9088 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

StreetMagic wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Obadiah wrote...


2) Why pick on the Vorcha? Other people in Mass Effect treat them like crap, but I saw them fighting, using tech, and hanging out in Sunset Strip like everyone else.

Their intelligence levels are pretty basic, I think. For one of the descriptions of the Bloodpack weapons, for example, it has a built in mechanism that loads an armor piercing round every 20 shots or so. Because the Krogan couldn't get the Vorcha to learn how to mod their own weapons.

That has to do with vorcha culture, not inherent intelligence.

Culture? Can you clarify? In any case, I'm not even being that serious.. just thought it was a funny description. Technically, it wouldn't be intelligence based, but memory and situational awareness.. I guess.

The Punisher features a secondary barrel that fires one armor-piercing round per main-barrel burst. It was developed by Blood Pack gunsmiths who found that their vorcha recruits frequently forgot to optimize ammo loads in the heat of combat. This configuration makes the process automatic and highly effective at penetrating armor.

Theres a planet description in leviathan that proves it.... Can't remember the name off the top of my head

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Eryri wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Yeesh. This nonsense about hypocrisy and "own future" are completely symbolic arguments. They're meaningless.

Maybe, but they are ones that the game's own writers made back in ME1 and ME2, so you can't really blame people for finding this turn-around in the series' tone a bit incongruous.

It's a retcon. I'm not denying that.

However, retconning something stupid is hardly worth whining about.

And yes, Legion's "own future"-nonsense in ME2 was stupid. Worse yet is how many people treat it like gospel -- LOL!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:47 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ieldra2 wrote...


(4) "Uplifting another species is bad". First, you cannot conclude this from one example. Second, you have no evidence that it was bad for the krogan (or for the galaxy) since you do not know what would've happened had they not been uplifted.

Little-known-fact: the elcor were uplifted by the asari. So, no, uplift itself is not a bad thing.

[Ieldra]

StreetMagic wrote...
That aside, I understand I don't know any real details about you -- but I think for you to be pretty set in a Synthesis choice says enough about how you view problem solving and dealing with chaos. It'd be another thing if it was only one of your characters that did this, but you seem to be more of an advocate in general.

Assumptions, assumptions. Before you draw "conclusions" like that, it would, perhaps, be appropriate to ask (1) Why I like Synthesis, what I appreciate in it and what I only tolerate for the sake of the things I like, (2) How many Shepards I have and which choices they made, (3) Why I, as a rule, do not choose Destroy and which themes I nonetheless find attractive in it. With regard to Chaos, there is a difference between dealing with it and finding merit in it. So really, just stop making these assumptions.

[jtav]

Uplift tends to treat people as means to an end and is bad for that reason. The salarians didn't see the krogan as people, but as rachni-stoppers. It also strikes me as uncomfortably close to colonialism, with the elcor/krogan/etc as savages.

[Ieldra]

Navasha wrote...
Face it Ieldra2, you are trying to have everything both ways here.

On one hand you try to claim that Synthesis wouldn't "brainwash" anyone or change how they think.

Perspectives may change as a result of a physical change, but that's different from brainwashing.

Then on the other hand you completely dismiss the whole "uplifting" of species.

If you suddenly give the Vorcha the processing power of EDI without also changing how they think you are essentially putting the power of a nuclear bomb in the hands of a 2 year old child. Sure, there is no "guarantee" that the 2 year old wouldn't be as responsible as an adult who fully understands that when you push the button millions of people die.

You argue that since there is no guarantee, it is perfectly fine to do so. I on the other hand argue that the dangers of letting the 2 year old play with nuclear fire far outweight any other option.

I never claimed that Synthesis wouldn't cause problems along with its benefits. In fact, I have argued against the utopian vibe the ME3 team chose to give it. The phrase I've often used is "new wonders and new horrors". People will have to learn how to deal with them. You see, we are *never* ready for a technology before it arrives. It always arrives first, and then we learn to deal with it. That is only natural, because before it exists, we do not know that it will exist, so there's no way we could make ourselves ready in advance. In some cases we may have an inkling of new technologies just around the corner, but even then we will not know the extent of its influence, and it will be non-economical to put a lot of resources into dealing with it in advance. The history of technology shows just how often what was supposed to be "just around the corner" didn't happen.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 octobre 2013 - 10:17 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Uplift tends to treat people as means to an end and is bad for that reason. The salarians didn't see the krogan as people, but as rachni-stoppers. It also strikes me as uncomfortably close to colonialism, with the elcor/krogan/etc as savages.

That's a moral statement, which is not what I meant when I said that "Uplift is bad" is a fundamentally invalid argument. I meant "bad" in the sense of always having a bad outcome and being undesirable for that reason, which is an argument for which it is impossible to gather evidence. Also, the moral judgment depends on the motivation and the details of the implementation. I recommend reading David Brin's "Uplift" cycle, which deals with the idea in depth, before making generalized judgments.   

[SwobyJ]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Navasha wrote...
Face it Ieldra2, you are trying to have everything both ways here.

On one hand you try to claim that Synthesis wouldn't "brainwash" anyone or change how they think.

Perspectives may change as a result of a physical change, but that's different from brainwashing.

Then on the other hand you completely dismiss the whole "uplifting" of species.

If you suddenly give the Vorcha the processing power of EDI without also changing how they think you are essentially putting the power of a nuclear bomb in the hands of a 2 year old child. Sure, there is no "guarantee" that the 2 year old wouldn't be as responsible as an adult who fully understands that when you push the button millions of people die.

You argue that since there is no guarantee, it is perfectly fine to do so. I on the other hand argue that the dangers of letting the 2 year old play with nuclear fire far outweight any other option.

I never claimed that Synthesis wouldn't cause problems along with its benefits. In fact, I have argued against the utopian vibe the ME3 team chose to give it. The phrase I've often used is "new wonders and new horrors". People will have to learn how to deal with them. You see, we are *never* ready for a technology before it arrives. It always arrives first, and then we learn to deal with it. That is only natural, because before it exists, we do not know that it will exist, so there's no way we could make ourselves ready in advance. In some cases we may have an inkling of new technologies just around the corner, but even then we will not know the extent of its influence, and it will be non-economical to put a lot of resources into dealing with it in advance. The history of technology shows just how often what was supposed to be "just around the corner" didn't happen.

Good way of putting it, actually.

I think though, that while Curing Genophage and Geth/Quarian Peace are dangers along with solutions, Synthesis with the Reapers is like lightyears ahead of those in potential dangers. Yes, for now, it appears we're in a near ultimate peace. A thing I remember from Mass Effect though, is that any peace we're in, is just a prelude to future horrors.

The biggest thing I'm directly curious about for the next game, is if it'll even remotely address the ME3 ending choices. At all.

[SwobyJ]

Control --> Uplift --> Most of what the more 'peaceful' or 'ordered' elements of the Galaxy does in order to maintain that peace. The soft version of this is a seemingly perfect way to run the galaxy, and is used by the Citadel Council. The 'harder' (hard power/soft power) it gets though, the more Reaper influenced it seems, leading to 'splinter' groups in each Cycle, like Cerberus. Even Leviathans are their own version of hard Control in their rule, with the chaos itself being the Destruction happening between organics and synthetics.

Destroy --> War --> Most of what the 'chaotic' elements of the Galaxy does in order to attempt putting itself on top of other groups. The soft version of this seems like needless aggression. The harder version of this seems to instead be the virtuous war against oppression (seen in Omega DLC and the ending).
(with how the Cycle exists, it is more of a system of Control by the Reapers, spaced out by periods of Reaping/Destruction of civilizations - so any group fully representing Destroy/War isn't going to get far, because the Reapers stand in their way... until ME3)

Synthesis --> Merge --> Used by the Reapers in forced attempts to incorporate the chaotic elements of the galaxy into the larger whole. Make no mistake - by picking Synthesis, you're doing the ideal of what the Reaper Controller wants. However, what we're shown is also an ideal of the galaxy - what seems to be the path to everlasting peace. Perhaps, with Synthesis, we really did 'teach the Reapers how to love'. It required playing the series to its fullest (EMS, prior to EC), and Shepard's sacrifice, however.


Shepard appears to be a mediator between these tactics, for some reason. (anomaly, somehow)
He can Destroy and still be virtuous.
He can Control but still be victorious.
He can Merge but... well, we'll see where that goes, because it seems like more of a new thing for us!

I intend on a Synthesis playthrough, even just for curiosity.


Both Control and Destroy appear to be different shades of 'survival of the fittest', Control having a darker(ish) tone in the end, but Destroy with a heroic one, but Synthesis appears to be the outright search for Utopia.


One thing I'm sure about - the three choices take things to GALACTIC extremes, while still painting things in a 'you did good, and brought victory' way. As such, we're left to speculate what is really good or bad.

The Reapers are shown as Dark, or 'tainted' Angels. Though Destroy, we seem to exterminate them finally. Though Control, we show them our better way. Through Synthesis, we seem to show EVERYONE a 'better way'. How Messiah-Legendary do you wish your Shepard to be? (I recall the time capsule scene with Liara to bring up this question as well)

Modifié par SwobyJ, 24 octobre 2013 - 10:49 .

[Obadiah]

Yeah, I do actually believe that picking Synthesis is doing what the Catalyst wants. There is a really strange parallel there between Shepard in the Decision Chamber, and the Quarian decision at the battle over Rannoch. Pretty sure I read that devs put that in by design - the obvious self sacrifice parallel. But there is also a parellel with the whole encounter leading up to the decision.

The Quarians have to move past their hate of the Geth and their certitude of victory to stand down, allow the Geth to become more powerful, and work with the Geth - who have a VERY different value system and concept of "life" even after the Reaper upgrades. Once peace is broached, suddenly the Quarians are improved in ways they did not know possible.

Almost the same thing happens with the Catalyst. There is no offer of just standing down of course, but Shepard does have look past an awefull lot of history, horror, and personal amosity to even listen to that thing talking to him, and consider whether what it has to say has any merit all. Its a hard sell. Work with the Catalyst and benefits beyond belief become possible.

Modifié par Obadiah, 24 octobre 2013 - 11:45 .

[SwobyJ]

On the IT forum in the Scary Door section (yep, we have a place for ALTERNATE alternate theories, haha), we've been talking about the possibility of the whole Mass Effect 'galaxy' itself being a realm of Virtual Aliens.

By that, I mean everything is happening inside a Reaper, and Shepard is an Anomaly of code in the system. It's a fabricated universe inside an already Reaped cycle.

Crazy, whatever, I know, but what I wanted to say was that Synthesis and Control actually works *amazingly* well with this theory imo. Whatever we claim is 'space magic' is really just breaking or bending the internal laws of this virtual universe, and changing how everything works. And all endings bring a hope, and a future many will never see. It makes every ending legit, in some form or another, and all endings happen, again in some form or another.

A bit OT, but I was just thinking of how Synthesis can be beautiful to even pro-Destroyers.

[eyezonlyii]

Obadiah wrote...

Yeah, I do actualy believe that picking Synthesis is doing what the Catalyst wants. There is a really strange parallel there between Shepard in the Decision Chamber and the Quarian decision at battle over Rannoch.

The Quarians pretty much have to move past their hate of the Geth and their certitude of victory to stand down, allow the Geth to become more powerful, and work with the Geth - who have a VERY different value system and concept of "life" even after the Reaper upgrades. Once peace is broached, suddenly the Quarians are improved in ways they did not know possible.

Almost the same thing happens with the Catalyst. There is no offer of just standing down of course, but Shepard does have look past an awefull lot of history, horror, and personal amosity to even listen to that thing talking to him, and consider whether what it has to say has any merit all. Its a hard sell. Work with the Catalyst and benefits beyond belief become possible.

the difference though is that the quarians at least have been in talks amongst themselves with what to do with the geth. on the other hand, the galaxy doesn't see this coming at all.they jave no warning, no way to talk about it and debate the issue.

[Dr. Doctor]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Uplift tends to treat people as means to an end and is bad for that reason. The salarians didn't see the krogan as people, but as rachni-stoppers. It also strikes me as uncomfortably close to colonialism, with the elcor/krogan/etc as savages.

That's a moral statement, which is not what I meant when I said that "Uplift is bad" is a fundamentally invalid argument. I meant "bad" in the sense of always having a bad outcome and being undesirable for that reason, which is an argument for which it is impossible to gather evidence. Also, the moral judgment depends on the motivation and the details of the implementation. I recommend reading David Brin's "Uplift" cycle, which deals with the idea in depth, before making generalized judgments.   

The Salarians prefer to use science and manipulation to get their enemy to destroy themselves or get someone else to do it for them.

Even the Culture sends agents from Special Circumstances to stage political and sociological revolutions in prospective member civilizations in order to make them more receptive to their philosophy.

One thing that I'm still curious about is what happened the last time the Reapers attempted Synthesis? Was it Saren's implantation, the creation of the Husks, or something else?

[Obadiah]

At the final battle for Rannoch and at the Decision Chamber, there is a massive shift in perspective of some fundamental values that are asked of both Quarians and the Alliance, and in both cases a chosen few must make the decision - 3 Quarian Generals and Commander Shepard.

At Rannoch, on the cusp of victory, the Quarian Admirals can potentially be told that their hatred of this evil amoral Geth enemy that is practically fundamental to their culture has to be set aside, because, hey, there is another perspective to the conflict that has be considered. Maybe this conflict is the Quarian's own damn fault. If the Quarians go down this route, even though it looks like certain victory, they'll be destroyed. The Quarians get told this by an outsider with secret information on Legion's Reaper upload that they may or may not believe. Doesn't matter how much the individual Quarians want to kill the Geth, and want Rannoch for themselves - because of a decision of 3 people, they all have may have to deal with a new reality.

Or not. My Shepards usually make peace, but they don't speak for everyone.

Pretty much every declaration of "no-compromise" and "evil" of the Reapers that I have read on this forum can be easily tailored to something the Quarians would say about the Geth. That's part of the Alliance's fundamental world-view of the Reapers. Then there is the right to live, the right to self-determine, the right to defend ourselves, etc...

And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

Modifié par Obadiah, 25 octobre 2013 - 04:33 .

[SwobyJ]

I think the biggest differences to me are:

2)I actually do quantify deaths. If Shepard/the Alliance are responsible for millions to billions of deaths (in some form, in some fashion, over their entire existences), the Reapers are responsible for trillions, or more.
Trillions. Gah.
And if it's all due to the Catalyst's actions, that's the same. It makes the Catalyst responsible for trillions of deaths. Or if you want to pin it on the Leviathans, go ahead. It would then make the Catalyst the *most clear cause* of trillions of deaths, even if the Leviathans are the ones responsible.
Regardless, what the Catalyst did, brought trillions of deaths through Reaping.
(But then again, is it so clear? Look to my post about the idea of this universe being a simulation in itself, of our preserved Cycle... lol)


2)If the Catalyst and/or the Reapers are the ones bringing the deaths of trillions... hell YES I want to shut them down before they do anything!
I didn't create the Catalyst! That was the Leviathans. And unlike the Geth, we KNOW the Reapers have exterminated trillions. The Geth are painted far more innocently than the Reapers, ever since picking up Legion in ME2.

A big part of my Destroy motivation is...
"Ok, maybe I might believe you. However, this is the worst time to tell me about this. Ever. I'm going to shut you all down, and if I can reboot you in a safe way and encourage peace, I will."
Why do I see that as ok?
Eh, that's kinda how I saw EDI. She started as Luna's rogue VI, acting in seeming self-defense. Ok, sounds good. Then Cerberus merged it with Sovereign code fragments giving it 'life' and a jump-start in intelligence. Hmm, ok. But what did we have to do first? *Shut down the VI* It was still attacking people and wouldn't stop until I shut it down.
Ending slides aside, I don't think I can take the word of a ghost that takes the appearance of a boy I saw die, claiming the war will be over if I either Merge with the Reapers or take Control of them.

So while I ...entirely agree with your post Obadiah, I think ME3 shows an escalating scale of extremes. Trust Krogan? Hmm, ok! Trust Geth? Um... not sure... but I'd like to try! Trust Reape-WAIT A SECOND!

To me, they'd need a whole new game in order to explain how trusting and working with the Reapers, specifically them, on anything is a good idea, like some of ME2 and ME3 did for the Geth, and most of the trilogy did for the Krogan.

Personally, I'd be fine with the next game doing so. Maybe 'trust' is a bad word for this, but I think you know what I mean.
Like I brought up before, damn, wouldn't it be interesting if ME1-ME3 is all inside a Reaper after we've already been Reaped? So many would hate it, I'm sure, but it also would work very well with Synthesis imo. A "Do you consider yourself just code, or a real being?" kind of moral question, that they can't pose to us yet because we're only in the war, not the larger understanding of the 'Harvest'.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 25 octobre 2013 - 04:52 .

[eyezonlyii]

Obadiah 


And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

The Quarians fired the first shot in the Morning War. That was completly their fault. This cycle did nothing to Reapers. And they come to Harvest us, for a hypothetical. So no, they don't get to change the game at the last moment because they see the tables are turning. One of those "they can dish it out, but can't take it moments"

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

eyezonlyii wrote...

Obadiah 


And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

The Quarians fired the first shot in the Morning War. That was completly their fault. This cycle did nothing to Reapers. And they come to Harvest us, for a hypothetical. So no, they don't get to change the game at the last moment because they see the tables are turning. One of those "they can dish it out, but can't take it moments"

The thing we know about the Morning War is this: The first thing that happened was the Geth stopped obeying their shutdown commands. Then the Quarians responded, but by then it was too late. 

Sovereign was playing games with the Rachni apparently having determined no one was worth harvesting. "Oh, let's wipe out advanced organic life with these spider things. S***! The salarians uplifted the Krogan! Oh look, the Krogan are going to do it. Damn, those Quarians! Now I've got to let my nasty cousins in."

[CosmicGnosis]

I've always been intrigued by the fact that the Catalyst is essentially fighting nihilism. By wishing to preserve organic life, the Catalyst has assigned an arbitrary value to it. Of course, it was programmed to do so, but it's interesting that the Catalyst fails to acknowledge the futility of its mission. Hell, synthetic life is actually superior when it comes to basic survival. Why not let synthetics achieve dominion over the universe? Why should organics continue to linger?

This is what makes the Reapers "complex" to me. We are supposed to think of them as simple monsters who must be killed. And yet, their most basic objective is to "protect" us from complete annihilation. I know people like to declare that there is no evidence for the Catalyst's concerns, but it's a hell of a thing when you entertain the thought that it might be right. What if its actions actually have prolonged the existence of organic life? And if this is the case, was it the "right" thing to do? Were the methods too extreme? Perhaps organic life should come to an end? And of course, what does Synthesis mean in this context?

These questions force us to consider the nature of life, consciousness, ethics of god-like beings, etc. It's all very uncomfortable, and freaking awesome.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I've always been intrigued by the fact that the Catalyst is essentially fighting nihilism. By wishing to preserve organic life, the Catalyst has assigned an arbitrary value to it. Of course, it was programmed to do so, but it's interesting that the Catalyst fails to acknowledge the futility of its mission. Hell, synthetic life is actually superior when it comes to basic survival. Why not let synthetics achieve dominion over the universe? Why should organics continue to linger?

This is what makes the Reapers "complex" to me. We are supposed to think of them as simple monsters who must be killed. And yet, their most basic objective is to "protect" us from complete annihilation. I know people like to declare that there is no evidence for the Catalyst's concerns, but it's a hell of a thing when you entertain the thought that it might be right. What if its actions actually have prolonged the existence of organic life? And if this is the case, was it the "right" thing to do? Were the methods too extreme? Perhaps organic life should come to an end? And of course, what does Synthesis mean in this context?

These questions force us to consider the nature of life, consciousness, ethics of god-like beings, etc. It's all very uncomfortable, and freaking awesome.

Synthetics, being pure order, can only evolve so far and in one direction. They lack the benefits of chaos, that randomness that can allow jumps in evolution. The Catalyst's programming sees this and prevents it from wiping out organic life altogether, but the Catalyst doesn't understand it.

They really screwed up the concept of synthesis. It was so dumbed down and made so mystical. I don't like the "horror motif". Without it, it presents a more complicated scenario. They presented it as the "final stage", and I don't see it as that way at all. I see evolution continuing. I see it initially as very crude, and eventually becoming highly refined to a point of transcendence perhaps. Who knows? Will there be a galactic collective intelligence - individuality + networking of minds? Are the mass relays even necessary? Or is QE communication sufficient? If a galactic network is there, would a galactic virtual society exist making space travel obsolete? This in addition to the worlds on which you live.

Gnosis -- yes I'm the destroyer that used to give you fits.

Okay I've gone nuts.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...
Yeah, I do actually believe that picking Synthesis is doing what the Catalyst wants. There is a really strange parallel there between Shepard in the Decision Chamber, and the Quarian decision at the battle over Rannoch. Pretty sure I read that devs put that in by design - the obvious self sacrifice parallel. But there is also a parellel with the whole encounter leading up to the decision.

The Quarians have to move past their hate of the Geth and their certitude of victory to stand down, allow the Geth to become more powerful, and work with the Geth - who have a VERY different value system and concept of "life" even after the Reaper upgrades. Once peace is broached, suddenly the Quarians are improved in ways they did not know possible.

Almost the same thing happens with the Catalyst. There is no offer of just standing down of course, but Shepard does have look past an awefull lot of history, horror, and personal amosity to even listen to that thing talking to him, and consider whether what it has to say has any merit all. Its a hard sell. Work with the Catalyst and benefits beyond belief become possible.

As a rule, I wouldn't have a problem with looking past old grievances, even if they're as great as here, and going along with an antagonist's plan if it looks convincing. There, however, lies the problem: the exposition is vague to the point of telling me nothing (original ending) or contradictory and in part scientifically nonsensical (Extended Cut). It's a harder sell for the wrong reasons. Is is implausible that the Catalyst can't explain things better than with mystical metaphors, and it is implausible that it won't explain things better if it wants to convince Shepard. Yet again, the writers compromised character integrity for their mysticism and the desire to keep things open to interpretation. Vagueness in an outcome you're called to create as a heroic protagonist is only acceptable if it can be presupposed that it's generally good. If the antagonist presents it, I need more concrete information, and non-contradictory information. I - the player - need to be convinced. The Catalyst scene does an inferior job in this regard, even though the EC made a big step in the right direction. I first chose Synthesis for thematic reasons, but that's not very satisfying if the in-world logic doesn't come along for the ride.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 octobre 2013 - 07:51 .

[SwobyJ]

Yep, like I was getting at, I would be more convinced of Synthesis if the next game has a lot more evidence to bolster it up. Not necessarily as a concept (the goody goody view of it is something I like, but things are too ambiguous and creepy as it is), but as a CHOICE.

And if, for example (haha, my 3rd time bringing this up so I'll shut up after this), this is all taking place inside a Reaper's preserved Cycle (Matrixy), in a way, I'd love for Synthesis to happen. At least we'll all enjoy our time together in harmony.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...

At the final battle for Rannoch and at the Decision Chamber, there is a massive shift in perspective of some fundamental values that are asked of both Quarians and the Alliance, and in both cases a chosen few must make the decision - 3 Quarian Generals and Commander Shepard.

At Rannoch, on the cusp of victory, the Quarian Admirals can potentially be told that their hatred of this evil amoral Geth enemy that is practically fundamental to their culture has to be set aside, because, hey, there is another perspective to the conflict that has be considered. Maybe this conflict is the Quarian's own damn fault. If the Quarians go down this route, even though it looks like certain victory, they'll be destroyed. The Quarians get told this by an outsider with secret information on Legion's Reaper upload that they may or may not believe. Doesn't matter how much the individual Quarians want to kill the Geth, and want Rannoch for themselves - because of a decision of 3 people, they all have may have to deal with a new reality.

Or not. My Shepards usually make peace, but they don't speak for everyone.

Pretty much every declaration of "no-compromise" and "evil" of the Reapers that I have read on this forum can be easily tailored to something the Quarians would say about the Geth. That's part of the Alliance's fundamental world-view of the Reapers. Then there is the right to live, the right to self-determine, the right to defend ourselves, etc...

And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

Wow....that's a very interesting observation. Given the way the Catalyst scene is written, I doubt the parellel is intentional, but interesting nonetheless. My usual justification is based in part on the nature of the Reapers, but this adds a new perspective.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 octobre 2013 - 08:12 .

[Ieldra]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I've always been intrigued by the fact that the Catalyst is essentially fighting nihilism. By wishing to preserve organic life, the Catalyst has assigned an arbitrary value to it. Of course, it was programmed to do so, but it's interesting that the Catalyst fails to acknowledge the futility of its mission. Hell, synthetic life is actually superior when it comes to basic survival. Why not let synthetics achieve dominion over the universe? Why should organics continue to linger?

This is what makes the Reapers "complex" to me. We are supposed to think of them as simple monsters who must be killed. And yet, their most basic objective is to "protect" us from complete annihilation. I know people like to declare that there is no evidence for the Catalyst's concerns, but it's a hell of a thing when you entertain the thought that it might be right. What if its actions actually have prolonged the existence of organic life? And if this is the case, was it the "right" thing to do? Were the methods too extreme? Perhaps organic life should come to an end? And of course, what does Synthesis mean in this context?

These questions force us to consider the nature of life, consciousness, ethics of god-like beings, etc. It's all very uncomfortable, and freaking awesome.

Synthetics, being pure order, can only evolve so far and in one direction. They lack the benefits of chaos, that randomness that can allow jumps in evolution. The Catalyst's programming sees this and prevents it from wiping out organic life altogether, but the Catalyst doesn't understand it.

Hmm...this limitation of synthetics does not appear to be plausible. If physics and chemistry are deterministic, then organics are as "ordered" as synthetics, and the perception that we aren't is a delusion. If, on the other hand, there is genuine randomness in the universe, and things like quantum uncertainties have measureable non-deterministic effects, then synthetics can be affected by it just as well (for instance in the form of copying errors when programs are copied), and all life forms are under the influence of "chaos". 

Also, if the technology exists to guide a species' evolution, then what it is in future is what it wants to be in future, and whether or not random effects have any permanent impact depends only on the willingness to leave those random effects uncorrected, again, for both synthetics and organics.

Lastly, chaotic influences in evolution are only potentially beneficial under one of two conditions: (1) You don't have the technology to guide your own evolution, or (2) the evolutionary jumps go beyond what anyone is able to imagine. Since evolution consists of a series of small steps, and what can be achieved with one step is limited, this means that if you have the technology to guide your own evolution, then there will be only a very limited, if any, benefit in leaving random effects uncorrected. Also, if such technology exists, you can do simulations of the random process and subsequently implement changes you desire out of the set materialized in the experiment. This is actually done in the present with real bacteria in order to find new useful traits. Doing it with humans would be unethical of course, but as soon as we understand things well enough, we can do those simulations.
 

They really screwed up the concept of synthesis. It was so dumbed down and made so mystical. I don't like the "horror motif". Without it, it presents a more complicated scenario. They presented it as the "final stage", and I don't see it as that way at all. I see evolution continuing. I see it initially as very crude, and eventually becoming highly refined to a point of transcendence perhaps. Who knows? Will there be a galactic collective intelligence - individuality + networking of minds? Are the mass relays even necessary? Or is QE communication sufficient? If a galactic network is there, would a galactic virtual society exist making space travel obsolete? This in addition to the worlds on which you live.

Yep, there is no end to evolution unless you use technology to hold it at bay intentionally. The only other condition where this can happen is if things remain static for a very long time. Considering that biology, culture and technology are dynamic systems, I'd think it extremely unlikely that this will happen.

Also, yes I see mental networking as an important component of post-Synthesis civilization. It will be possible for people to conjoin their minds and separate again, and the conjoined collective mind may have advanced cognitive abilities. There will, of course, also be people who abuse this with mind hacks, manipulating others' biochemistry and suchlike.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 octobre 2013 - 08:49 .

[Redbelle]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

At the final battle for Rannoch and at the Decision Chamber, there is a massive shift in perspective of some fundamental values that are asked of both Quarians and the Alliance, and in both cases a chosen few must make the decision - 3 Quarian Generals and Commander Shepard.

At Rannoch, on the cusp of victory, the Quarian Admirals can potentially be told that their hatred of this evil amoral Geth enemy that is practically fundamental to their culture has to be set aside, because, hey, there is another perspective to the conflict that has be considered. Maybe this conflict is the Quarian's own damn fault. If the Quarians go down this route, even though it looks like certain victory, they'll be destroyed. The Quarians get told this by an outsider with secret information on Legion's Reaper upload that they may or may not believe. Doesn't matter how much the individual Quarians want to kill the Geth, and want Rannoch for themselves - because of a decision of 3 people, they all have may have to deal with a new reality.

Or not. My Shepards usually make peace, but they don't speak for everyone.

Pretty much every declaration of "no-compromise" and "evil" of the Reapers that I have read on this forum can be easily tailored to something the Quarians would say about the Geth. That's part of the Alliance's fundamental world-view of the Reapers. Then there is the right to live, the right to self-determine, the right to defend ourselves, etc...

And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

Wow....that's a very interesting observation. Given the way the Catalyst scene is written, I doubt the parellel is intentional, but interesting nonetheless. My usual justification is based in part on the nature of the Reapers, but this adds a new perspective.

But it still comes down to..... Let the Reapers keep going in some form or shape or die. Or, Kill the Reaper through rejecting them, and in doing so, reject and kill all synthetic life.

Both outcomes are equally undesirable. Given the Catalyst limited perspective on the issue.

It's a computer. It claims are based on nothing more than rational thought and logic gate decision making.

It's trying to impose this mind set on a galaxy that does not think that way.

The Geth/Quarian war was different. Minds and action's change based on circumstances. No matter what the circumstances the Cat encounters..... It's path is always set. It's limited grasp on the galaxy it is trying to alter is so shakey that it does not even recognise that in Shep's cycle, the Reaper's became part of it's experiment when the Reaper's upgrading the Geth. And yet, still, they returned to being a symbiotic part of the Quarian culture if they were allowed to live.

But that was a choice made by both parties. And the Geth did not step forward to serve as murder bots. Only a select few did due to Reaper intervention.

Bottom line. In presenting an evil force of Reapers and then suddenyl saying they are good actually, right at the end of the series...... Mass Effect pulled a Yu Gi Oh evil character redemption ass pull whereby you have drama, then learn it was all a big misunderstanding and we're all friends now.

The Reaper's are never made to take responsibility for their actions. Because the ending regarding the Reapers is that they were right. And accepting they were right is to accept that the deaths they caused were neccessary and justified.

And I don't think we can allow ourselves the morale shoulder shrug that such, academic thinking leads us to. Emotion and rationality need equal measures where one supports the other. One to judge the best way forward, the other for how to connect with others in deciding how to lead them forward.

And it's interesting to note, based on that perspective, the Catalyst never led the galaxy.

Modifié par Redbelle, 25 octobre 2013 - 09:17 .

[ghost9191]

Obadiah wrote...

At the final battle for Rannoch and at the Decision Chamber, there is a massive shift in perspective of some fundamental values that are asked of both Quarians and the Alliance, and in both cases a chosen few must make the decision - 3 Quarian Generals and Commander Shepard.

At Rannoch, on the cusp of victory, the Quarian Admirals can potentially be told that their hatred of this evil amoral Geth enemy that is practically fundamental to their culture has to be set aside, because, hey, there is another perspective to the conflict that has be considered. Maybe this conflict is the Quarian's own damn fault. If the Quarians go down this route, even though it looks like certain victory, they'll be destroyed. The Quarians get told this by an outsider with secret information on Legion's Reaper upload that they may or may not believe. Doesn't matter how much the individual Quarians want to kill the Geth, and want Rannoch for themselves - because of a decision of 3 people, they all have may have to deal with a new reality.

Or not. My Shepards usually make peace, but they don't speak for everyone.

Pretty much every declaration of "no-compromise" and "evil" of the Reapers that I have read on this forum can be easily tailored to something the Quarians would say about the Geth. That's part of the Alliance's fundamental world-view of the Reapers. Then there is the right to live, the right to self-determine, the right to defend ourselves, etc...

And then we're told at the last minute by the Catalyst that, hey, there's another way to look at this fight. Maybe this fight is our own damn fault. We're asked to fundamentally shift our perspective to be critical of our own behavior, and the potential impact on Organic life itself. We get told that if we continue on our current path of Destroy, even though it looks like certain victory, we'll eventually lose. And we get told this by an outsider with secret information we may or may not believe.

I think its an interesting parallel, with some fairly similar reactions from players to what I expect came from the Quarians.

the catalyst is hardly a neutral party  like shepard was for the geth and quarians. That and let us assume the catalyst said that (  bold ) , it is hardly "our" fault that the reapers attacked because of what we "might" do . And even if our perspective was changed, it wouldn't stop them from killing and harvesting us. So yes people fought back, but you can hardly blame them.

i get what you're saying though, and it is a interesting take on it. That was just my poorly worded response to the catalysts perspective.

P.S. i hate fatalism.

P.P.S. I also agree with Redbelle, not that it matters

Modifié par ghost9191, 26 octobre 2013 - 03:00 .