4520 réponses à ce sujet

[SeptimusMagistos]

Argolas wrote...

It is still judgement. What makes you think Holoshep is better than an elected democratic government? It is no god, just a man connected to... something like a super computer, I guess.

Didn't stop Shepard when he was human. Why should it stop him now?

[CrutchCricket]

Argolas wrote...
I really just want to understand, is all. "Catalyst" proved that such a high being can do terrible things (genocide) and make mistakes (invalid solution). And all you add to the "catalyst" is Shepard, a man. I just want to understand why Holoshep will certainly do better and never ever go wrong since he´d better not, he is more powerful than the whole galaxy combined.
He is a higher being, yes, but does that give him the right to rule?

The holokid is not on the same level as the new control entity. Not even close.

I hate to be that dick that always references required reading but you really should check out my thread. Link in the sig.

Short version:
Holokid=shackled buggy AI working in circles on a problem that doesn't exist.
Commander (my name for the new entity)= a true higher intelligence resulting from the merging of all Reaper consciousness and processing power.

As to the matter of ruling, well my thread addresses that as well. Basically the control entity is so far above us it really has no reason to care about us one way or another. It will do the guardian thing at first because of Shepard's imprinted beliefs. But over time it will "disconnect" and grow indifferent to organics. When that happens it will ignore us completely in the pursuit of whatever it is nigh-cosmic entitie pursue. Regarding the "right to rule", this entity is the most powerful, most knowledgeable, most timeless  thing in the galaxy. It can pretty much do what it wants. You want to tell it different?

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 septembre 2012 - 02:51 .

[JeffZero]

You'll never come across as "that dick" on this, Crutch. Your thread is very, very good.

[Ghost]

******* lemons are epic!

[CrutchCricket]

JeffZero wrote...

You'll never come across as "that dick" on this, Crutch. Your thread is very, very good.

Thanks, Jeff!

[Volc19]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Argolas wrote...
I really just want to understand, is all. "Catalyst" proved that such a high being can do terrible things (genocide) and make mistakes (invalid solution). And all you add to the "catalyst" is Shepard, a man. I just want to understand why Holoshep will certainly do better and never ever go wrong since he´d better not, he is more powerful than the whole galaxy combined.
He is a higher being, yes, but does that give him the right to rule?

The holokid is not on the same level as the new control entity. Not even close.

I hate to be that dick that always references required reading but you really should check out my thread. Link in the sig.

Short version:
Holokid=shackled buggy AI working in circles on a problem that doesn't exist.
Commander (my name for the new entity)= a true higher intelligence resulting from the merging of all Reaper consciousness and processing power.

As to the matter of ruling, well my thread addresses that as well. Basically the control entity is so far above us it really has no reason to care about us one way or another. It will do the guardian thing at first because of Shepard's imprinted beliefs. But over time it will "disconnect" and grow indifferent to organics. When that happens it will ignore us completely in the pursuit of whatever it is nigh-cosmic entitie pursue. Regarding the "right to rule", this entity is the most powerful, most knowledgeable, most timeless  thing in the galaxy. It can pretty much do what it wants. You want to tell it different?

So, with time Commander will end up like me when I get bored in Minecraft, mining out planets in the effort to create a world-ceiling?

[CrutchCricket]

Volc19 wrote...
So, with time Commander will end up like me when I get bored in Minecraft, mining out planets in the effort to create a world-ceiling?

Uhhh... I don't play Minecraft so I don't know what its appropriate metaphor would be.

I'm going to go with a tentative... maybe?

[CroGamer002]

^lol

I think it is.

[Argolas]

Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!
Is this power to control the reapers absolute? Doubtful. "Holokid" did not have this absolute power over them, it merely seems to be able to  give the reapers direction, like enforcing the cycle. It is more like laws for their behaviour, giving an direct order seems impossible. Example: Holokid wants Shepard to make a choice since the cycle stopped working. It would give an order like "Do not attack the crucible while Shepard makes his decision",but it can´t, it asks Shepard to hurry before the reapers do this and indeed, if Shepard takes too long the crucible is destroyed. The reapers are independant and individual. Although there seems to be a collective intelligence, they can be isolated and forced to act on their own, with no means to contact others (Souvereign), this means this collective intelligence is limited. Now let´s assume Shepard CAN absolutely control the reapers, or the law system is sufficient. You seem to equal the collective intelligence of all reapers with omniscience. That can hardly be true. The reapers are made by the "holokid" and thus have the very same restrictions as itself when they are made.
Did they learn? Doubtful. The reapers spent most of their time sleeping in dark space, the only reason for them to leave it is war, they do not seem to change at all or learn anything and their technology is limited, they are only a bit
more powerful than what organics achieve in 50,000 years (4 dreadnoughts can take a reaper capital ship).
What about the knowledge of the harvested race? I think it is possible that they have this, but this is as well very limited since they always evolved on a path the reapers themselves prepared for them and to a certain point the reapers did not want them to cross. And this knowledge expires since it all comes from an old pattern, the
cycle, that is now broken, and the galaxy is going to change now. I think it is like when a medieval king is the collective intelligence of every man that ever lived in the medieval, it is a perfect ruler, but asmore time passes then, this knowledge becomes less and less useful.
So once again, is one who has the collective intelligence of all reapers anything close to omniscient? I highly doubt it.
Now one final point: Your "Indifference Doctrine". I know you realized that "Commander", at the beginning, actually cares about nothing but the future of organic civiliziation, but you think he will grow indifferent.
It is an interesting thought, but...
"Through my birth, his thoughts were freed. They guide me know, give me reason, direction. Just as he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped him achieve his purpose. Now my purpose"
This rather suggests that "Commander" is as restricted as Holokid. Not to a single goal, but to the thoughts of Shepard, the man. It sounds like "Commander" has no will and mind of it´s own, he needs Shepard´s thoughts in order to get "reason", "direction" and "purpose".

Modifié par Argolas, 19 septembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[CrutchCricket]

Oh boy. First off, before I get into it, I'll just say that if you want to write your reply elsewhere then post it in, please go back and re-edit the formatting. Sadly the BSN sucks at pasting text.

That being said.

Argolas wrote...
Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!

Then we really have nothing more to discuss. You're insisting on the opposite of what I'm saying. I've offered support for my claim(s), can you do the same for yours?

Is this power to control the reapers absolute? Doubtful. "Holokid" did not have this absolute power over them, it merely seems to be able to give the reapers direction, like enforcing the cycle. It is more like laws for their behaviour, giving an direct order seems impossible.
Example: Holokid wants Shepard to make a choice since the cycle stopped working. It would give an order like "Do not attack the crucible while Shepard makes his decision", but it can´t, it asks Shepard to hurry before the reapers do this and indeed, if Shepard takes too long the crucible is destroyed. The reapers are independant and individual. Although there seems to be a collective intelligence, they can be isolated and forced to act on their own, with no means to contact others (Souvereign), this means this collective intelligence is limited.

Does not follow. You have no basis to assume the holokid can't call off the Reapers. All we know is that he doesn't. Maybe he doesn't want to. What if he wants to keep the pressure on Shepard? And while we're at it "new solution" or not why would it, a shackled AI obsessed with this nonsense problem ever stop trying to fix it, even if it admits the solution doesn't work anymore? Until such time as a better solution is secured it will keep doing what solution it has available. Because in the absence of a better alternative available to implement stopping the cycle would be going against its purpose. Only when the new solution is implemented is the old one taken offline. It's thinking like a machine.

Now let´s assume Shepard CAN absolutely control the reapers, or the law system is sufficient. You seem to equal
the collective intelligence of all reapers with omniscience. That can hardly be true. The reapers are made by the "holokid" and thus have the very same restrictions as itself when they are made.

No one said anything about omniscience. But again, if you haven't checked out my thread please do. And it isn't even about my point this time. At the bottom of my OP I linked to a post about estimated intelligence of just one Reaper. Now take that and add it all together for all the Reapers. It may not technically be omniscience but at that level, I doubt you or I could tell the difference.

Did they learn? Doubtful.The reapers spent most of their time sleeping in dark space, the only reason for them to leave it is war, they do not seem to change at all or learn anything and their technology is limited, they are only a bit
more powerful than what organics achieve in 50,000 years (4 dreadnoughts can take a reaper capital ship). What about the knowledge of the harvested race? I think it is possible that they have this, but this is as well very limited
since they always evolved on a path the reapers themselves prepared for them and to a certain point the reapers did not want them to cross. And this knowledge expires since it all comes from an old pattern, the cycle, that is now broken, and the galaxy is going to change now. I think it is like when a medieval king is the collective intelligence of every man that ever lived in the medieval, it is a perfect ruler, but as more time passes then, this knowledge becomes less and less useful.

I agree the Reapers are static but only because they are perfectly suited to their task- the harvest. It's not a question of can they change it's a question of why bother? Like the shark, they have no need to evolve.
After control however, that purpose is no more. Under the direction of a higher being, they will evolve and upgrade. At astronomical rates.

Now one final point: Your "Indifference Doctrine". I know you realized that "Commander", at the beginning, actually cares about nothing but the future of organic civiliziation, but you think he will grow indifferent.
It is an interesting thought, but...
"Through my birth, his thoughts were freed. They guide me know, give me reason, direction. Just as he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped him achieve his purpose. Now my purpose"
This rather suggests that "Commander" is as restricted as Holokid. Not to a single goal, but to the thoughts of Shepard, the man. It sounds like "Commander" has no will and mind of it´s own, he needs Shepard´s thoughts in order to get "reason", "direction" and "purpose".

Your interpretation is too restrictive and runs counter to your own thoughts. Shepard had a purpose, stop the Reapers. Is that all he did? Was he not capable of doing other things- helping people, building relationships, seeking entertainment, all the dynamic actions of a life-form? Why should Commander be any different? You merely start out with the preconcieved notion that it's an AI incapable of change and run with it. Hell your own definition (man+computer) contradicts it. If you feel computers are static (they aren't) then what about the man? Can he not change?

Bottom line, there is nothing to indicate staticness and inability to change, apart from your own biases.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 19 septembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[Argolas]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Oh boy. First off, before I get into it, I'll just say that if you want to write your reply elsewhere then post it in, please go back and re-edit the formatting. Sadly the BSN sucks at pasting text.

Sorry about that one, to be honest I did not check afterwards, I will fix it in a minute. About the rest, thank you for your efforts, I think my question is answered.

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!

I have a feeling that you don't wanna accept the ending that was set in stone twice already. You are talking about a fan-fiction. I suggest you re-read one of my previous posts:

Seival wrote...

The Catalyst is not "a man connected to". Catalyst is the collective mind of all Reapers. The creature consisting of millions of different mobile and static platforms. The AI with unlimited processing power. Shepard died, giving that creature her personality and memories, giving birth to The New Catalyst. Shepard-Catalyst is The Reapers.

Now I hope you feel the scale of the matter.

Shepard-Catalyst is a Dictator only in case of Renegade Control ending. In case of Paragon Control ending Shepard-Catalyst is the Guardian... Well, I think you should watch all variants of Control ending. As far as I know, there are 6 different variants of this ending, each reflecting Shepard's personality.

Modifié par Seival, 19 septembre 2012 - 09:25 .

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!

I have a feeling that you don't wanna accept the ending that was set in stone twice already. You are talking about a fan-fiction. I suggest you re-read one of my previous posts:

Seival wrote...

The Catalyst is not "a man connected to". Catalyst is the collective mind of all Reapers. The creature consisting of millions of different mobile and static platforms. The AI with unlimited processing power. Shepard died, giving that creature her personality and memories, giving birth to The New Catalyst. Shepard-Catalyst is The Reapers.

Now I hope you feel the scale of the matter.

Shepard-Catalyst is a Dictator only in case of Renegade Control ending. In case of Paragon Control ending Shepard-Catalyst is the Guardian... Well, I think you should watch all variants of Control ending. As far as I know, there are 6 different variants of this ending, each reflecting Shepard's personality.

I thought I was done with that, but fine.
You state that the reapers are mere platforms like a geth (before the reaper code) which is wrong, they are sapient and self-aware individuals that even make up names for themselves.
And about the second point: You know, ´Dictator´ and ´Guardian´ can be two names for the same thing: Shepard-Catalyst protects, yes, but if you break his/her rules you end up being someone that the galaxy needs to be protected from, that means obey or be punished. I do not question Shepard´s morality, I only question that an AI based on Shepard and the reapers´ minds is qualified to have more power than all other life in the galaxy combined.

I really do not try to convince you all that Control is bad (if that was the case I would start listing arguments like "Holoshep could be hacked or replaced by using another crucible" and others like those), I just wanted to ask a few questions to supporters.

Modifié par Argolas, 19 septembre 2012 - 10:41 .

[Seival]

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!

I have a feeling that you don't wanna accept the ending that was set in stone twice already. You are talking about a fan-fiction. I suggest you re-read one of my previous posts:

Seival wrote...

The Catalyst is not "a man connected to". Catalyst is the collective mind of all Reapers. The creature consisting of millions of different mobile and static platforms. The AI with unlimited processing power. Shepard died, giving that creature her personality and memories, giving birth to The New Catalyst. Shepard-Catalyst is The Reapers.

Now I hope you feel the scale of the matter.

Shepard-Catalyst is a Dictator only in case of Renegade Control ending. In case of Paragon Control ending Shepard-Catalyst is the Guardian... Well, I think you should watch all variants of Control ending. As far as I know, there are 6 different variants of this ending, each reflecting Shepard's personality.

I thought I was done with that, but fine.
You state that the reapers are mere platforms like a geth (before the reaper code) which is wrong, they are sapient and self-aware individuals that even make up names for themselves.
And about the second point: You know, ´Dictator´ and ´Guardian´ can be two names for the same thing: Shepard-Catalyst protects, yes, but if you break his/her rules you end up being someone that the galaxy needs to be protected from, that means obey or be punished. I do not question Shepard´s morality, I only question that an AI based on Shepard and the reapers´ minds is qualified to have more power than all other life in the galaxy combined.

I really do not try to convince you all that Control is bad (if that was the case I would start listing arguments like "Holoshep could be hacked or replaced by using another crucible" and others like those), I just wanted to ask a few questions to supporters.

About your first point. You keep ignoring everything the original Catalyst told you. It clearly states that it is an AI, and the collective mind of all Reapers. Nothing else matters - even toys can have names.

It called itself Sovereign through one of mobile platforms, then it called itself Harbinger through another mobile platform. And then it again avoided naming itself through a random destroyer. Logical enough - noone should know about the Catalyst till the time comes (...if the time comes).

About your second point. Are you against the Guardian who only punishes bad people? If so, then you have much more to worry about in case of Destroy. Because it will be Leviathans who will rule the galaxy, not the Catalyst. Believe me, you want this much less, then Catalyst-Shepard in charge... Leviathans are not bad, but after what happened, they will clearly rule more harshly. And noone will have any chance to disobey, just like in case of Control.



...In short - all Destroyers have to say hello to the Leviathans, and enjoy being under another Control, trapped between the Leviathans and remaining Reaper corpses. I don't want to say it's a bad or invalid ending, but it's the ending I don't really like.

Modifié par Seival, 19 septembre 2012 - 11:51 .

[CrutchCricket]

Seival wrote...
...In short - all Destroyers have to say hello to the Leviathans, and enjoy being under another Control, trapped between the Leviathans and remaining Reaper corpses. I don't want to say it's a bad or invalid ending, but it's the ending I don't really like.

Oh? And what happened to the "Leviathans are just misunderstood CareBears doing what they do naturally"?

I find it interesting that you're going back on your point when you feel your vision is threatened.

[Seival]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Seival wrote...
...In short - all Destroyers have to say hello to the Leviathans, and enjoy being under another Control, trapped between the Leviathans and remaining Reaper corpses. I don't want to say it's a bad or invalid ending, but it's the ending I don't really like.

Oh? And what happened to the "Leviathans are just misunderstood CareBears doing what they do naturally"?

I find it interesting that you're going back on your point when you feel your vision is threatened.

I didn't change my attitude to the Leviathans, you just didn't read my reply carefully enough:

Seival wrote...

About your first point. You keep ignoring everything the original Catalyst told you. It clearly states that it is an AI, and the collective mind of all Reapers. Nothing else matters - even toys can have names.

It called itself Sovereign through one of mobile platforms, then it called itself Harbinger through another mobile platform. And then it again avoided naming itself through a random destroyer. Logical enough - noone should know about the Catalyst till the time comes (...if the time comes).

About your second point. Are you against the Guardian who only punishes bad people? If so, then you have much more to worry about in case of Destroy. Because it will be Leviathans who will rule the galaxy, not the Catalyst. Believe me, you want this much less, then Catalyst-Shepard in charge... Leviathans are not bad, but after what happened, they will clearly rule more harshly. And noone will have any chance to disobey, just like in case of Control.



...In short - all Destroyers have to say hello to the Leviathans, and enjoy being under another Control, trapped between the Leviathans and remaining Reaper corpses. I don't want to say it's a bad or invalid ending, but it's the ending I don't really like.

Which means Destroyers betrayed EDI and the Geth just to become thralls instead of harvested. Strange, but still valid ending. This doesn't make the Leviathans evil. And  Galactic Civilization will be fine under Leviathans Control I believe.

Modifié par Seival, 20 septembre 2012 - 10:48 .

[Argolas]

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Seival wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Imagine, I know your concept and I still insist on my points. "Commander" is STILL a man+ a super computer and nothing more than that!

I have a feeling that you don't wanna accept the ending that was set in stone twice already. You are talking about a fan-fiction. I suggest you re-read one of my previous posts:

Seival wrote...

The Catalyst is not "a man connected to". Catalyst is the collective mind of all Reapers. The creature consisting of millions of different mobile and static platforms. The AI with unlimited processing power. Shepard died, giving that creature her personality and memories, giving birth to The New Catalyst. Shepard-Catalyst is The Reapers.

Now I hope you feel the scale of the matter.

Shepard-Catalyst is a Dictator only in case of Renegade Control ending. In case of Paragon Control ending Shepard-Catalyst is the Guardian... Well, I think you should watch all variants of Control ending. As far as I know, there are 6 different variants of this ending, each reflecting Shepard's personality.

I thought I was done with that, but fine.
You state that the reapers are mere platforms like a geth (before the reaper code) which is wrong, they are sapient and self-aware individuals that even make up names for themselves.
And about the second point: You know, ´Dictator´ and ´Guardian´ can be two names for the same thing: Shepard-Catalyst protects, yes, but if you break his/her rules you end up being someone that the galaxy needs to be protected from, that means obey or be punished. I do not question Shepard´s morality, I only question that an AI based on Shepard and the reapers´ minds is qualified to have more power than all other life in the galaxy combined.

I really do not try to convince you all that Control is bad (if that was the case I would start listing arguments like "Holoshep could be hacked or replaced by using another crucible" and others like those), I just wanted to ask a few questions to supporters.

About your first point. You keep ignoring everything the original Catalyst told you. It clearly states that it is an AI, and the collective mind of all Reapers. Nothing else matters - even toys can have names.

It called itself Sovereign through one of mobile platforms, then it called itself Harbinger through another mobile platform. And then it again avoided naming itself through a random destroyer. Logical enough - noone should know about the Catalyst till the time comes (...if the time comes).

About your second point. Are you against the Guardian who only punishes bad people? If so, then you have much more to worry about in case of Destroy. Because it will be Leviathans who will rule the galaxy, not the Catalyst. Believe me, you want this much less, then Catalyst-Shepard in charge... Leviathans are not bad, but after what happened, they will clearly rule more harshly. And noone will have any chance to disobey, just like in case of Control.



...In short - all Destroyers have to say hello to the Leviathans, and enjoy being under another Control, trapped between the Leviathans and remaining Reaper corpses. I don't want to say it's a bad or invalid ending, but it's the ending I don't really like.

First: Yes, I am aware that reaper kid tells us it is the collective mind of all reapers, but this can´t mean it was always it who talked to you. Reapers ARE independant, Souvereign (who calls herself Nazara) states that directly, and it is isolated and forced to act on its own. Even more proof: The destroyer on Rannoch.

"Harbinger spoke of you."

I disagree with CrutchCricket but that is interpretation and opinion, but you, Seival, are wrong in some points.

Second: Yes, I am against that Guardian. That is because I believe that no being, as wise it might be, should have that much power (Even a religios question: If there is a loving god, why does suffering exist? Some answer: Because men are given a free will.). Instead I believe in self-determination of sapient life and that is the main reason I prefer destroy- it means you break free of reaper influence. All of them are gone, indoctrination is not possible anymore, and the organic species will have to rebuild the Mass Relays and citadel on their own, that means they will stop depending on unknown but convenient technology and will be forced to understand it (I found myself very much agreeing with Aethyta), gaining the freedom to build more of them and explore the other 99% of the galaxy. This is not a matter of facts, however, but a matter of belief, you can agree or disagree on that one without being right or wrong.

Modifié par Argolas, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[Shermos]

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

[CrutchCricket]

Seival wrote...

I didn't change my attitude to the Leviathans, you just didn't read my reply carefully enough:

Seival wrote...
Leviathans are not bad, but after what happened, they will clearly rule more harshly. And noone will have any chance to disobey, just like in case of Control.

Which means Destroyers betrayed EDI and the Geth just to become thralls instead of harvested. Strange, but still valid ending. This doesn't make the Leviathans evil. And  Galactic Civilization will be fine under Leviathans Control I believe.

Oh I'm sorry, I guess you didn't change your... oh wait:

Seival wrote...
Leviathans don't enslave anyone. They coexist with lesser races like a human coexists with bacteria. Did you ever
think that all micro-life existing in your own body was enslaved by you? I don't think so.

You did.

Slide around the point all you want, it doesn't make your perspective any more incomprehensible. Incidentally, this reminds me why I stopped debating with you.

But for the record, no one used the term "evil" as applied to Leviathans or anything else. Even if I accept your "logic", you're arguing against a strawman

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 20 septembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[CrutchCricket]

Argolas wrote...

 (Even a religios question: If there is a loving god, why does suffering exist? Some answer: Because men are given a free will.)

OK, NO.

The rest of you opinion is indeed belief which I will leave alone.

But the problem of evil is NOT answered by free will which is a problem in itself.

I won't get into pure philosophy here but the short of it is: you have no free free will. Not really. Everything you do can be traced to outside causes, which regardless of deterministic or indeterministic systems cannot be attributed to you. The meat of the problem lies in that you cannot draw meaningful metaphysical distinctions between where a cause is external vs internal to you (and thus be said to "originate" from you).

If you invoke the problem of evil, you must be prepared to argue at that level and free will isn't going to cut it.

[mango smoothie]

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

I like the choices from the rough draft script more; where Control would preserve the Mass Relays and Destroy would completly destroy them.

It added a more interesting choice in whether one would take the risk in controlling the Reapers to preserve galactic civilization or would one eliminate the risk of keeping the Reapers around, but at the cost of galactic civiliaztion. Kind of funny though because if they had gone with that ending I would've chosen Control, but since the Mass Relays are destroyed/deactivated in all the endings I felt the risks of Control were to high to the pontential benefits.

[Argolas]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Argolas wrote...

 (Even a religios question: If there is a loving god, why does suffering exist? Some answer: Because men are given a free will.)

OK, NO.

The rest of you opinion is indeed belief which I will leave alone.

But the problem of evil is NOT answered by free will which is a problem in itself.

I won't get into pure philosophy here but the short of it is: you have no free free will. Not really. Everything you do can be traced to outside causes, which regardless of deterministic or indeterministic systems cannot be attributed to you. The meat of the problem lies in that you cannot draw meaningful metaphysical distinctions between where a cause is external vs internal to you (and thus be said to "originate" from you).

If you invoke the problem of evil, you must be prepared to argue at that level and free will isn't going to cut it.

Free will is a answer to how it can be possible that there is a god AND suffering, not an answer to why there is evil. Suffering does not only come from evil (which I was not even talking about), but as well from mistakes, individual and in the system. And your claim "you have no free will." is something that is still discussed.
As I said, that question is a religious one and I did not and won´t write anything about my personal opinion on this.
I will leave it at that.

[Eeeeeagle]

I'd be totes down with Control if the music playing in the background wasn't so damn creepy.

[CrutchCricket]

mango smoothie wrote...

Shermos wrote...

You know, the fact that we have these debates can be seen as evidence that Bioware actually did a good job with the endings. I don't want a moral choice at the ending of a game to be an easy one. The choices at the ends of ME1 and 2 where also difficult, but ME3 topped them both. Whatever else you might say about the ending, you can't say Bioware didn't give us a difficult choice with many different pros and cons to weigh up.

If the writers changed the ending so destroy didn't wipe out the Geth and kill EDI, it would cheapen the dilemma Shepard faces. That would really suck.

I like the choices from the rough draft script more; where Control would preserve the Mass Relays and Destroy would completly destroy them.

It added a more interesting choice in whether one would take the risk in controlling the Reapers to preserve galactic civilization or would one eliminate the risk of keeping the Reapers around, but at the cost of galactic civiliaztion. Kind of funny though because if they had gone with that ending I would've chosen Control, but since the Mass Relays are destroyed/deactivated in all the endings I felt the risks of Control were to high to the pontential benefits.

I disagree, what we have (and what was in the script, apparently), is nothing more than ****ting on one ending so it's not a shoe-in over the other endings which are under-emphasized I think. They gimp (or nerf if you want to be frank) the ending(s) a lot of people like instead of giving them incentives to consider the other endings. Instead of making us want to consider a different choice, they're forcing us to.

This is exactly the wrong way to promote the choice. It's artificial and insulting.

If you want to give people choice, make the options meaningful and appealing in their own way. In the case of ME3, each ending should've been a different kind of victory, not necessarily a better one, though from a certain point of view the outcomes could be seen in heirarchy.

Here's an example of what it should be:

Destroy is your basic "kill the bad guys dead" ending where you win and live happily ever after.
Control is personal ascension and power- Shepard becomes a god (at least symbolically).
Synthesis is the chance* at ascension for everyone else, not just winning the war, but also opening up the galaxy to a better life, a higher form of life. Leaving things better than how you found them.

*I say chance because one of the biggest problems with synthesis is the whole "forced" aspect. Everyone gets raped with green, to hell with personal choice (but hey, who's suprised, given the rest Bioware pulled and was allowed to get away with?) It's not only sad because it's monstrous despite the clear intent to make it seem too good to be true, it's also sad how much it missed in potential themes and issues it could've discussed regarding techno-organic life and how "regular" life interact. That and the fact it's too much to complex an idea to introduce in the last five minutes. If they wanted to go this route they should've started building way back, possibly as early as ME2.

Apart from synthesis it may sound like I'm describing what's already there, but trust me, it's not. Destroy was always going to be a no-brainer. Reapers are out to get you, kill they ass. So why would you pick anything else? Well that's where control comes in and tempts you with personal ascension. Make it clear what Shepard himself stands to gain by ruling the Reapers. Use Control's presentation to silence the naysayers (Shepard will reap lolololl, Shepard is dead, it's just an AI lololol). Show me a different kind of victory. Make me unsatisfied with what destroy has to offer, make it not enough. Then, we've got an interesting debate brewing.

Morality as it stands has very little to do with it, and what it does is again forced. But imagine that destroy didn't have bull**** consequences attached to it. You could kill the Reapers scott-free. How much more intense would the debates be between controllers and destroyers if the former opted for ascension and the latter asked what gave them the right to rule? (I don't agree with this question myself, but that's beside the point). That right there is a true moral debate. What we have now is muddy, jumbled and impure.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:26 .

[CrutchCricket]

Argolas wrote...
Free will is a answer to how it can be possible that there is a god AND suffering, not an answer to why there is evil. Suffering does not only come from evil (which I was not even talking about), but as well from mistakes, individual and in the system.

The problem has the same structure. God, posessing of the three attributes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence is incompatible with the existence of evil (or suffering, if you prefer. I do understand the difference but don't feel it's relevant).
And even if I lay aside the problem of free will, it still doesn't help you. God, having the characteristics listed above would have created the best possible world for his creatures to live in. But a world with suffering is not the best possible world since no suffering is better than suffering. There is suffering, therefore this is not the best possible world, hence the problem.

Has nothing to do with free will. If God really wanted the best and could deliver he would've made a world in which mistakes don't occur (or don't cause suffering) and people freely choose. That is the essence of the problem.

And the only solution is to renounce one of the characteristics. Either God can't erase suffering, doesn't know how, or won't.

But this is veering off-topic.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 20 septembre 2012 - 01:20 .