9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Actually, Taboo, I resent the term being used for things that aren't actually connected to the political ideology, because using it suggests that there is a connection. I'm not at an understanding with you here. Isn't there a less politically loaded term to describe the same thing?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra. I'll get back to you tomorrow. I am plastered out of my god damn mind right now.

That's just the word we use were I come from.

[Isichar]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, Taboo, I resent the term being used for things that aren't actually connected to the political ideology, because using it suggests that there is a connection. I'm not at an understanding with you here. Isn't there a less politically loaded term to describe the same thing?

Aww i wanted to see taboo tackle this drunk

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, Taboo, I resent the term being used for things that aren't actually connected to the political ideology, because using it suggests that there is a connection. I'm not at an understanding with you here. Isn't there a less politically loaded term to describe the same thing?

Ah, don't worry, Ieldra, it's not Taboo's fault that people on BSN could connect the wrong dots - look, while searching to find the best Susan Sontag's presentation of this issue, I found this wonderful website that digests it all in very fine manner. I grew up with what we call 'fascist aesthetics' since I was growing up in communism, but it was all about the context and even democracy can utilize such aesthetics for its own purposes because such aesthetics is actually older then fascism itself - it's just the fact that only in XX century people used it as well-planned, carefully targeted, war propaganda. But if we look into oral literature such as epics are you'll find it everywhere beginning from Gilgamesh' origin and order in comparison to Enkidu's initial state, Spartans and their order, to Sigurd or Sigfried (depending which version you know) - ah I could name many examples. It is unfortunate though, that people chose that unfortunate term to describe particular way of depicting very often something that is inherently something different.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, Taboo, I resent the term being used for things that aren't actually connected to the political ideology, because using it suggests that there is a connection. I'm not at an understanding with you here. Isn't there a less politically loaded term to describe the same thing?

I could really do without this “fascist aesthetic” being plastered everywhere, especially when the meaning is rather unclear.

[Ieldra]

@Nimrodell:
I've read your explanation why you chose Synthesis. You expressed it in a rare combination of insight infused by passion, and it makes great sense as well as appealed to me emotionally. I guess my paraphasing Synthesis as "Transcending the old order to bring about a new age where the old conflicts are meaningless" resonates with you, right?

Shepard embodying both sides of the divide is very important in my view, but people tend to overlook it. EDI even underscores this sidelining when telling Shepard (s)he's "fully human" (as opposed to transhuman, which would accept Shepard's part-synthetic nature as integral). I wonder if there's still some pro-organic bias in most people,  not of the genocidal kind, of course, but in form of an underlying intuition that organics are somehow special. Even in the writers there appears to be such a bias, as evidenced by the statement "the created will always rebel against their creators" as if there were some natural hierarchy between them. Zaal'Koris expressed a much more enlightened attitude when he said "they are our children", a sentiment which I had long before going on Tali's loyalty mission in ME2. It may have been accidental, but the quarians created life. Creating life is awesome but a great responsibility.    

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juin 2012 - 10:34 .

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Nimrodell:
I've read your explanation why you chose Synthesis. You expressed it in a rare combination of insight infused by passion, and it makes great sense as well as appealed to me emotionally. I guess my paraphasing Synthesis as "Transcending the old order to bring about a new age where the old conflicts are meaningless" resonates with you, right?

Yup - and I sincerely hope that that's what BW writers meant when creating possibility of synthesis and I personally believe that they actually tried to do the exact thing, though poorly executed. But there are references to that issue in all three games - for example - Ouarian status on Citadel - rats, the famous AI assignment when Shepard disables that rogue AI on the Citadel (AI's reasons for its plans, awareness and paranoia that organic beings will never perceive it as an equal, as alive), general status of humans in old galactic society - paranoia, prejudices and misunderstandings, Petrovsky couple as an example of liberal to conservative clash toward new technologies - rachni queen as someone who is not personally guilty for what happened many centuries ago and yet she is judged by parameters of collective guilt, same goes for genophage (in all three games, future possible generations are judged by ancient collective guilt), etc. and all that in the midst of true threat - the almost omnipotent beings are returning to enforce what resembles new order but it is actually ancient order of things.

And all this is just for Mass Effect 1 - it even becomes broader in Mass Effect 2 with Shepard becoming a being of two worlds, when his/hers personal friends have troubles accepting him/her as the same person, different reactions toward EDI - for example, Thane will accept her, Tali will scorn her first, Miranda will consider her a tool, and then Legion appears, a totally new set up, the one that is fighting for the same goal, but surrounded by distrust and horrible revelations (for example, Legion's banter on Ilum or in Quarian fleet - basically old conflicts keep repeating, etc.

Shepard is the only constant there, no matter the moral alignment, Shepard is actually the centre that binds them all being an incarnate of the change - it's like s/he is actually a conduit and the safe vent, a valve for all that was brewing and stewing for countless generations and I guess, that's one of the reasons why Catalyst will acknowledge Shepard and the need for final crushing of the old order frame.

[lillitheris]

^ I get the explanation, idea, and so on.

I just don’t get how you could make the decision with the information you have at the time of making it. I can’t justify such a leap of faith — or not really even faith because it’s not explained at all to have something to have faith in — when at stake are the lives of the entire galaxy.

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 juin 2012 - 11:57 .

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

^ I get the explanation, idea, and so on.

I just don’t get how you could make the decision with the information you have at the time of making it. I can’t justify such a leap of faith — or not really even faith because it’s not explained at all to have something to have faith in — when the stakes are the lives of the entire galaxy.

Not choosing is also leap of faith, isn't it? It's a game and I respected its rules - every choice in this version of endings is leap of faith and even not choosing is choice - so I really don't understand what is the problem, each version of ending is unexplained, each ending bears moral ambiguity and in each ending one is fighting to preserve life - it would be hypocrisy to state otherwise. If you mean 'Catalyst may be lying', well, then it's lying in all choices in all regards, because the motive itself for the lying would be preservance of its order or self-preservance - why would it lie only in the choices you don't like and say the truth in the one you like - after all, we see only reapers on Earth falling down - but we don't know if there are others, hidden somewhere and if Shepard or Geth may survive, who's to say that it didn't happen with reapers too - if we're going for paranoid scenario. I could ask you the same question you asked me, is that right? As you see, there are those who think like you, but there are those who think like me - so basically, we are the same, both of us are making that leap of faith, unless you think that you have the exclusive right to what's right or wrong. And if you do, I'll ask you, who died and made you all-knowing force (I'm joking now )?

I chose what I deem right according to my experiences and what game offered me and I acknowledge your choice too as a valid one - because the only thing that matters is saving what can be saved, especially when you don't have firepower or some space magic that would allow you to actually beat that bloody thing. And as we both can see, in each ending life goes on, and Shepard is a legend - each choice is valid one from Stargazer's point of view.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Nimrodell:
I've read your explanation why you chose Synthesis. You expressed it in a rare combination of insight infused by passion, and it makes great sense as well as appealed to me emotionally. I guess my paraphasing Synthesis as "Transcending the old order to bring about a new age where the old conflicts are meaningless" resonates with you, right?

Shepard embodying both sides of the divide is very important in my view, but people tend to overlook it. EDI even underscores this sidelining when telling Shepard (s)he's "fully human" (as opposed to transhuman, which would accept Shepard's part-synthetic nature as integral). I wonder if there's still some pro-organic bias in most people,  not of the genocidal kind, of course, but in form of an underlying intuition that organics are somehow special. Even in the writers there appears to be such a bias, as evidenced by the statement "the created will always rebel against their creators" as if there were some natural hierarchy between them. Zaal'Koris expressed a much more enlightened attitude when he said "they are our children", a sentiment which I had long before going on Tali's loyalty mission in ME2. It may have been accidental, but the quarians created life. Creating life is awesome but a great responsibility.    

Non synthesis comment: I wanted to point out that I feel the writing is biased towards humans as opposed to just organics.

I do want to add something to the synthesis discussion (it may have been there already)  but I wanted to say something about the reapers as lovecraftian horrors and how that fits into the choices.

As many people have pointed out, from ME1 the reapers have represented old god horrors in both appearance and philosophy.  Lovecraft feared technology, he felt that Einstein's special relativity would plunge the world into chaos, so he created unimaginable horrors in his writing to discourage the creation of unimaginable horrors in real life (sound familiar? Who else uses circular logic to justify keeping the world from chaos?).  Here is a Lovecraft quote that bleeds directly into the choices presented:

"The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed
us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge
will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful
position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or
flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.  Control must somehow fit into madness (as TIM was mad and wanted control) though there is more that could be said about that.

Naturally, being a bit of a coward, he did not include a third choice.  Step into the unknown, embrace the change, merge old ideas with new and keep pushing the boundries of knowledge, afterall, this is how we learn anyway:

http://www.brainpick...ience-language/

That article describes the evolution of learning as: "synthesizing existing ideas into new combinations".

This makes a lot more things make sense in the ME universe.  Reapers are just a representation of the unknown, quite literally beyond our comprehension.  The catalyst was a child because the fear he had was childish.  And most importantly, this is why synthesis MUST remain an unknown quantity, as it is for those who are willing to embrace the unknown.  Knowing the result of synthesis would completly defeat what synthesis represents.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 juin 2012 - 01:28 .

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

^ I get the explanation, idea, and so on.

I just don’t get how you could make the decision with the information you have at the time of making it. I can’t justify such a leap of faith — or not really even faith because it’s not explained at all to have something to have faith in — when the stakes are the lives of the entire galaxy.

Not choosing is also leap of faith, isn't it? It's a game and I respected its rules - every choice in this version of endings is leap of faith and even not choosing is choice - so I really don't understand what is the problem, each version of ending is unexplained, …

…No, they’re not. This is false equivalence.

Both Destroy and Control have very clearly spelled-out immediate results (I assume the Catalyst is truthful and genuinely convinced of these options otherwise this discussion is pointless as you explain). What will happen in the future is open, certainly, but there is a clear sequence of comprehensible events that are within the realm of a human mind to reason about.

In contrast, there is absolutely nothing about Synthesis that you have anything but conjecture about. “New DNA” — metaphor? Maybe, but for what? As you and Ieldra2 have proven, one can come up with a semi-plausible framework for how this would work…but those are merely theories.

In my view, it’s…irresponsible, I guess is the nicest way to say it, to choose this leap into the unknown for the entire galaxy. If it was just me entering some test program and people could join up later when we know what’s what, that’d be different. But it’s not. It’s a change that affects everyone immediately (whether or not it completes immediately), and it’s irreversible. The potential downside is huge, and the upside is completely unknown.

So, from a roleplaying aspect, I cannot fathom choosing Synthesis. I can’t forfeit every single life in the entire galaxy.

Are you truly willing to gamble everything on it, given that you have two other options? Remember, it’s NOT “Synthesis or death”. That’s the morality question. I am personally really damn conservative when it comes to billions of lives.


(I would also question the benefit of whatever the preservation of organic life is supposed to be given the Catalyst’s rather peculiar view on ‘preservation’ if you take that view on the Reapers. Couldn’t the synthesis then mean turning everyone into Reapers?)

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 juin 2012 - 01:50 .

[Shaigunjoe]

lillitheris wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

^ I get the explanation, idea, and so on.

I just don’t get how you could make the decision with the information you have at the time of making it. I can’t justify such a leap of faith — or not really even faith because it’s not explained at all to have something to have faith in — when the stakes are the lives of the entire galaxy.

Not choosing is also leap of faith, isn't it? It's a game and I respected its rules - every choice in this version of endings is leap of faith and even not choosing is choice - so I really don't understand what is the problem, each version of ending is unexplained, …

…No, they’re not. This is false equivalence.

Both Destroy and Control have very clearly spelled-out immediate results (I assume the Catalyst is truthful and genuinely convinced of these options otherwise this discussion is pointless as you explain). What will happen in the future is open, certainly, but there is a clear sequence of comprehensible events that are within the realm of a human mind to reason about.

In contrast, there is absolutely nothing about Synthesis that you have anything but conjecture about. “New DNA” — metaphor? Maybe, but for what? As you and Ieldra2 have proven, one can come up with a semi-plausible framework for how this would work…but those are merely theories.

In my view, it’s…irresponsible, I guess is the nicest way to say it, to choose this leap into the unknown for the entire galaxy. If it was just me entering some test program and people could join up later when we know what’s what, that’d be different. But it’s not. It’s a change that affects everyone immediately (whether or not it completes immediately), and it’s irreversible. The potential downside is huge, and the upside is completely unknown.

So, from a roleplaying aspect, I cannot fathom choosing Synthesis. I can’t forfeit every single life in the entire galaxy.

Are you truly willing to gamble everything on it, given that you have two other options? Remember, it’s NOT “Synthesis or death”. That’s the morality question. I am personally really damn conservative when it comes to billions of lives.


(I would also question the benefit of whatever the preservation of organic life is supposed to be given the Catalyst’s rather peculiar view on ‘preservation’ if you take that view on the Reapers. Couldn’t the synthesis then mean turning everyone into Reapers?)

I think the potential upside is about equivalent to the potential downside.

I think that a lot of the reasons your listed why you didn't pick synthesis resonant with my earlier post about why it is important that synthesis be an unknown.

[lillitheris]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

lillitheris wrote...


In my view, it’s…irresponsible, I guess is the nicest way to say it, to choose this leap into the unknown for the entire galaxy. If it was just me entering some test program and people could join up later when we know what’s what, that’d be different. But it’s not. It’s a change that affects everyone immediately (whether or not it completes immediately), and it’s irreversible. The potential downside is huge, and the upside is completely unknown.

So, from a roleplaying aspect, I cannot fathom choosing Synthesis. I can’t forfeit every single life in the entire galaxy.

Are you truly willing to gamble everything on it, given that you have two other options? Remember, it’s NOT “Synthesis or death”. That’s the morality question. I am personally really damn conservative when it comes to billions of lives.

I think the potential upside is about equivalent to the potential downside.

I think that a lot of the reasons your listed why you didn't pick synthesis resonant with my earlier post about why it is important that synthesis be an unknown.

Would you choose the complete unknown — unknowable — over the two well-defined options? Would you make that decision for every other being in the universe?

Edit: let me reiterate a point from earlier: I would actually seriously consider Synthesis if it only affected me. But not when it’s everyone else, too. Like a medical experiment…I can forfeit my life for a potential greater good…but not others’. If you like, you can answer the question in two parts:

1. Would you choose Synthesis if it only affected you?
2. Would you choose Synthesis if it affected everyone?

Whether the upside is equivalent to the downside is irrelevant…because you only get one, not both. They don’t even eachother out. In fact, let me concede that the best possible upside could be a hundred times better than the worst possible downside…but that doesn’t matter, if you get the downside. And you have no capability to make assumptions about that.

And, again, even thinking in those terms means you’re considering Synthesis as a binary choice. It’s not. It’s not Synthesis or nothing. It’s Synthesis, or Destroy or Control.

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 juin 2012 - 02:12 .

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

^ I get the explanation, idea, and so on.

I just don’t get how you could make the decision with the information you have at the time of making it. I can’t justify such a leap of faith — or not really even faith because it’s not explained at all to have something to have faith in — when the stakes are the lives of the entire galaxy.

Not choosing is also leap of faith, isn't it? It's a game and I respected its rules - every choice in this version of endings is leap of faith and even not choosing is choice - so I really don't understand what is the problem, each version of ending is unexplained, …

…No, they’re not. This is false equivalence.

Both Destroy and Control have very clearly spelled-out immediate results (I assume the Catalyst is truthful and genuinely convinced of these options otherwise this discussion is pointless as you explain). What will happen in the future is open, certainly, but there is a clear sequence of comprehensible events that are within the realm of a human mind to reason about.

In contrast, there is absolutely nothing about Synthesis that you have anything but conjecture about. “New DNA” — metaphor? Maybe, but for what? As you and Ieldra2 have proven, one can come up with a semi-plausible framework for how this would work…but those are merely theories.

In my view, it’s…irresponsible, I guess is the nicest way to say it, to choose this leap into the unknown for the entire galaxy. If it was just me entering some test program and people could join up later when we know what’s what, that’d be different. But it’s not. It’s a change that affects everyone immediately (whether or not it completes immediately), and it’s irreversible. The potential downside is huge, and the upside is completely unknown.

So, from a roleplaying aspect, I cannot fathom choosing Synthesis. I can’t forfeit every single life in the entire galaxy.

Are you truly willing to gamble everything on it, given that you have two other options? Remember, it’s NOT “Synthesis or death”. That’s the morality question. I am personally really damn conservative when it comes to billions of lives.


(I would also question the benefit of whatever the preservation of organic life is supposed to be given the Catalyst’s rather peculiar view on ‘preservation’ if you take that view on the Reapers. Couldn’t the synthesis then mean turning everyone into Reapers?)

My only answer to you can be, it's also irresponsible to think that both destroy and control have immediate spelled-out results - Catalyst doesn't tell you clearly what will happen in those either - unless you're meta-gaming - it says - you could destroy geth and you are partially synthetic too - and what does control imply, what's clear about that - is Shepard like Catalyst now, and if s/he is, will s/he start looking at the situation as Catalyst does, how Shepard as a mortal human will accept something that resembles eternity and loneliness, etc? lillitheris, unless you actually choose and until you choose, you don't know a squat what will happen - you just guess, as do I. Tirades of irresponsibility and responsibility leave for someone else - it is irresponsible from you to assume that everyone would be happy with your choice - the same assumptions you keep piling on synthesis can be applied two other two choices too - before you actually shoot the tube, take those handles or jump into beam, you know as much as I do. You said before you refuse to abide by someone's headcanon and I agreed with you, well, this time, I refuse to abide by your headcanon - your assumptions. I don't judge your reasoning and choice, and I hope you'll finally stop doing that too.

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

My only answer to you can be, it's also irresponsible to think that both destroy and control have immediate spelled-out results - Catalyst doesn't tell you clearly what will happen in those either - unless you're meta-gaming - it says - you could destroy geth and you are partially synthetic too

There’s nothing ambiguous about that. You have a well-defined worst case scenario. When making the decision, I can assume that they will be destroyed. I may be pleasantly surprised, but that doesn’t really factor.

- and what does control imply, what's clear about that - is Shepard like Catalyst now, and if s/he is, will s/he start looking at the situation as Catalyst does, how Shepard as a mortal human will accept something that resembles eternity and loneliness, etc?

Doesn’t matter as far as others are concerned. Control is a leap of faith for a single person, if you wish. What happens to Shepard is undefined, but that’s a risk I could accept on my own behalf. The effect on the galaxy is well-defined.

So, I ask again:

1. Would you choose Synthesis if it only affected you?
2. Would you choose Synthesis if it affected everyone?

Modifié par lillitheris, 22 juin 2012 - 02:19 .

[Shaigunjoe]

lillitheris wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

lillitheris wrote...


In my view, it’s…irresponsible, I guess is the nicest way to say it, to choose this leap into the unknown for the entire galaxy. If it was just me entering some test program and people could join up later when we know what’s what, that’d be different. But it’s not. It’s a change that affects everyone immediately (whether or not it completes immediately), and it’s irreversible. The potential downside is huge, and the upside is completely unknown.

So, from a roleplaying aspect, I cannot fathom choosing Synthesis. I can’t forfeit every single life in the entire galaxy.

Are you truly willing to gamble everything on it, given that you have two other options? Remember, it’s NOT “Synthesis or death”. That’s the morality question. I am personally really damn conservative when it comes to billions of lives.

I think the potential upside is about equivalent to the potential downside.

I think that a lot of the reasons your listed why you didn't pick synthesis resonant with my earlier post about why it is important that synthesis be an unknown.

Would you choose the complete unknown — unknowable — over the two well-defined options? Would you make that decision for every other being in the universe?

Edit: let me reiterate a point from earlier: I would actually seriously consider Synthesis if it only affected me. But not when it’s everyone else, too. Like a medical experiment…I can forfeit my life for a potential greater good…but not others’. If you like, you can answer the question in two parts:

1. Would you choose Synthesis if it only affected you?
2. Would you choose Synthesis if it affected everyone?

Whether the upside is equivalent to the downside is irrelevant…because you only get one, not both. They don’t even eachother out. In fact, let me concede that the best possible upside could be a hundred times better than the worst possible downside…but that doesn’t matter, if you get the downside. And you have no capability to make assumptions about that.

And, again, even thinking in those terms means you’re considering Synthesis as a binary choice. It’s not. It’s not Synthesis or nothing. It’s Synthesis, or Destroy or Control.

Obviously you didn't read what I said earlier, as I don't view it as synthesis or bust, I clearly laid out what I thought of the alternative(s).

I choose synthesis because I except that I don't know the immediate result but am willing to accept the risks anyway.  But I do know that it will affect everyone, every choice you choose affects everyone.  What about you? I know your answer to number 2, but to number 1? I don't think number 1 is releavent at all as I believe shepard dies.  But for the sake of argument, you would be fine with ascending yourself and leaving the rest of civilization in the dust?  Be a clear superior being among your pets?  Would you even want to deal with them anymore?  I think you would become like Dr. Manhatten in the watchman, I don't think that would be much different from choosing control (as in you would be ascending yourself but leaving organics to fend for themselves).

[Ieldra]

@lillitheris:
The roleplaying perspective is so reduced in this particular scene that it's almost irrelevant, even less so with the bad writing in the scene. Shepard doesn't know about the thematic considerations that always influence players' choices, if you realize it or not. Shepard doesn't know that she's in a story full of allegories (as pointed out by Nimrodell on the previous page), and she *might* suspect that she's the model of the change but she doesn't know. But we know.

But if you want to know: when going from the phrasing in the leaked script on which my scenario is based (including the phrasing "a path you've already started down") - yes, I would very likely make that choice from a roleplaying perspective, though I can't know how I'd be shaped by the events that came before in Shepard's shoes. I would take that jump into the largely unknown. I would do it to break the hold of a cyclic past and to make life grow beyond what it had been. What can life be after it has grown beyond itself? I don't know. But stagnating (Control) or retreating from the future (Destroy) are lesser options. "There are infinite possibilities - but not for Man". I haven't put that quote at the top of my OP in vain. The much-vaunted "human condition" is something to be overcome. At least in part. Halfway, if you want, because we're to become half-synthetics.

Back to the thematic view, I could never, ever choose Destroy with conviction, because of this:

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

Shaigunjoe explained that nicely, and both Destroy and Synthesis came across to me as he describes. Destroy always came across to me as a neo-Luddite, backward-looking choice, even though from a roleplaying perspective, that's not all there is to it.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@lillitheris:
The roleplaying perspective is so reduced in this particular scene that it's almost irrelevant, even less so with the bad writing in the scene. Shepard doesn't know about the thematic considerations that always influence players' choices, if you realize it or not. Shepard doesn't know that she's in a story full of allegories (as pointed out by Nimrodell on the previous page), and she *might* suspect that she's the model of the change but she doesn't know. But we know.

But if you want to know: when going from the phrasing in the leaked script on which my scenario is based (including the phrasing "a path you've already started down") - yes, I would very likely make that choice from a roleplaying perspective, though I can't know how I'd be shaped by the events that came before in Shepard's shoes. I would take that jump into the largely unknown. I would do it to break the hold of a cyclic past and to make life grow beyond what it had been. What can life be after it has grown beyond itself? I don't know. But stagnating (Control) or retreating from the future (Destroy) are lesser options. "There are infinite possibilities - but not for Man". I haven't put that quote at the top of my OP in vain. The much-vaunted "human condition" is something to be overcome. At least in part. Halfway, if you want, because we're to become half-synthetics.

Back to the thematic view, I could never, ever choose Destroy with conviction, because of this:

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

Shaigunjoe explained that nicely, and both Destroy and Synthesis came across to me as he describes. Destroy always came across to me as a neo-Luddite, backward-looking choice, even though from a roleplaying perspective, that's not all there is to it.

I definitly feel that the final choice is more about the player than the character, as evident by the highly emotional response across these boards.

I did stumble trying to define control, as I think I wanted to fit it in with that lovecraft quote.  Though, stagnation has been a word that has crossed my mind when considering it.  Though I feel like it is a very Nietzsche end result, in the sense you have become the monster in which you fight.  Not sure what they are trying to say about that being a paragon option though.

[clennon8]

@illitheris: Pro-Synths will never ever EVER discuss this from a role-playing perspective. Maker knows I've tried. They flap their chicken wings and squawk "Bad writing!" but the real reason why is obvious. It's because they auto-lose as soon as they allow it to be about role-playing. The level of disingenuousness is staggering.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 juin 2012 - 03:08 .

[Ieldra]

Shaigunjoe wrote...
I do want to add something to the synthesis discussion (it may have been there already)  but I wanted to say something about the reapers as lovecraftian horrors and how that fits into the choices.

As many people have pointed out, from ME1 the reapers have represented old god horrors in both appearance and philosophy.  Lovecraft feared technology, he felt that Einstein's special relativity would plunge the world into chaos, so he created unimaginable horrors in his writing to discourage the creation of unimaginable horrors in real life (sound familiar? Who else uses circular logic to justify keeping the world from chaos?).  Here is a Lovecraft quote that bleeds directly into the choices presented:

"The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed
us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge
will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful
position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or
flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.  Control must somehow fit into madness (as TIM was mad and wanted control) though there is more that could be said about that.

Naturally, being a bit of a coward, he did not include a third choice.  Step into the unknown, embrace the change, merge old ideas with new and keep pushing the boundries of knowledge, afterall, this is how we learn anyway:

http://www.brainpick...ience-language/

That article describes the evolution of learning as: "synthesizing existing ideas into new combinations".

This makes a lot more things make sense in the ME universe.  Reapers are just a representation of the unknown, quite literally beyond our comprehension.  The catalyst was a child because the fear he had was childish.  And most importantly, this is why synthesis MUST remain an unknown quantity, as it is for those who are willing to embrace the unknown.  Knowing the result of synthesis would completly defeat what synthesis represents.

You've put into words what I've always felt the endings to mean on some level. As I'm reading this, I realize that I'd make the same choice knowing nothing more than the basic notion of "combining organics and synthetics" plus having Shepard as an example of what that might mean. However, I think there is a need to offset the Reapers' "abomination aesthetics". They don't represent the unknown as such as much as a particularly "disgusting" variant of the unknown. Even if the notion of conjoined minds carries conflicting associations as evidenced by the geth vs. the Reapers, the visual imagery of the Reapers and their minions puts the unknown into a Lovecraftian perspective, as if fear of the unknown was the objectively right stance to take. To me, this imagery was always irrelevant because I saw it as a cheap ploy to invoke visceral aversion, but it exists nonetheless. 

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

My only answer to you can be, it's also irresponsible to think that both destroy and control have immediate spelled-out results - Catalyst doesn't tell you clearly what will happen in those either - unless you're meta-gaming - it says - you could destroy geth and you are partially synthetic too

There’s nothing ambiguous about that. You have a well-defined worst case scenario. When making the decision, I can assume that they will be destroyed. I may be pleasantly surprised, but that doesn’t really factor.

- and what does control imply, what's clear about that - is Shepard like Catalyst now, and if s/he is, will s/he start looking at the situation as Catalyst does, how Shepard as a mortal human will accept something that resembles eternity and loneliness, etc?

Doesn’t matter as far as others are concerned. Control is a leap of faith for a single person, if you wish. What happens to Shepard is undefined, but that’s a risk I could accept on my own behalf. The effect on the galaxy is well-defined.

So, I ask again:

1. Would you choose Synthesis if it only affected you?
2. Would you choose Synthesis if it affected everyone?

Sorry, the effect on galaxy in control is not well-defined and you keep overlooking things I asked you - are you so sure that in the 100 or 1000 years you'll be the same one as you are in the moment of choice? Are you sure, where is the guarantee that in the moment you get uploaded, you'll stay the same, with same reasoning and perspective? Why should you take Catalyst's words for granted in that choice and differently in synthesis? IT-ers already answered your question - they use both choices to show how Shepard succumbed to Catalyst - so what makes Control so well-defined and understandable, guaranteed fate that you won't go berserk because of new state of body and mind like any borg for that matter - or is there a place where it's easily to assume you'll become more like David Bowman? Does Catalyst say you'll retain your free will? And what will happen to galaxy if those things occur? I guess, then galaxy's fate is well-defined too, it's toasted. How is it possible to take two choices for granted just like that even though they are clear in the moment of decision - both are unknown as is the third one - there is no well-defined choice and from the sheer number of different interpretations on these boards, you can see that none of the choices is well-defined.

As for your question - yes and yes - in first option, I'm already partially synthetic and that would mean the only thing I need to do is to die for the galaxy to be saved - I'm fine with that. And I explained the second - yes, I'd choose that like I did already and I gave the reasons.

[Heeden]

Nimrodell wrote...

Shepard is the only constant there, no matter the moral alignment, Shepard is actually the centre that binds them all being an incarnate of the change - it's like s/he is actually a conduit and the safe vent, a valve for all that was brewing and stewing for countless generations and I guess, that's one of the reasons why Catalyst will acknowledge Shepard and the need for final crushing of the old order frame.

This is why I keep making a big deal about Javik describing Shepard as "the Avatar of this cycle", it was a theme I picked up on before playing ME3 and Javik's comment simply ratified it for me (in fact as soon as Javik explained the Prothean's concept of avatars I wondered which one I was). It's like Shepard represents the potential of galactic civilisation which is only realised through his words and actions.

[Shaigunjoe]

clennon8 wrote...

@illitheris: Pro-Synths will never ever EVER discuss this from a role-playing perspective. Maker knows I've tried. They flap their chicken wings and squawk "Bad writing!" but the real reason why is obvious. It's because they auto-lose as soon as they allow it to be about role-playing. The level of disingenuousness is staggering.

There is nothing disingenuousness about it.  The roleplaying perspective is pretty uninteresting.  You have a gunshot wound, you are emotionally and physically exhausted, you just saw one of your best friends die, people are still dieing on earth.  You are having 'the truth' laid out to you by a being that may or may not be telling the truth.  The decision comes down to do you trust the catalyst or not?  If you trust him then choose which option you think would utlimatly benefit civilization in the long run, I think it would be synthesis.  If you don't trust him, then just pick what color you think is prettiest.  Keep in mind, this is an RP discussion so if your character does not trust the catalyst then there is no reason to believe any of the beams does what he says they do.

Once you start talking about how the effects of the choice influence the choice itself, you have moved beyond an RP discussion.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 22 juin 2012 - 03:23 .

[Ieldra]

Shaigunjoe wrote...
I did stumble trying to define control, as I think I wanted to fit it in with that lovecraft quote.  Though, stagnation has been a word that has crossed my mind when considering it.  Though I feel like it is a very Nietzsche end result, in the sense you have become the monster in which you fight.  Not sure what they are trying to say about that being a paragon option though.

I think this is offset by the messianic theme of sacrificing all that you are for a better future. And if you want to connect to Nietzsche, I think his statement that "man is a bridge" is more apt in this case. His image of the ideal future human is a particularly unpleasant one which, just to be clear about it, I don't support in any way, but I'm always been drawn to this statement because of the implication that it is our destiny to grow beyond ourselves and become other than we were.

[clennon8]

Bawk bawk BGAWK