9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

comparative subjective projection.. interesting science, even if political.

[ghost9191]

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.

well interesting enough. never heard that cut dialogue so will have to look for it.


yeah and i suppose . just seems from soereigns conversation in ME1 they all agree. eh never put much thought into the process lol  just figured that the "minds" were created through the process

and also i have only seen that conversation with legion maybe 3 times . not worth the cost of the crew in my books

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

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.

I didn't take anything out of context, you can either suck it up and answer the question or just keep dodging it.  If you don't feel that liking straightforward endings means you don't 'get it' then why bring it up in the first place?  You are the person here suggesting it here, nobody else.

In addition, it looks like you need to work on your mathmatical symbols, as what I acutally said was people who like straightforward storytelling people who dislike the endings.  And I also said understand why people who prefer straightforward storytelling wouldn't like the endings.  And yes, open ended endings removes some responsibility from the creator, and that is the idea, some of the burden is placed on the reader(player), and it would be a iterative process.  In this case, properly crafting the work would mean setting up the puzzle to solve.  The overwhelming amount of complaints I have read have to do with not even wanting to solve the puzzle to begin with, which suggests to me, people who are more comfortable with interpreting heavily open ending ending dont' have much to complain about.

[Taboo]

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.

It has nothhing to do with nanites. Shepard adds his energy to the Crucible, The human body has the power of a few batteries. If your case is true, Synthesis could be activated with Energizer batteries thrown into the beam.

It isn't science. It's bollocks.

[Auld Wulf]

essarr71 wrote...

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.

I see this as an irrelevant argument.

I'd like to assume that you've read sci-fi and that your exposure isn't completely via games and television, I'd also like to assume that you're familiar with how computers work. If you do a complete mapping of the brain and store all data about it, including the personality and the memories of a person, then that data is there. Whether the data is running via a virtualised environment or merely stored is irrelevant. The data is present.

Not only that, but the genetic data for every person harvested is also stored within a Reaper. Whether this data is virtualised in any way, whether it's "executed and running in memory" (to put it in layman's terms) in any way is irrelevant. The data is still there. The data is there along with the consciousness of the person represented in data form. So if you have a representation of the consciousness (the personality and memories) and the genetic material of a living being, you have there all you need to reconstitute them into a true, living being.

In other words, if a Reaper doesn't use virtualised, active versions of that data, then the Reaper is still a Schrödinger's cat. Except unlike Schrödinger's cat, the potential of whether the peoples stored within a Reaper exists with outside sources. It's up to the player as to whether they wish to let the Reaper continue to exist, free of the mind control, so that every person contained within the Reaper can be later reconstituted. So, to wit, whether virtualised (active) or not, the data to recreate the person is still present.

To my mind, if you destroy the backup of a person, you are actively killing that person. It's murder. It's murder because you've killed a person who could have existed. You've removed any chance they could have had to live. We have the genetic material and their consciousness, with that, we could allow them to live again. If you destroy that, you are committing murder. If you destroy that on the scale of destroying all the Reapers, you are murdering people on an untold scale, that likely amounts to billions upon billions of people, if not more.

This leads us to the following question: Is it okay to kill an untold amount (which is at least in the billions) of innnocent people?

Personally, I find the mere notion of killing billions of innocent people repugnant. I can't wrap my mind around why anyone wouldn't. According to my sense of ethics, the people contained within the Reapers, virtualised or not, deserve the chance to live. Those people exist within a Schrödinger-state, yes, but we can provide them with life. And as I've pointed out -- most of those people are civilians since the Reapers put a higher priority on civilians (we can observe in the game that they tend to harvest civilians whilst attacking military forces).

Most of the people within a Reaper consensus have likely never lifted a gun, most of them are likely good people. They have been transferred to a state of pure data. Do they deserve to remain in that state? Do they deserve to be destroyed before they can be converted back? They are still people, data or not, and they are people who can be saved and restored to life. To kill them is the most abhorrent and outright wrong thing I can envision.

[Auld Wulf]

Greylycantrope wrote...
nanites which magically appear out of a giant battery

Just out of curiosity -- where in canon is it stated that the crucible is explicitly energy and contains no physical resources present with which it could construct other things?

[essarr71]

Auld Wulf wrote...

essarr71 wrote...

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.

I see this as an irrelevant argument.

I'd like to assume that you've read sci-fi and that your exposure isn't completely via games and television, I'd also like to assume that you're familiar with how computers work. If you do a complete mapping of the brain and store all data about it, including the personality and the memories of a person, then that data is there. Whether the data is running via a virtualised environment or merely stored is irrelevant. The data is present.

Not only that, but the genetic data for every person harvested is also stored within a Reaper. Whether this data is virtualised in any way, whether it's "executed and running in memory" (to put it in layman's terms) in any way is irrelevant. The data is still there. The data is there along with the consciousness of the person represented in data form. So if you have a representation of the consciousness (the personality and memories) and the genetic material of a living being, you have there all you need to reconstitute them into a true, living being.

In other words, if a Reaper doesn't use virtualised, active versions of that data, then the Reaper is still a Schrödinger's cat. Except unlike Schrödinger's cat, the potential of whether the peoples stored within a Reaper exists with outside sources. It's up to the player as to whether they wish to let the Reaper continue to exist, free of the mind control, so that every person contained within the Reaper can be later reconstituted. So, to wit, whether virtualised (active) or not, the data to recreate the person is still present.

To my mind, if you destroy the backup of a person, you are actively killing that person. It's murder. It's murder because you've killed a person who could have existed. You've removed any chance they could have had to live. We have the genetic material and their consciousness, with that, we could allow them to live again. If you destroy that, you are committing murder. If you destroy that on the scale of destroying all the Reapers, you are murdering people on an untold scale, that likely amounts to billions upon billions of people, if not more.

This leads us to the following question: Is it okay to kill an untold amount (which is at least in the billions) of innnocent people?

Personally, I find the mere notion of killing billions of innocent people repugnant. I can't wrap my mind around why anyone wouldn't. According to my sense of ethics, the people contained within the Reapers, virtualised or not, deserve the chance to live. Those people exist within a Schrödinger-state, yes, but we can provide them with life. And as I've pointed out -- most of those people are civilians since the Reapers put a higher priority on civilians (we can observe in the game that they tend to harvest civilians whilst attacking military forces).

Most of the people within a Reaper consensus have likely never lifted a gun, most of them are likely good people. They have been transferred to a state of pure data. Do they deserve to remain in that state? Do they deserve to be destroyed before they can be converted back? They are still people, data or not, and they are people who can be saved and restored to life. To kill them is the most abhorrent and outright wrong thing I can envision.

By your own definition, they are no longer people.  They're data.  When Lilith was melted and sent to the human reaper, she was dead already.  If you're trying to say that she was alive and aware, a willing part of a new system within the Reaper when it was destroyed, there isn't much I can defend against.

You may find the notion of killing billions of innocents repugnant, but you're very quick to defend those who do it.

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

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.

I didn't take anything out of context, you can either suck it up and answer the question or just keep dodging it. If you don't feel that liking straightforward endings means you don't 'get it' then why bring it up in the first place? You are the person here suggesting it here, nobody else.

In addition, it looks like you need to work on your mathmatical symbols, as what I acutally said was people who like straightforward storytelling people who dislike the endings. And I also said understand why people who prefer straightforward storytelling wouldn't like the endings. And yes, open ended endings removes some responsibility from the creator, and that is the idea, some of the burden is placed on the reader(player), and it would be a iterative process. In this case, properly crafting the work would mean setting up the puzzle to solve. The overwhelming amount of complaints I have read have to do with not even wanting to solve the puzzle to begin with, which suggests to me, people who are more comfortable with interpreting heavily open ending ending dont' have much to complain about.

Fine, you're not insulting anyone if you say so but keep in mind plenty of people who defend the endings do so by questioning the critics' ability to understand them and claiming they'd be satisfied with something more simplistic rather than argue the merits of the endings themselves. Many likely would prefer something simpler but the real question is what sort of ending, straightforward or not, would have been appropriate for the story being told up to that point?

If the writers had no concrete plan in place as to how the Trilogy was going to play out, could they honestly be said to have laid out the proper groundwork for that figurative puzzle? As far as I am concerned, the Catalyst and the Synthesis ending that he exists to promote are not appropriate means to end the story because they have little groundwork that supports them beyond pure speculation.

[Auld Wulf]

There was another question I wanted to address

Would it kill the Reaper to free the people within?

Consider that the minds would effectively be software and that we're dealing with Reaper technology. If the Reaper is happy with its current state (not all might be), then we could ask it to copy its data and DNA samples/data. With an inactive copy of the data we could separate and reconstitute the people. The Mass Effect Universe already has cloning down to a fine art -- other than that, the only thing that's relevant is the data.

Hypothetically speaking, if a Reaper really is an individual and not a collection of peoples that form a civilisation, then we could acquire the data from a willing Reaper and then reconstitute from a copy. I've always found the notion of having to destroy A to create B ridiculous, and plots which surround that do so often just to ellicit an emotional response, especially when the technology exists to deal with this in other ways. The only logical argument against this is if you didn't fully understand the software you were dealing with, as was apparently the case with Legion (unfortunately).

Still, a Reaper would understand its own systems. Plus, the Catalyst would also be able to offer further aid, and it would likely have no reason to not help out. The Catalyst, like the Reapers, was essentially driven by a control doctrine, one set forth by the Leviathans. That doctrine couldn't be removed.

The purpose of the Crucible was to chnage the control doctrine.

This is why the ending of Mass Effect 3 presents us with four possible options to change the control doctrine. If the programs involved believe that the doctrine has been fulfilled, then the doctrine becomes benign and no longer needs to be followed. With the goal reached, the doctrine is no longer relevant. Every option presented by the ending (other than Refuse) is changing the doctrine variables so that different actions which actually flag the doctrine as achieved.

Sorry for that aside, but I wanted to explain that.

The fact of the matter is is that there's really no reason that, in a Synthesis or Control based future, the Catalyst and the Reapers wouldn't help us. So even if the minds were used to create a new creature, the original data would most likely still be present, and we could arrange to receive that data. It might be a long-term project, but if the data is present then most of the people contained within the Reapers could be reconstituted. It would be like a large-scale Lazarus project.

I think too many people are stuck in the binary notion (admittedly pushed by the game) that in order to save A, you must destroy B. But the end of the game is a paradigm shift, it tells you that you don't have to destroy B to save A, that you could in fact save A and B. A being the peoples of the galaxy, and B being the Reapers. Similar, in this case, you don't have to destroy a Reaper in order to get copies of the data contained within the Reaper.

Here's an interesting factoid raised by the question:

If, indeed, the Reapers are a conjoined entity, then there is even further innocent death in Destroy than we originally realised.

The fact of the matter is that the Reapers are being controlled by the control program (the Catalyst, perhaps, or something more deeply embedded). They need to obey, they need to continue the cycle. They have been programmed, mind-controlled, to accept the harvest as the only means of existance. With the doctrine changed, the conjoined Reaper entities would have free will for the first time ever. We don't know what their motivations would be and we can't pre-judge them.

In an ideal Universe, if it could be achieved, the Reapers could be convinced of both the value of peace and the value of reconstituting the peoples that make up its being. So in an ideal future, we could save the Reapers and the peoples contained within the Reapers. This is what I believe that Synthesis is meant to present. Even in Control there is still a control program present (Shepard -- although hopefully Shepard would choose to free the other Reapers, too), but Synthesis has no such reigns.

All of this ties into why I can't destroy the Reapers.

I can't destroy the Reapers because, if this is correct, I am not only murdering the peoples who could be reconstituted from Reaper data, but I am also killing innocent Reaper entities (the Reapers have thus far made no choices of their own free will).

As such, my opinion hasn't changed. My point: The Reapers can conjoin, the Reapers also have the tech to create a copy and unconjoin.

(Edited for clarity and ease of reading in a couple of places.)

Edit: Just to expand a little on my closing points -- yes, I said an innocent Reaper entity. This is a paradigm shift because one might not immediately realise that the Reapers aren't actually guilty of anything. A mind-controlled person cannot be charged with guilt, only the person responsible for committing the act of mind-controlling can. The mind-controlled person was a victim. It's a form of rape, but of the mind rather than the body. We have no idea what hte motivations of a free-willed Reaper would do, and it would most likely vary from Reaper to Reaper.

Still, one is innocent until proven guilty. The Reaper entities are actually innocent of all crimes -- the ones who hold true guilt are the Leviathans for wilfully creating such a program (one that had ridiculously hard doctrines to follow, and one which allowed for something like harvesting to even happen). The Reapers are innocent of these acts as they were merely doing what they were mind-controlled to do. Thus, killing a Reaper for being mind-controlled is an incredibly questionable and unethical choice.

The dilemma of mind-control has come up in various forms of media, from comic books, to works of fantasy and science-fiction. Yet never is the victim who was mind-controlled blamed. Only the guilty party responsible for enacting the mind-control. They are the culpable ones. Ultimately, the Reapers are victims. It may be difficult to think of them that way, but any creature as powerful as a Reaper could cause unspeakable damage, just as we humans can. It is free-will and our choices that matter. Not what we are capable of.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 21 mars 2013 - 01:31 .

[Obadiah]

Why bother recreating bodies when Synthesis already shows this from just pure information?

Modifié par Obadiah, 21 mars 2013 - 01:52 .

[ghost9191]

yeah auld wulf, it is hard. but sadly i can't help. don't think i could even find a ladder that could reach that high. guess you will have to spend a bit longer on that horse of yours

no way out of it without getting your hands dirty

i mean if you want to get all touchy feely when it comes to the reapers. what of cerberus? or the reaper troops you kill throughout the game. they were being forced to do it. they were innocent. what of mudering them?  face it . by what you say shepard is malicous murderer

sad and i thought my shep was doing good


i get it, but in the end. at that moment the reapers are a threat. innocent or not if they aren't stopped they will kill a lot more . not saying there isn't another choice. jsut saying when it comes down to it , they are a threat. plain and simple 

just main reason for destroy

Modifié par ghost9191, 21 mars 2013 - 02:33 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
nanites which magically appear out of a giant battery

Just out of curiosity -- where in canon is it stated that the crucible is explicitly energy and contains no physical resources present with which it could construct other things?

According to the catalyst the Curcible is little more than a power source, even Liara mentions at one point that what this thing does is produce a lot of energy. The catalyst is required for directing this energy nanites are never mentioned or alluded to, nor does any of the other options require said vector for being used. (though control has it's own proplems with converting matter to energy when Shepard goes all catalyst.)

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Taboo-XX 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.

It has nothhing to do with nanites. Shepard adds his energy to the Crucible, The human body has the power of a few batteries. If your case is true, Synthesis could be activated with Energizer batteries thrown into the beam.

It isn't science. It's bollocks.

Add to that fact the 'essence of who Shepard is'. Shepard is somehow 'ready' to enact synthesis.

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...
Fine, you're not insulting anyone if you say so but keep in mind plenty of people who defend the endings do so by questioning the critics' ability to understand them and claiming they'd be satisfied with something more simplistic rather than argue the merits of the endings themselves. Many likely would prefer something simpler but the real question is what sort of ending, straightforward or not, would have been appropriate for the story being told up to that point?

If the writers had no concrete plan in place as to how the Trilogy was going to play out, could they honestly be said to have laid out the proper groundwork for that figurative puzzle? As far as I am concerned, the Catalyst and the Synthesis ending that he exists to promote are not appropriate means to end the story because they have little groundwork that supports them beyond pure speculation.

They tossed up a lot of breadcrumbs over the trilogy to give them angles to work, but in the end it really looked like they just tackled the idea of reapers at the core, which, as I said previously, is the probably the best way to deal with them.  Synthesis is the best solution for the issues that are presented by lovecraftian horrors.

Also, not sure why you think the Catalyst always wanted to do synthesis, there is no indication that he felt synthesis was good until the crucible was attached, which makes it sound like the designers of the crucible are the ones who felt it was the better option.

[ruggly]

Other than it saying that it tried it before?

[Shaigunjoe]

ruggly wrote...

Other than it saying that it tried it before?

Right, that was thing they tried first right? Then he left it alone, because he didn't think it could be done, until somebody else figured out how.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 21 mars 2013 - 03:59 .

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Other than it saying that it tried it before?

Right, that was thing they tried first right? Then he left it alone, because he didn't think it could be done, until somebody else figured out how.

The Catalyst explicitly states it tried a similar solution before but states that it wouldn't work because it couldn't "be forced" which suggests some, if not all that opposed or were harvested by the Catalyst in the past didn't want such a solution. It also explicitly states that the Crucible is simply a glorified power source.

The only thing stopping the Catalyst from implementing synthesis before is some nebulous idea of consent, sufficent power and apparently Shepard's "organic energy."

[Dendio1]

I'm curious as to how you guys would relate the new refusal ending to lovecraft. This was added in the extended cut in response to fan outcry so it was never intended..,but maybe we can still find some strings to connect

Find forbidden knowlege....don't run, dont embrace, dont go mad....just stand there and die?

Is refusal to act in the name of personal morals worse than even the most despicable action? Or is in-action the only way to truely relinquish yourself of blame?

Maybe choosing inaction is the only way to escape the confines of fate. Lovecraft assumed you had to react after all.

Modifié par Dendio1, 21 mars 2013 - 07:04 .

[Ieldra]

ghost9191 wrote...

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.

well interesting enough. never heard that cut dialogue so will have to look for it.

yeah and i suppose . just seems from soereigns conversation in ME1 they all agree. eh never put much thought into the process lol  just figured that the "minds" were created through the process

and also i have only seen that conversation with legion maybe 3 times . not worth the cost of the crew in my books

Here's the thread with the link to the cut dialogue:

http://social.biowar...5/index/8873616

The interesting part is the "alternate human Reaper reveal" in the second set of links. As for Legion's conversation, I always pretend to get it anyway because the obscure conditions for getting it are the result of gameplay limitations (you need a mission between talks) rather than story-related.

[Ieldra]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
nanites which magically appear out of a giant battery

Just out of curiosity -- where in canon is it stated that the crucible is explicitly energy and contains no physical resources present with which it could construct other things?

According to the catalyst the Curcible is little more than a power source, even Liara mentions at one point that what this thing does is produce a lot of energy. The catalyst is required for directing this energy nanites are never mentioned or alluded to, nor does any of the other options require said vector for being used. (though control has it's own proplems with converting matter to energy when Shepard goes all catalyst.)

There is the line "The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities". This contradicts the "little more than a power source" line (which, btw, still implies that is *is* more than a power source) and hints that the Crucible may do more than provide power. The hypothesis that the Synthesis is an option enabled by the Crucible is compatible with the evidence and supported by various other lines in the story, except for this one. 

The "stream of self-replicating nanite clusters programmed with information taken from Shepard's mind" hypothesis was brought up by me to explain how the actual change of living organisms may work since we all don't believe in a "magical green transformation beam".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 mars 2013 - 09:37 .

[Ieldra]

Dendio1 wrote...
I'm curious as to how you guys would relate the new refusal ending to lovecraft. This was added in the extended cut in response to fan outcry so it was never intended..,but maybe we can still find some strings to connect

How about this: You are confronted with the truth and are intellectually honest enough that you don't shy away from it or deny it, but you decide that you'd rather die than live in such a universe. It may be seen as a form of madness.

[CaptainCommander]

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"

Shepard ****ed all over the Galaxy?

[essarr71]

Obadiah wrote...

Why bother recreating bodies when Synthesis already shows this from just pure information?

*snip*

Does this mean all our favorite tv and movie characters will come to life too?!  Synthesis is the best!  Oh, those nanites i just made up can do anything!  Unless were not supposed to take this stuff seriously. Its probably just a representation for the sake of storytelling. Kasumi is actually still alone lolz. 

[Ieldra]

Auld Wulf wrote...
There was another question I wanted to address

Would it kill the Reaper to free the people within?

Consider that the minds would effectively be software and that we're dealing with Reaper technology. If the Reaper is happy with its current state (not all might be), then we could ask it to copy its data and DNA samples/data. With an inactive copy of the data we could separate and reconstitute the people. The Mass Effect Universe already has cloning down to a fine art -- other than that, the only thing that's relevant is the data.

Hypothetically speaking, if a Reaper really is an individual and not a collection of peoples that form a civilisation, then we could acquire the data from a willing Reaper and then reconstitute from a copy. I've always found the notion of having to destroy A to create B ridiculous, and plots which surround that do so often just to ellicit an emotional response, especially when the technology exists to deal with this in other ways. The only logical argument against this is if you didn't fully understand the software you were dealing with, as was apparently the case with Legion (unfortunately).

I've always assumed a Reaper mind works similar to the geth consensus. You can remove individual units, but the whole is lessened if you do. I supposed you could just copy the data which make up an individual mind and re-encode its genetic information, but that would effectively create a copy of the individual. This has not been raised as a problem so far within the MEU, probably it's assumed a mind is a quantum state which can't be copied without destroying it, but as I see it, there is no reason to assume that quantum states are relevant to the workings of a mind. Memory encoding in the human brain functions on the neuron level. The problems with making a copy of an individual are more of the ethical kind.

The purpose of the Crucible was to chnage the control doctrine.

This is why the ending of Mass Effect 3 presents us with four possible options to change the control doctrine. If the programs involved believe that the doctrine has been fulfilled, then the doctrine becomes benign and no longer needs to be followed. With the goal reached, the doctrine is no longer relevant. Every option presented by the ending (other than Refuse) is changing the doctrine variables so that different actions which actually flag the doctrine as achieved.

Sorry for that aside, but I wanted to explain that.

The fact of the matter is is that there's really no reason that, in a Synthesis or Control based future, the Catalyst and the Reapers wouldn't help us. So even if the minds were used to create a new creature, the original data would most likely still be present, and we could arrange to receive that data. It might be a long-term project, but if the data is present then most of the people contained within the Reapers could be reconstituted. It would be like a large-scale Lazarus project.

You're running into the main question here: is a reinstantiation desirable? Regarding the Reapers' attitude to galactic civilization as it exists post-Synthesis, I don't feel any prediction can be made except that they'll have different attitudes. It seems plausible to me that most will have priorities and motivations which will carry them beyond anything the current civilization is interested in. They have no need to oppress, but also no need to help. Many may do so out of gratitude for being freed from the Catalyst's control, or because they want to make up for things they did while under the Catalyst's control, but eventually most of them will leave. 

The dilemma of mind-control has come up in various forms of media, from comic books, to works of fantasy and science-fiction. Yet never is the victim who was mind-controlled blamed. Only the guilty party responsible for enacting the mind-control. They are the culpable ones. Ultimately, the Reapers are victims. It may be difficult to think of them that way, but any creature as powerful as a Reaper could cause unspeakable damage, just as we humans can. It is free-will and our choices that matter. Not what we are capable of.

I think the problem is that many people don't accept that the Reapers had been mind-controlled, out of a misguided sense that "someone must pay for all those atrocities". Once you accept the very plausible Reaper mind control hypothesis (some even say it was blatantly obvious), the conclusion you and I have drawn becomes inescapable, and the remaining problem with Synthesis is the global change of the biochemistry of all life in the galaxy. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 mars 2013 - 12:11 .

[ghost9191]

@Ieldra2

thanks for the link