9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Heeden]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

I disagree about Control, there's no way of knowing the method that gives Shepard control of the Reapers or how he will react once he is in charge of the mightiest force in the galaxy.

Even the worst-case scenario for Destroy isn't fully understood - there's an implication that Shepard will be killed because he is partly Synthetic, but what is that referring to? Is it simply because he has artificial implants, in which case biotic users and many others could be affected, or is it because he is a being created with a purpose (after Cerberus rebuilt him to defeat the Reapers) - the philosophical difference as explained by Legion. The latter gives hope for Legion and EDI as they could be seen as evolving beyond this stage.

[jtav]

All right clen, you want this from an RP perspective? I let the rachni queen go on nothing more than her word that she wouldn't start the Rachni Wars II. I saved the Destiny Ascension instead of concentrating on Sovereign. I rewrote the heretics. I cured the genophage. I am quite comfortable introducing massive unknown quantities into the universe. Faced with a choice I consider repulsive and one that still feels a bit off, into the light I go.

[Nimrodell]

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.

I just did that on previous page - what's wrong with you, people? Honestly, did you make your choice? Yes. Did the ending of the game tell you that the reaper threat is over and you became a legend? Yes. Then what's the issue? Many of you keep yelling - what about free will, democracy, choice - and yet you keep enforcing one way of choosing, one way of thinking - all three choices are valid at the end and you have the same amount of knowledge on what happened as anyone else on these boards, so just why such offensive description - the same could be said about you... and what's the worst, your Shepard made correct choice for you and in your universe and yet, you'd rather be chest-pounding as poor pro-synthesis guys - synthesis didn't happen in your gameplay and I don't see the reason why should anyone who played his game differently justify himself to you or anyone else - since when you've became all knowing, super moral being?

Loose such attitude and you may discover that pro-synthesis people are very sincere.

[His Name was HYR!!]

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.

Except that time when I did. And you used the cheapest excuse possible to bow out of the conversation.

http://social.biowar...7774/3#12655308


Mommy says don't say bad stuff like "deal with it" ... oh god, what have I done?!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 22 juin 2012 - 03:30 .

[Ieldra]

@Shaigunjoe:
I've included a part of your first post on the previous page in the OP in the section about Lovecraftian cosmicism. I hope you don't mind. That quote from Lovecraft (which I didn't know before) is particularly apt.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Shaigunjoe:
I've included a part of your first post on the previous page in the OP in the section about Lovecraftian cosmicism. I hope you don't mind. That quote from Lovecraft (which I didn't know before) is particularly apt.

No problem at all, happy to contribute.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

All right clen, you want this from an RP perspective? I let the rachni queen go on nothing more than her word that she wouldn't start the Rachni Wars II. I saved the Destiny Ascension instead of concentrating on Sovereign. I rewrote the heretics. I cured the genophage. I am quite comfortable introducing massive unknown quantities into the universe. Faced with a choice I consider repulsive and one that still feels a bit off, into the light I go.

With all due respect, that still isn't role-playing the decision.  That's a cursory "I've taken these other chances, therefore I'm someone who takes chances" observation.  I'm talking about in-the-moment justification for taking a flyer on something like Synthesis.  I hold that the pro-Synth argument, when taking from a true role-playing stance, starts with "I didn't want to kill the geth," and ends with "and then I stopped thinking."  Once other issues are brought to the front, you guys have no choice - NO CHOICE - but to start resorting to meta-logic and pie-in-the-sky speculations on the wonderfulness of the brave new world you think you are creating.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 juin 2012 - 03:54 .

[jtav]

In the moment: Destroy is repulsive. I will not sacrifice my allies on the altar of expediency. Not when any other option is available. Control feels slightly off. And I would prefer peace and integration, so I choose the option that promises that.

[Shaigunjoe]

clennon8 wrote...

jtav wrote...

All right clen, you want this from an RP perspective? I let the rachni queen go on nothing more than her word that she wouldn't start the Rachni Wars II. I saved the Destiny Ascension instead of concentrating on Sovereign. I rewrote the heretics. I cured the genophage. I am quite comfortable introducing massive unknown quantities into the universe. Faced with a choice I consider repulsive and one that still feels a bit off, into the light I go.

With all due respect, that still isn't role-playing the decision.  That's a cursory "I've taken these other chances, therefore I'm someone who takes chances" observation.  I'm talking about in-the-moment justification for taking a flyer on something like Synthesis.  I hold that the pro-Synth argument, when taking from a true role-playing stance, starts with "I didn't want to kill the geth," and ends with "and then I stopped thinking."  Once other issues are brought to the front, you guys have no choice - NO CHOICE - but to start resorting to meta-logic and pie-in-the-sky speculations on the wonderfulness of the brave new world you think you are creating.

By its very defintion, what JTAV proposes IS RPing the situation.  That is the type of character JTAV played, and does support the in character choice of synthesis.  As far as RPing is concerned, all you have is speculation on what synthesis does.  The past history of the character and his/her beliefs plays a part in the 'in the moment decision'.

[His Name was HYR!!]

The dude clearly doesn't have a clue what it means to role-play.

Move along.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

In the moment: Destroy is repulsive. I will not sacrifice my allies on the altar of expediency. Not when any other option is available. Control feels slightly off. And I would prefer peace and integration, so I choose the option that promises that.

So, basically, "I didn't want to kill the geth."  Got it.  That's the only "in the moment" justification I've heard so far that I'll acknowledge as having any validity.

From a role-playing perspective, though, I still have a problem with the underlying assumptions that are being made regarding the Catalyst's truthfulness, accuracy, and soundness of logic.  That's where you lose me.  And pretty much everyone else, I think.

I'm being nice, btw, and not beating you over the head about the moral implications right now.  The first time I played it, I hadn't fully formulated my thoughts on the matter, either.  The whole thing felt vaguely wrong to me, but it wasn't until afterwards that I started saying "Hey, wait a minute..."

[jtav]

Because if I don't trust the Catalyst, the proper response is not Destroy. It's to do nothing. Which means never beating the game. I *must* choose one of three. Therefore I *must* trust the expositor.

[clennon8]

Well, I think we are forced to "trust" the Catalyst insofar as believing that the gist of each choice is being presented to us correctly. (Barring IT, that is. But we don't need to go there.) Destroy kills the Reapers and geth. Control enslaves the Reapers. Synthesis merges synthetics and organics. But we don't have to buy the Catalyst's logic (Yo dawg. I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics... You know how the rest goes). Nor does it seem reasonable to conclude that the outcome of each choice is equally speculative. Destroy seems pretty straight-forward. So does Control, really. Synthesis, on the other hand, is a wild gamble. I mean, like the wildest gamble ever taken, by orders of magnitude. You're investing an incredible amount of trust in the Catalyst -- who, let's not forget, has taken the shape of dead little boy from your nightmares. Creepy, much? Manipulative, much? Anyway, you're not only trusting in his truthfulness, but also in his ability to see all ends. If you just think about it for a minute, it's easy to think of all kinds that could go wrong with it. Things that even a crazy, ancient, super-intelligent AI might not have anticipated.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[Nimrodell]

clennon8 wrote...

Well, I think we are forced to "trust" the Catalyst insofar as believing that the gist of each choice is being presented to us correctly. (Barring IT, that is. But we don't need to go there.) Destroy kills the Reapers and geth. Control enslaves the Reapers. Synthesis merges synthetics and organics. But we don't have to buy the Catalyst's logic (Yo dawg. I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics... You know how the rest goes). Nor does it seem reasonable to conclude that the outcome of each choice is equally speculative. Destroy seems pretty straight-forward. So does Control, really. Synthesis, on the other hand, is a wild gamble. I mean, like the wildest gamble ever taken, by orders of magnitude. You're investing an incredible amount of trust in the Catalyst -- who, let's not forget, has taken the shape of dead little boy from your nightmares. Creepy, much? Manipulative, much? Anyway, you're not only trusting in his truthfulness, but also in his ability to see all ends. If you just think about it for a minute, it's easy to think of all kinds that could go wrong with it. Things that even a crazy, ancient, super-intelligent AI might not have anticipated.

I just wonder, where it is stated that the Catalyst is actually an AI? I keep saying that one these forums and i wonder, where is the proof that Catalyst is an AI since so far, I really didn't manage to find anything on its nature.

[Shaigunjoe]

Nimrodell wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Well, I think we are forced to "trust" the Catalyst insofar as believing that the gist of each choice is being presented to us correctly. (Barring IT, that is. But we don't need to go there.) Destroy kills the Reapers and geth. Control enslaves the Reapers. Synthesis merges synthetics and organics. But we don't have to buy the Catalyst's logic (Yo dawg. I heard you didn't want to be killed by synthetics... You know how the rest goes). Nor does it seem reasonable to conclude that the outcome of each choice is equally speculative. Destroy seems pretty straight-forward. So does Control, really. Synthesis, on the other hand, is a wild gamble. I mean, like the wildest gamble ever taken, by orders of magnitude. You're investing an incredible amount of trust in the Catalyst -- who, let's not forget, has taken the shape of dead little boy from your nightmares. Creepy, much? Manipulative, much? Anyway, you're not only trusting in his truthfulness, but also in his ability to see all ends. If you just think about it for a minute, it's easy to think of all kinds that could go wrong with it. Things that even a crazy, ancient, super-intelligent AI might not have anticipated.

I just wonder, where it is stated that the Catalyst is actually an AI? I keep saying that one these forums and i wonder, where is the proof that Catalyst is an AI since so far, I really didn't manage to find anything on its nature.

Yea, I think a reasonable case could be built that it is a VI.

[Taboo]

It's a phrase used to remind people of what things were in that time period. It is no different from you mentioning Genocide in Destroy. That is also fascist aesthetics.

The phrase Fascist Aesthetics, means an attachment to some criteria that WAS a part of fascist art. But it does not make the art fascist.
The idea of the organic society in Metropolis? Rustles people up. Arguably a leftist film.
The display of bodies in 300? Rustles people up. Arguably a stupid man's movie.
In academic circles, Soviet Communism was the Fascism that won the war. That's a bit of joke but still.

Would you prefer I use a Marcusian method of analysis?

Herbert Marcuse? Yes? No?

[BP20125810]

Can't wait to see the effects of synthesis that will be shown in EC.

[Sonashi]

Discussion will start all over again, that's for sure. I'm looking forward to it

[Ieldra]

BP20125810 wrote...
Can't wait to see the effects of synthesis that will be shown in EC.

I'd be content if the description given by the Catalyst was changed into that from the leaked script:

C: You may combine the synthetic and the organic.
C: Add your energy, your essence, with that of Crucible. The resulting chain reaction will transform both of our kind.
C: We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us.
S: So we'll just... go on living, together?
C: It is a very elegant solution. And a path you have already started down.
C: The harvesting will cease. It will be a new ascension, for synthetic and organic life.

As my sig and the thread title shows, I'm already playing as if it had said that. Apart from that, I'm fine with largely undefined results.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 juin 2012 - 05:53 .

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

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? [snipped parts later that basically just says this over again]

Dunno. Again, the personal part of it doesn’t matter because I’m concerned about everyone else. For all intents and purposes, we could stipulate that Shepard dies in Control, or is horribly tortured for all eternity. That’s irrelevant for this discussion, because I‘m asking you about the effects on the tens of billions of people that are NOT Shepard.

I am not sure if there as a genuine misunderstanding about what a defined effect is, or if you’re deliberately obfuscating the issue. Unknown is not unknowable. Destroy and Control can be reasoned about. The possibilities and threats they present, while unknown far in the future, are not mystical. They’re familiar possibilities, and threats.

The galactic scale, again, is well-defined. As you insist, we take the Catalyst at its word. The Catalyst says that Shepard controls the Reapers. This is pretty clear. Whether it’s Shepard, an AI modeled after Shepard, or some even less sophisticated system, somehow a being with Shepard’s qualities and morals will exert control over the Reapers. Whether Shepard just makes them fly in the dark space, or makes them an active guardian force, or use it to make humanity a superpower — all that is irrelevant. Those depend on the Shepard, but they each are clear, comprehensible paths. There is no indication given that Shepard would at any point lose control, or become less Shepardy.

However, if it should be that the Catalyst is incorrect and in 100 years the Shepard AI goes crazy and directs the Reapers to attack people — so be it. It’s a known threat. There’s nothing mystical about it.

Or maybe Shepard loses control. Then the Reaper threat is back, presumably. Again, nothing mystical about it.

All these things are unknowns, but they are well-defined, and they can be reasoned about, reacted to, etc. In contrast, you have absolutely no information about Synthesis.

Why should you take Catalyst's words for granted in that choice and differently in synthesis

Where am I taking words differently? You are the one(s) insisting on various non-literal interpretations of its words (without any corroborating proof, of course). My scenario works either way, so long as the same standard is applied to all three choices. It seems that it is you who uses different standards.

yes, I'd choose that like I did already and I gave the reasons.

I saw reasons for why you think a headcanon version of Synthesis might be a good choice, if they happen to be correct — which you have no ability to predict. I was specifically asking you about the choice between an unknowable outcome, and a defined outcome.

…

I dunno. I’m just getting the distinct vibe that none of you are genuinely considering this at the correct scale.

Ieldra2 even goes so far as to say it ‘can’t’ be considered from an RP point, which is nonsense. Just because you find Synthesis an unacceptable choice given all the questions surrounding it…thats’s my point.

[webhead921]

I honestly hope that the "synthesis turns everyone into husks" crowd will finally be silenced.

[Taboo]

webhead921 wrote...

I honestly hope that the "synthesis turns everyone into husks" and IT crowd will finally be silenced.

I made an addition.

It's bigger than LotSB. Did you see the graph they made?

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

All right clen, you want this from an RP perspective? I let the rachni queen go on nothing more than her word that she wouldn't start the Rachni Wars II. I saved the Destiny Ascension instead of concentrating on Sovereign. I rewrote the heretics. I cured the genophage. I am quite comfortable introducing massive unknown quantities into the universe. Faced with a choice I consider repulsive and one that still feels a bit off, into the light I go.

Unknown, but not unknowable.

– The rachni queen starts rachni wars again? OK, rachni wars it is.
– Saving Destiny Ascension lets Sovereign win? OK, you lost the war.
– Heretics went haywire again? OK, you gotta fight them again.
– Krogan expand uncontrollably? OK, war it is.

– Synthesis works? No f— clue.
– Synthesis doesn’t work? No f— clue.

That’s the difference.

[webhead921]

Bigger than lotsb? tis a good sign!

[Ieldra]

@lillitheris:
Consider the Catalyst's description of the rationale for the cycle and of Synthesis. If I took that at face value I would be unable to make a decision. To say nothing of "destroy the tube to trigger the superweapon". If you insist on taking the RP perspective, then you need to take all the circumstances into account. Yes, I maintain that the RP perspective in this scene is broken.

But suppose these problems didn't exist.
Then, believing the Catalyst, there's a 99.9999....% or so chance of organics eventually being wiped out by synthetics if you choose Destroy, and I'd take the unknowns of Synthesis over that any day. For that reason, the only question I've ever seriously considered is whether Control is a better choice than Synthesis or not. Control is the closest to maintaining the status quo. My main femShep would see Control as an unpleasant but relatively safe choice and therefore to be preferred, but my main maleShep isn't thrilled at all by that prospect. Instead, he sees his preference for Synthesis vindicated by....his own existence and success. Without Miranda's biosynthetic fusion, the galaxy would have fallen to the Reapers. Synthesis is the way to make intelligent life more resilient and more capable in the face of future threats with similar capabilities like the Reapers. If the Reapers exist, something more might also exist. You may not believe it, but choosing Synthesis fits Cyrus Shepard's psychological profile as I envisioned it from day one. It's the kind of choice I always thought I would make with him if it were offered, but always thought ME3 wouldn't offer me. So yes, it's perfectly in character.