is the same person don't you think they would have a small problem with being turned like that. and if you can explain to me how reducing someone to "goo" allows them to retain their memories and thoughts i would welcome it

but point is don't you think they would be upset lol

It's a form of destructive uploading. A rather well-known sci-fi concept if you leave TV and games behind. This was specifically mentioned (as "destructive analysis") in cut dialogue from the SM (there recorded audio of it). I have no idea why it was replaced with nonsense, but there you go. All *other* sources still support it. Reaper minds are "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined..." (Legion).

As for why they do what they do? The Catalyst has subverted their will. As it says, it controls the Reapers. Otherwise they wouldn't do to others what was done to them with no dropouts at all. It's the only explanation I've seen so far that fits all the known evidence.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
It's a form of destructive uploading. A rather well-known sci-fi concept if you leave TV and games behind. This was specifically mentioned (as "destructive analysis") in cut dialogue from the SM (there recorded audio of it). I have no idea why it was replaced with nonsense, but there you go. All *other* sources still support it. Reaper minds are "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined..." (Legion).

As for why they do what they do? The Catalyst has subverted their will. As it says, it controls the Reapers. Otherwise they wouldn't do to others what was done to them with no dropouts at all. It's the only explanation I've seen so far that fits all the known evidence.

. That is all that is important.  It was cut, it is not canon.

And Legion's (extremely rare, and the fact that he is an optional squaddie) dialogue also can be seen to support that the minds are merged into one consciousness.

[essarr71]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Except that multiple sources within the canon contradict this. So it's your headcanon that it is 'dead goo.' If you listen to what Legion has to say, then you'll understand that the memories, personalities, and genetic material of each person harvested is contained within a Reaper. This is enough to reconstitute the person.

eh that is iffy, if mean if it is the same person don't you think they would have a small problem with being turned like that. and if you can explain to me how reducing someone to "goo" allows them to retain their memories and thoughts i would welcome it

but point is don't you think they would be upset lol

It's a form of destructive uploading. A rather well-known sci-fi concept if you leave TV and games behind. This was specifically mentioned (as "destructive analysis") in cut dialogue from the SM (there recorded audio of it). I have no idea why it was replaced with nonsense, but there you go. All *other* sources still support it. Reaper minds are "billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined..." (Legion).

As for why they do what they do? The Catalyst has subverted their will. As it says, it controls the Reapers. Otherwise they wouldn't do to others what was done to them with no dropouts at all. It's the only explanation I've seen so far that fits all the known evidence.

But what basis do you have for saying those voices are still "active"?  I have a few thousand songs on an external drive.  In a million years, if stored properly, someone could still hear them.  The songs don't change.  The nature of their storage might last, but its just information.  

Maybe one day I'll convert the files to another form.. but its still just a copy of a file.  Introduced to new media, the song doesn't change.  A Reaper might "hear" the voices of everyone uploaded, but it's not proof that they're alive any more than the bands I hear thru my speakers are playing.

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Umm, here are your words:

" And it is insulting because the implication behind saying such is that
they don't like the endings because they don't "get" them and thus are
evaluating them from a somehow "less enlightened" or "unimaginative"
standpoint"

So why do you feel that it is implied that people who like straighforward story telling don't get it and are less enlightened? You are the one saying that, nobody else is. Given the complaints you had, it seems that you are someone who prefers straight forward storytelling, and I understand why you have issues with what was given.

It is clear you don't understand how interpretations work, its not one that is 'convienent', but mearly one I think that satisfies all the constraints (which there are few) of the ending that was presented. Sure, people can come up with different ones, but if you come up with one you don't like, why not identify why you don't like it and see if you can amend it, instead of resigning yourself that that is the only possible interpretation and one is doomed to be miserable with it.

Quit taking what I'm saying out of context and assuming what sort of people I and others who don't like the endings are. You openly stated people who don't like the endings don't like them because they aren't straightforward and they don't want to imagine anything beyond what is directly shown and told to them. It is demeaning regardless of your intent because it suggests they are unwilling or incapable of doing something you are.

I never claimed that I specifically feel people who like straightforward storytelling are less enlightened nor did I say anyone else did; I'm saying such summations of you (and others who defend the endings along similar lines) of people who don't like the endings comes off as insulting because it suggests as much about them. You're stuck on the idea that people who dislike the endings = people who like straightforward storytelling, and refuse to even acknowledge the idea that they cannot be so narrowly categorized and may have more reasons beyond that, which is what I have been saying multiple times.

And by saying that someone should just reinterpret something if their current interpretation of a work is one they don't find appetizing is small justification if the interpreter suspects incompetance on the creator's part. That they should just amend until they are somehow "satisfied" effectively removes responsiblity from the creator in properly crafting the work and is an even worse approach in regards to judging the endings against each other.