9089 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

I agree, but that's not a singularity-specific problem. The whole Catalyst dialogue as written makes no sense, and all I'm doing is trying to twist and tweak the meaning so I can make it make sense. Independently of what exactly we use to make things make sense, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics shoud've been foreshadowed in a much more drastic way. The Zha'til would have been a good example, except that ultimately the Reapers were responsible and if they hadn't been, the Zha'til example would invalidate Synthesis as an option.

What a mess.

Exactly. That is why there is a problem. And that is why I keep yelling that the 3 options are solutions to a non-existent problem. It goes as far that I cannot choose any of the 3. Even destroy kills the geth and paralyzes civilization in order to delay new synthetics. Sigh. All I want is that this becomes clear. If we keep defending any of the 3 then BW will not change it. I think we, as players, have spent too much time already into wanting one of the options to work. That gave BW the idea that maybe "closure" and "clarification" are real options. So we are maybe too late already. Awful story writing is at the core of this mess.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 10:02 .

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
Is anything here anything else but opinion? How many times have I said that I'm not trying to establish a canon, that my scenario is one of a possibly infinite number of others that fit the necessary parameters.

But....can you really see no justification for using a scenario that was in an unpublished version of the game instead of taking the one in the published version at face value, if the latter makes no sense and the former does?

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2, the allowance that the parameters provide is boundless, your scenario deviates too far from the game, others (myself included) find it hard to comprehend, people are also shocked by your rationale about choosing synthesis. You seem to draw a lot of knowledge from other SF texts but it is all irrelevant here

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

I agree, but that's not a singularity-specific problem. The whole Catalyst dialogue as written makes no sense, and all I'm doing is trying to twist and tweak the meaning so I can make it make sense. Independently of what exactly we use to make things make sense, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics shoud've been foreshadowed in a much more drastic way. The Zha'til would have been a good example, except that ultimately the Reapers were responsible and if they hadn't been, the Zha'til example would invalidate Synthesis as an option.

What a mess.

Exactly. That is why there is a problem. And that is why I keep yelling that the 3 options are solutions to a non-existent problem. It goes as far that I cannot choose any of the 3. Even destroy kills the geth and paralyzes civilization in order to delay new synthetics. Sigh. All I want is that this becomes clear. If we keep defending any of the 3 then BW will not change it. I think we, as players, have spent too much time already into wanting one of the options to work. That gave BW the idea that maybe "closure" and "clarification" are real options. So we are maybe too late already. Awful story writing is at the core of this mess.

Ah...I think I see where you're coming from. The thing is, I like the primary effects of the three options (destroying or controlling the Reapers or effecting the Synthesis) and would rather have all of them made acceptable by removing some of the side effects, rephrasing the underlying problem so that it makes sense, and for Synthesis, showing that the results are good. That's why I like Siduri's epilogues. Every choice feels like a victory. The relays are rebuilt within a foreseeable timeframe and the Normandy is eventually found again, though the synthetics are still killed in Destroy.

I have used the singularity for three reasons. (1) It is in the leaked script, (2) it requires no enmity to work and (3) it is actually foreshadowed, in ME2 even. One problem is that few people get that dialogue because most want to save the Normandy crew, and that the Catalst doesn't refer to the geth's Matrioshka brain as evidence.

So....would it be acceptable for you if the EC did that? Make the existing options more acceptable and providing a better exposition for "the problem" by pointing to evidence that was subtly present since ME2, implying that we didn't recognize it as a problem? I think this would save the ending for me. Or do you require a completely different "problem"?

[Xellith]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The thing is, I like the primary effects of the three options (destroying or controlling the Reapers or effecting the Synthesis) and would rather have all of them made acceptable by removing some of the side effects, rephrasing the underlying problem so that it makes sense, and for Synthesis, showing that the results are good. That's why I like Siduri's epilogues. Every choice feels like a victory. The relays are rebuilt within a foreseeable timeframe and the Normandy is eventually found again, though the synthetics are still killed in Destroy.

What if the results are bad?  What if it turns out that you were indoctrinated this whole time?

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2: Nah, sense of victory goes against the nihilistic vision which is recurrent in popular media these days, all these movies revolving around apocalyptic events, but some of these texts goes further and went on in exploring how to rebuild a broken world, of which I'd like to see in the EC

I'd like to see how the writers try and make any of the endings acceptable, especially synthesis

When u say leaked script do u also mean the scrapped script? foreshadowing is too ambiguous

Modifié par Vigilant111, 17 juin 2012 - 10:42 .

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

All these Shepards keep forgetting that they're acting as humans, not as salarians or quarians or asari or yagh even - and who's to say that they would approve of Shepard's decision if they knew about all three choices?

Hi, Cerberus.

No Shepard on this world can get consensus on his/hers choice whatever they choose - but as pro-Destroy folks keep pulling out the right to self-determination, they keep forgetting, it's only theirs self-determination and denying of the same to other species that are different from humans and their understanding of what's right or wrong.

Uh, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Are you under the impression that when I say that Shepard shouldn‘t be making such a decision without consulting the beings victimized by it, that I’m somehow talking about only asking the humans and not anyone else?

‘Cause, you know, you’d be incorrect.

You’re also creating a false dilemma between ‘don’t tell anybody’ and ‘everybody must agree’. Those are not the only options.

You completely missed my point and I wasn't referring to you and as you can see, even you and I can't understand each other - perhaps it is like that because you never read my posts before nor did I yours so the ways of thinking and perceiving things is put into more context. I'm especially confused with 'Hi, Cerberus' comment because I really don't understand what provoked it - I can't even place it, guess how you got to that idea. Also the thing with false dilemma and 'don't tell anybody' and 'everybody must agree' - I really don't understand how you got that meaning out of things I wrote. I know that English is not my mother tongue, but I had my post double-checked now with my friend from UK and he confirmed that he didn't understand it either as you did, though he did point out I missed few definite articles as well as I did mess up with few word orders in sentences, but hey, I was typing that truly late at night, tired. So, please, would you be so kind to explain how is it that you picked up meanings that weren't even in my mind (not joking nor being sarcastic)? One thing is sure, if we're even incapable of understanding each other here, and we're both humans from Earth that communicate in the same language - how is it even remotely possible to take 'galactic consensus' as an argument to defend one choice and bash the other? We're proving right now that it is truly silly dogmatic BS that keeps circling around these boards.

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2, the allowance that the parameters provide is boundless, your scenario deviates too far from the game

I can only say: if you think that, create one that fits better and makes sense! BTW, what do you think about Siduri's version?

...others (myself included) find it hard to comprehend,

All right, that's my fault. I'll try to rephrase it. Will take some time though.

people are also shocked by your rationale about choosing synthesis

What, they are shocked I want to end the war by making peace instead of dominating or destroying the enemy? That  I don't want to destroy the synthetics? That I ignore the vaunted principle of retribution? That I find it more acceptable to make some physical change to intelligent life, the immediate effects of which are rather minor, instead of committing multiple genocide and destroying the living history of intelligent life in the galaxy? That I am drawn to an option that overthrows the old order of life instead of fearfully clinging to a destructive dichotomy because some people *might* not want to let go of their oh-so-precious organic purity?
I'm getting really sick of this, you know? If people think that in this specific circumstance Shepard finds himself in, one moral principle of autonomy should overrule the future of life in the galaxy, then they're the fundamentalists, not I. And to see how many would sacrifice the future on the altar of their principles, I must admit that I find *that* rather disturbing.

(Nimrodell has made a nice point of different perspectives in this post on page 70)

You seem to draw a lot of knowledge from other SF texts but it is all irrelevant here

Themes common to SF in general are never irrelevant when discussing a work of SF.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 11:15 .

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

No Shepard on this world can get consensus on his/hers choice whatever they choose - but as pro-Destroy folks keep pulling out the right to self-determination, they keep forgetting, it's only theirs self-determination and denying of the same to other species that are different from humans and their understanding of what's right or wrong.

Uh, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Are you under the impression that when I say that Shepard shouldn‘t be making such a decision without consulting the beings victimized by it, that I’m somehow talking about only asking the humans and not anyone else?

‘Cause, you know, you’d be incorrect.

You’re also creating a false dilemma between ‘don’t tell anybody’ and ‘everybody must agree’. Those are not the only options.

You completely missed my point and I wasn't referring to you and as you can see, even you and I can't understand each other - … One thing is sure, if we're even incapable of understanding each other here, and we're both humans from Earth that communicate in the same language - how is it even remotely possible to take 'galactic consensus' as an argument to defend one choice and bash the other? We're proving right now that it is truly silly dogmatic BS that keeps circling around these boards.

That’s exactly what I said. There is no need for a ‘galactic consensus’. That is not the only alternative to making a unilateral decision without asking — or even telling — anyone.

Insisting on a ‘galactic consensus’ is a false di-lemma, which literally means an incorrect reduction into two propositions.

Modifié par lillitheris, 17 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

I agree, but that's not a singularity-specific problem. The whole Catalyst dialogue as written makes no sense, and all I'm doing is trying to twist and tweak the meaning so I can make it make sense. Independently of what exactly we use to make things make sense, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics shoud've been foreshadowed in a much more drastic way. The Zha'til would have been a good example, except that ultimately the Reapers were responsible and if they hadn't been, the Zha'til example would invalidate Synthesis as an option.

What a mess.

Exactly. That is why there is a problem. And that is why I keep yelling that the 3 options are solutions to a non-existent problem. It goes as far that I cannot choose any of the 3. Even destroy kills the geth and paralyzes civilization in order to delay new synthetics. Sigh. All I want is that this becomes clear. If we keep defending any of the 3 then BW will not change it. I think we, as players, have spent too much time already into wanting one of the options to work. That gave BW the idea that maybe "closure" and "clarification" are real options. So we are maybe too late already. Awful story writing is at the core of this mess.

Ah...I think I see where you're coming from. The thing is, I like the primary effects of the three options (destroying or controlling the Reapers or effecting the Synthesis) and would rather have all of them made acceptable by removing some of the side effects, rephrasing the underlying problem so that it makes sense, and for Synthesis, showing that the results are good. That's why I like Siduri's epilogues. Every choice feels like a victory. The relays are rebuilt within a foreseeable timeframe and the Normandy is eventually found again, though the synthetics are still killed in Destroy.

I have used the singularity for three reasons. (1) It is in the leaked script, (2) it requires no enmity to work and (3) it is actually foreshadowed, in ME2 even. One problem is that few people get that dialogue because most want to save the Normandy crew, and that the Catalst doesn't refer to the geth's Matrioshka brain as evidence.

So....would it be acceptable for you if the EC did that? Make the existing options more acceptable and providing a better exposition for "the problem" by pointing to evidence that was subtly present since ME2, implying that we didn't recognize it as a problem? I think this would save the ending for me. Or do you require a completely different "problem"?

I am afraid that the EC cannot repair this. It is too far gone.

There is a second problem with the ending. We got an ABC ending, and that was an ending that we were promised not to get. Same goes for the reaper-off switch.

A third is that the 3 options have absolutely nothing to do with the story so far. They come as a complete surprise.

A forth is that the strengths of Shepard, the personal relations with people and allies, are completely detached from the ending. Shepard always found a way to fight or reason himself/herself out of crap situations. Shepard is much like Kal'Reegar: "I just shoot things, ma'am." Players like me expect an ending that Garrus would enjoy: "You realize this plan has me walking into hell too? Hah, just like old times..."

A fifth is that the allies which we gathered throughout the games have become abstract numbers (read war assets) that play no active role. Instead I get Marauder Shields. Compared to the "epic" endings of ME1 and ME2, the ME3 ending is dull.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 11:28 .

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:
Then Mass Effect is forever ruined for you? Maybe...you could give the EC a chance before you throw your copy of ME3 away? It would be a shame if there was nothing good you could take away from it after all these years.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 11:32 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2, the allowance that the parameters provide is boundless, your scenario deviates too far from the game

I can only say: if you think that, create one that fits better and makes sense! BTW, what do you think about Siduri's version?

...others (myself included) find it hard to comprehend,

All right, that's my fault. I'll try to rephrase it. Will take some time though.

people are also shocked by your rationale about choosing synthesis

What, they are shocked I want to end the war by making peace instead of dominating or destroying the enemy? That  I don't want to destroy the synthetics? That I ignore the vaunted principle of retribution? That I find it more acceptable to make some physical change to intelligent life, the immediate effects of which are rather minor, instead of committing multiple genocide and destroying the living history of intelligent life in the galaxy? That I am drawn to an option that overthrows the old order of life instead of fearfully clinging to a destructive dichotomy because some people *might* not want to let go of their oh-so-precious organic purity?
I'm getting really sick of this, you know? If people think that in this specific circumstance Shepard finds himself in, one moral principle of autonomy should overrule the future of life in the galaxy, then they're the fundamentalists, not I. And to see how many would sacrifice the future on the altar of their principles, I must admit that I find *that* rather disturbing.

(Nimrodell has made a nice point of different perspectives in this post on page 70)

You seem to draw a lot of knowledge from other SF texts but it is all irrelevant here

Themes common to SF in general are never irrelevant when discussing a work of SF.

Honestly I could only say this: all our criticisms are the ways to make sense of synthesis, in our minds that is how synthesis could possibly work, and unfortunately for you, they are so far been negative, as you have not provided any good points about synthesis being beneficial that cannot be refuted or better than other options that we already got

No, what is shocking is that you treat morality as having no relevance, you are here to end reaper threat, not to make peace, that was not your mission

Stop accusing others for committing genocide and portraying us as eugenists, we can always built new synthetics, and carry the risk of being wiped out by these synthetics

I do not think it was anyone's intention to kill the Geth, we only accept the loss of the Geth as collateral damage to destroying the reapers, this is one of the imperfections of the Crucible about directing the energy ONLY against the reapers, organic purity is only invented by u, none of us has thought of it, and many of us do not think organic/synthetic conflicts are a valid issue, if anything, it is the Krogan that we feared

Okay I will rephrase the SF bit, u cannot simply base your knowledge on other SF texts to make a decision in the ME world, otherwise ME would not be original, but some cheap cop-out

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

No Shepard on this world can get consensus on his/hers choice whatever they choose - but as pro-Destroy folks keep pulling out the right to self-determination, they keep forgetting, it's only theirs self-determination and denying of the same to other species that are different from humans and their understanding of what's right or wrong.

Uh, I don’t know what you’re arguing about. Are you under the impression that when I say that Shepard shouldn‘t be making such a decision without consulting the beings victimized by it, that I’m somehow talking about only asking the humans and not anyone else?

‘Cause, you know, you’d be incorrect.

You’re also creating a false dilemma between ‘don’t tell anybody’ and ‘everybody must agree’. Those are not the only options.

You completely missed my point and I wasn't referring to you and as you can see, even you and I can't understand each other - … One thing is sure, if we're even incapable of understanding each other here, and we're both humans from Earth that communicate in the same language - how is it even remotely possible to take 'galactic consensus' as an argument to defend one choice and bash the other? We're proving right now that it is truly silly dogmatic BS that keeps circling around these boards.

That’s exactly what I said. There is no need for a ‘galactic consensus’. That is not the only alternative to making a unilateral decision without asking — or even telling — anyone.

Insisting on a ‘galactic consensus’ is a false di-lemma, which literally means an incorrect reduction into two propositions.

Then you did misunderstand my post, I was just conveying what many pro-Destroy posters use as a valid argument - a democratic consent, forgetting there can't be any (first because of practical reasons - advanced organic species will be obliterated if Shepard hestites for too long (which games itself prooves by 'Critical Mission Failed', and secondly, usually under democratic consensus they usually imply - humans, forgetting there are others, forgetting that other species have different reasoning and understanding). So, actually, we're both claiming the same thing. I'm sorry if my post was confusing.

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

Then you did misunderstand my post, I was just conveying what many pro-Destroy posters use as a valid argument - a democratic consent, …

I see. I don’t think any significant number do, hence my confusion.

… forgetting there can't be any (first because of practical reasons - advanced organic species will be obliterated if Shepard hestites for too long (which games itself prooves by 'Critical Mission Failed', …

The Catalyst could of course just order them to stop while you decide, but that was obviously too complex an idea for the developers. Conceding that you only have 15 minutes or so per game, that would still be ample time to consult the leaders of the assembled species who all happen to be around.

…and secondly, usually under democratic consensus they usually imply - humans, forgetting there are others, forgetting that other species have different reasoning and understanding). So, actually, we're both claiming the same thing. I'm sorry if my post was confusing.

Hello, Cerberus. Council? Millennia of civilization? Savages…

[KDD-0063]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
It is not so much as if singularity is impossible, well, rather improbable, but your perception of it is increasingly pessimistic, that a post-singularity entity would indeed wipe organics out, and that is speculative

No, it's not *I* who am pessimistic. If I wrote a singularity story, the effects would be mixed but overall good. But apparently things are different in the ME universe, and since the effects are highly speculative and *I* , the player, have no way to know, I can accept it as a premise implied by a million-year-old superintelligent AI.

Really, I can't see why this is even an issue. We've suspended out disbelief for far crazier things. Can we just drop this?

It is an issue, because there is no evidence of a synthetic threat ANYWHERE in the game.

I agree, but that's not a singularity-specific problem. The whole Catalyst dialogue as written makes no sense, and all I'm doing is trying to twist and tweak the meaning so I can make it make sense. Independently of what exactly we use to make things make sense, the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy organics shoud've been foreshadowed in a much more drastic way. The Zha'til would have been a good example, except that ultimately the Reapers were responsible and if they hadn't been, the Zha'til example would invalidate Synthesis as an option.

What a mess.

Exactly. That is why there is a problem. And that is why I keep yelling that the 3 options are solutions to a non-existent problem. It goes as far that I cannot choose any of the 3. Even destroy kills the geth and paralyzes civilization in order to delay new synthetics. Sigh. All I want is that this becomes clear. If we keep defending any of the 3 then BW will not change it. I think we, as players, have spent too much time already into wanting one of the options to work. That gave BW the idea that maybe "closure" and "clarification" are real options. So we are maybe too late already. Awful story writing is at the core of this mess.

Exactly. There is no point in talking about which one between the three is better.
For me, I will go as far as saying that as long as the Crucible is the real deal, it is disappointing.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
Then Mass Effect is forever ruined for you? Maybe...you could give the EC a chance before you throw your copy of ME3 away? It would be a shame if there was nothing good you could take away from it after all these years.

I do not believe in the "clarification" and "closure". My solution would be: Leave the current ending as it is and add a second one that starts at the last briefing. Shepard is presented two plans. One leads to the current ending. The other one leads to an epic one which would make Garrus proud. That one can also involve the Crucible, but without the brat anywhere near it. I don't mind if that's linear or not.

Ruined? I won't replay ME1 and ME2, though. That's for sure. But such an ending like I wrote above? That would go a long way.

My cheapest solution to the current ending would be that "destroy" would keep the geth alive. And, optionally, I don't want the fleet to starve. A solution for that please. The infrastructure will be ruined anyway. I doubt there will be a happy ending.

BTW: Unlike many, I completed the game several times.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 12:28 .

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
No, what is shocking is that you treat morality as having no relevance, you are here to end reaper threat, not to make peace, that was not your mission

You see, that's exactly why I can't most of the anti-Synthesis types seriously. I make one decision where I think the future of the galaxy is more important than the moral downsides, and you people accuse me of treating morality as having no relevance. I make one decision disregarding the principle of autonomy, and suddenly I am "destroying free will". It's as if people are unable to see shades of grey, unable to comprehend value hierarchies, completely unable to put themselves into the situation Shepard find themselves in, and the weight of the decision they have to make.
As long as that continues, as long as people insist on treating this as a black and white problem, I can't take their arguments seriously.

Stop accusing others for committing genocide and portraying us as eugenists, we can always built new synthetics, and carry the risk of being wiped out by these synthetics

Ah, so suddenly you find yourself on the receiving end of such accusations and find you don't like it? Sorry to say I don't find much to regret in seeing the anti-Synthesis faction getting a taste of its own medicine. So...basically it's fine to be intolerant yourself, right? But not so much if you're the target? Fancy that. And if you don't like this paragraph - I have stopped being polite in the face of this insufferable moral righteousness and will from now on treat it with the respect it deserves.

I do not think it was anyone's intention to kill the Geth, we only accept the loss of the Geth as collateral damage to destroying the reapers, this is one of the imperfections of the Crucible about directing the energy ONLY against the reapers,

And I accept that in order to end the Reaper threat in the best way possible from my POV, I need to disregard the principle of autonomy. So what's different?

organic purity is only invented by u

I contest this. I think this lies exactly at the base of most people's visceral reaction to the idea of Synthesis. But I'm willing to let it slide, since I'd need a big study to prove it.

none of us has thought of it, and many of us do not think organic/synthetic conflicts are a valid issue, if anything, it is the Krogan that we feared

All right, then make a different choice. But I have a different perspective, I can suspend my disbelief for the ending scenario, and I take different things away from the game than you. Accept it.

Okay I will rephrase the SF bit, u cannot simply base your knowledge on other SF texts to make a decision in the ME world, otherwise ME would not be original, but some cheap cop-out

Indeed. But I haven't. I have used material from unpublished versions of the game. That's different than taking it from just anywhere.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 12:42 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Indeed. But I haven't. I have used material from unpublished versions of the game. That's different than taking it from just anywhere.

No, it’s not.

♫ Faaaantasy Syyynthesiiiiis ♫

[DrZann]

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
Because of this difference in design, the singularity is possible. Because of the singularity, there is the danger that organics will eventually be surpassed and destroyed by synthetics, in the same thoughtless manner we are destroying other species on Earth. At least that's the only rationalization I've found so far that works. Others may be possible.

I was initially thinking singularity might be at the heart of the whole Syth vs. Org inevitable conflict as well.

Currently I'm toying with the idea that there may be an opposing force to the Catalyst that is also actively shaping the destiny of life in the ME universe. A sort of agent of Chaos that the Catalyst had been locked in stalemate with. Of coarse this would mean that the issue of the inevitable destruction of Organic life has not been solved by Synthesis, but the upgrade (and the Hope, not forgetting the Hope) may provide the tools to accomplish what the Catalyst could not...the final defeat of Chaos. Or whatever my vague Big Bad will look like.

The big benefit for me here is I can continue with the story line and themes that the games have already laid out.

Modifié par DrZann, 17 juin 2012 - 12:38 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed. But I haven't. I have used material from unpublished versions of the game. That's different than taking it from just anywhere.

No, it’s not.

It is different because the theme is still in the game, albeit hidden. See the geth and their megastructure. It may not be referenced as a possible singularity, but what Legion describes in ME2 as the effects of this structure is exactly that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[Ieldra]

DrZann wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
...
Because of this difference in design, the singularity is possible. Because of the singularity, there is the danger that organics will eventually be surpassed and destroyed by synthetics, in the same thoughtless manner we are destroying other species on Earth. At least that's the only rationalization I've found so far that works. Others may be possible.

I was initially thinking singularity might be at the heart of the whole Syth vs. Org inevitable conflict as well.

Currently I'm toying with the idea that there may be an opposing force to the Catalyst that is also actively shaping the destiny of life in the ME universe. A sort of agent of Chaos that the Catalyst had been locked in stalemate with. Of coarse this would mean that the issue of the inevitable destruction of Organic life has not been solved by Synthesis, but the upgrade (and the Hope, not forgetting the Hope) may provide the tools to accomplish what the Catalyst could not...the final defeat of Chaos. Or whatever my vague Big Bad will look like.

The big benefit for me here is I can continue with the story line and themes that the games have already laid out.

Hmm.....I must admit that I don't like this idea of Chaos as the enemy. Pure order is stagnation. Nothing happens. Pure chaos means no stability and nothing can live. Life can only exist if none of the two principles is absolutely dominant.

But I like the idea of a still bigger picture behind the events in the galaxy.

[DrZann]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hmm.....I must admit that I don't like this idea of Chaos as the enemy. Pure order is stagnation. Nothing happens. Pure chaos means no stability and nothing can live. Life can only exist if none of the two principles is absolutely dominant.

But I like the idea of a still bigger picture behind the events in the galaxy.

Don't think think of Chaos in this instance as a cosmic principle, it's really just a word the Catalyst used to designate the enemy.

Modifié par DrZann, 17 juin 2012 - 12:54 .

[Sarah Knight]

okay i saw some one put that their was no proof of Synthetics being "hostile" or attacking other organics" that Statement their is Completely Wrong if you have Javik As your Squadmate in ME3 SP he tells you that his own Kind had issues With Synthetics the Quarians Did so to with the Geth because they didn't understand the answer the geth asked.

When the Geth asked about its Creation or if its alive the Quarians Freaked the hell out in turn Started the Morning War as the geth and Quarians both know it for nearly 300 Years Since it ended with shepards help in bringing the piece cause of Legion and Tali Getting along with one another on top of Rewriting and allowing Legion to use non "classified data" to his own kind

Javik's Kind had a war with their Synthetics the war i believe was called the Metacon War and also theirs the Reapers They are Synthetic and organic and are Hostile to every "dominant" or Advanced Race in turn as the the catalyst states

"we harvest the advanced species and ascend them into reaper form thus Leaving the younger ones alone"

So My advice before making that Statement Learn the facts about Mass effect universe before assuming that Synthetics are not hostile towards any species or will Turn towards attacking others. if the Geth or other Machines AI or VI that is Self Aware like EDI they Will eventually Turn on you regardless of your actons.

as well as in ME2 Legion stated that the geth were building their future and if the organics interfered they would be killed well he didn't litterally state that but he said it differently.

so read up on ME Lore Play every Game of ME Then have an arguement about Synthetics or if the theory/ending or W/e people argue about these days makes sense or not i have a good understanding the only one that to me doesn't make sense is the Catalyst which i am patiently waiting for the EC Despite the Negativity that i saw on it already from Noobs that like to flame BW

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
No, what is shocking is that you treat morality as having no relevance, you are here to end reaper threat, not to make peace, that was not your mission

You see, that's exactly why I can't most of the anti-Synthesis types seriously. I make one decision where I think the future of the galaxy is more important than the moral downsides, and you people accuse me of treating morality as having no relevance. I make one decision disregarding the principle of autonomy, and suddenly I am "destroying free will". It's as if people are unable to see shades of grey, unable to comprehend value hierarchies, completely unable to put themselves into the situation Shepard find themselves in, and the weight of the decision they have to make.
As long as that continues, as long as people insist on treating this as a black and white problem, I can't take their arguments seriously.

Stop accusing others for committing genocide and portraying us as eugenists, we can always built new synthetics, and carry the risk of being wiped out by these synthetics

Ah, so suddenly you find yourself on the receiving end of such accusations and find you don't like it? Sorry to say I don't find much to regret in seeing the anti-Synthesis faction getting a taste of its own medicine. So...basically it's fine to be intolerant yourself, right? But not so much if you're the target? Fancy that. And if you don't like this paragraph - I have stopped being polite in the face of this insufferable moral righteousness and will from now on treat it with the respect it deserves.

I do not think it was anyone's intention to kill the Geth, we only accept the loss of the Geth as collateral damage to destroying the reapers, this is one of the imperfections of the Crucible about directing the energy ONLY against the reapers,

And I accept that in order to end the Reaper threat in the best way possible from my POV, I need to disregard the principle of autonomy. So what's different?

organic purity is only invented by u

I contest this. I think this lies exactly at the base of most people's visceral reaction to the idea of Synthesis. But I'm willing to let it slide, since I'd need a big study to prove it.

none of us has thought of it, and many of us do not think organic/synthetic conflicts are a valid issue, if anything, it is the Krogan that we feared

All right, then make a different choice. But I have a different perspective, I can suspend my disbelief for the ending scenario, and I take different things away from the game than you. Accept it.

Okay I will rephrase the SF bit, u cannot simply base your knowledge on other SF texts to make a decision in the ME world, otherwise ME would not be original, but some cheap cop-out

Indeed. But I haven't. I have used material from unpublished versions of the game. That's different than taking it from just anywhere.

1. Don't retire in shades of grey so soon, yes, things are often not black and white but this one, I am afraid it is, I don't think u need to patronize others just coz u think u r more creative than them by saying oh u don't understand this and that, u r not able suspend disbelief or what not...no need for that, to you, other peoples' problem of ending is "you are unable to appreciate this or that" and suddenly you are the good guy that understands everything

2. Own taste of medicine? don't flatter yourself, destroy advocates has long been accused of genocidal urges, way before you wrote your fan fiction, and to clarify I don't remember saying synthesis is genocidal nor do I hold that view right now, others who said that were probably venting their anger

3. Noop, organic purity IS invented by you, it is quite original, I have not read it anywhere else, and u cannot simply just guess that people took destroy just to cleanse the galaxy of every last piece of synthetics, because that was not the goal, we already got the reapers on our plates, and definitely don't have the strength to deal with other "issues"

4. Yes, I cannot stop you from taking whatever away from the game, but I will say this, if you think that ME3 is telling you that synthesis is okay, or practical, or moral, then you are gravely mistaken, and that is my opinion, accept it

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed. But I haven't. I have used material from unpublished versions of the game. That's different than taking it from just anywhere.

No, it’s not.

It is different because the theme is still in the game, albeit hidden.

It’s either in the game or it isn’t. There’s no middle ground.