685 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I choose for the future, not for the past. If a future that I envision as good and desirable has as its price that I let the Reapers go, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

You call that a future? Your future is one I'd never be a part of.

Also, if their will had been subverted by the Catalyst as I hypothesize, they might not actually be responsible.

"I was only following orders! I was forced to be a member of the party!"

And lastly, ever since Legion told me what the Reapers were, I found them interesting. They were enemies I would have destroyed if nececessary, but fortunately it turns out it isn't necessary.

Much better to serve them, is it not?

[Lord Goose]

Fact. They have been changed. The Reapers approve of this change.

I was talking about terrorizing other galaxies. Maybe they would just sleep forever, since theur goals were achieved.

You mean no hybrid genocide. That's speculation, since they can just make synthetics that will overthrow them, according to Catalyst non-logic.

Synthesis is presented as solution to the organics-synthetics problem in game. I agree, that its not sounding good, and the whole problem seems to be far-fetched, but according to that is said in game, it solves everything. So its the best.

Moreover, I don't care what it is. It is a mass murderer and I will treat it as such.

No matter what he did, he still could be correct. Saying that he is wrong, just because he commited genocide, is argumentum ad hitlerum.

What?

I mean, that the setting is limited to Milky Way Galaxy. No inter-galactic travels, no communications. Nothing abouth other species.

[dreman9999]

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Wait...Did you miss the comment"You will die. You will control us but lose everythin gyou have"?
What does that vague , open to interprtation comment mean, and what is everything? Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

Wow, you still singing this tune? 

I'm still asking this because one one has awnsered this in  away that proves control is a good salution.

So, no one can prove to your satisfaction that your own interpretation of an admittedly vague comment is wrong, and you assume this means your interpretation is the only correct one?

I assumed that comment to mean Shepard would lose everything about his/her previous life, friends, possessions, etc. I did not assume it to mean that Shep would cease to exist in any form. Otherwise, how would he/she control the Reapers at all? If from the moment he/she touches those rods and disintgrates, Shepard ceases to exist, then control is not a viable option, and I don't believe that is what Bioware intended. Shepard's essence or spirit, if you will, is still present, and that is what controls the Reapers.

But was there even a limit given to everything. Saying he lose just every thing his past life is putting a limit into someting that was never given a limit. Nothing say how much was lost. Get it.
My point is memories are part of everything.

LOL., then don't choose Control. But don't tell me how I have to interpret something that you have already admitted is vague. I don't think "everything" includes Shepard's mind, spirit, essence, whatever you want to call it. If you want to think it does, good for you.

No, one is telling youhow to interprite anything. In fact, when someone gives a vague awnser, they want you to interprate what it think it means...It's doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. This to same tactic lawyers do to cheat people. Added, you never given control to what everything you lose is, you just have control on the choice you pick. 
What I'm sayin gis you have all the power to interperate the meaning of the vague statement, but that does not mean that's how it applied because you are not the one appling it...The star child is and he want you to interperate what it mean so you won't see what it really means.

But if you can point to me where you the player is given the option in the game to choose what the everything you lose in the game is, then you can say it's what were you say it is...

[dreman9999]

jla0644 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Speculation.

Fact. They have been changed. The Reapers approve of this change.

Or they realize it solves the problem they were created to address, and that they no longer have any purpose. It doesn't have to be an evil thing, like "Yes we approve of this change, we will now allow you to exist" unless that's how you choose to see it.

So you ignoring the fact they can control organics via implants...

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

With no proof? We can say at the least he beleive it will happen but it doesn't mean it will happen.

You rarely have any evidence of what superpowered or semi-divine characters in video games are telling you, to say nothing of actual proof.

I say you're using this "there is no proof" argument solely because you do not like the consequences. It has no weight because in the situation we're in, there can be no proof of the premise, if there can ever be. I agree that we should be able to question the Catalyst about how our apparent counter-evidence on Rannoch fits into its reasoning and demand an answer that makes sense, but in the end we have two alternatives: we can accept its reasoning and make an informed decision, at the risk of it being ill-informed, or make a decision based on a die roll because if the Catalyst lies, all options are suspect. I choose the former because it makes for a better story. "Press random button for your ending"? Not with me.

Yes, we are given proof from these other 
superpowered or semi-divine characters in video games.

And on another point, are you really ignoring everything the reaper did while under the starchilds control? You really going to ignore this because the star child waves this shiny new tech infront of you?

I choose for the future, not for the past. If a future that I envision as good and desirable has as its price that I let the Reapers go, then I have absolutely no problem with it. Also, if their will had been subverted by the Catalyst as I hypothesize, they might not actually be responsible. And lastly, ever since Legion told me what the Reapers were, I found them interesting. They were enemies I would have destroyed if nececessary, but fortunately it turns out it isn't necessary.

In oder to choose the furture  you must understand and look atthe past. Ignoring the past is not only senseless, but ignorate and lead s to the same mastakes as the past.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

I was talking about terrorizing other galaxies. Maybe they would just sleep forever, since theur goals were achieved.

By definition, their goal will never be achieved. By the Catalyst's troll logic, a TS could happen in another galaxy and make it's way here.
But in the end the point isn't that they will do it, the point is they're free to do it. The Reaper philosophy in synthesis is vindicated. They were right all along. The problem has been dealt with on their terms. They have won.

Synthesis is presented as solution to the organics-synthetics problem in game. I agree, that its not sounding good, and the whole problem seems to be far-fetched, but according to that is said in game, it solves everything. So its the best.

Said only by the worst mass murderer in history.
Do you believe Saren's vision of the future to be true because he said so too?

No matter what he did, he still could be correct. Saying that he is wrong, just because he commited genocide, is argumentum ad hitlerum.

NOTHING justifies genocide! Nothing! The moment you resort to mass murder, you are wrong. Period.
Especially when this thing doesn't have ANY evidence to back it's ridiculous assertions up.

I mean, that the setting is limited to Milky Way Galaxy. No inter-galactic travels, no communications. Nothing abouth other species.

So? Do you honestly think all the other galaxies are empty?

[jla0644]

The Angry One wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Speculation.

Fact. They have been changed. The Reapers approve of this change.

Or they realize it solves the problem they were created to address, and that they no longer have any purpose. It doesn't have to be an evil thing, like "Yes we approve of this change, we will now allow you to exist" unless that's how you choose to see it.

That's how the Catalyst words it. "Synthesis is the final evolution of life". It desires this, and it controls the Reapers. We also know that the Reapers themselves are for this. "We are your genetic destiny."
These are all in the game and are facts. The life form that results from synthesis is one that the Reapers approve of. They disengage because they now tolerate us.

The Catalyst's statement about "final" evolution, while non-sensical and contradictory to what had been stated about evolution previously in the game, does not suggest that it is what the Catalyst desired. It gave you the three options with very little explanation, and did not appear to me to desire one over the other. The most it says about any of them was to say Destroy wouldn't really solve the problem.

The Reapers want to harvest us and turn us into a new Reaper. I don't think Synthesis is what they had in mind when they said they are our destiny. With Synthesis we are not harvested, we are still individuals, and they get no new Reaper.

And like I said, you can see it that way if you want. I see it as they disengage because there is no longer any reason to harvest us.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
All I do is point out the the comment everything is not given a limit. You guys get wrong becouse you apply whatyou think the limit is even when you never given the option of it. That's why you get the question wrong.

So I was right, any interpretation that doesn't match your specific view is wrong. 

Which is why the question is self-defeating. 

Either you acknowledge it's vague and can be interpreted in various ways, or you don't. 

Which is it? Right now, you insist on the former. 

[The Angry One]

jla0644 wrote...

The Catalyst's statement about "final" evolution, while non-sensical and contradictory to what had been stated about evolution previously in the game, does not suggest that it is what the Catalyst desired. It gave you the three options with very little explanation, and did not appear to me to desire one over the other. The most it says about any of them was to say Destroy wouldn't really solve the problem.

It's engaging in propaganda, and telling you synthesis is the best choice repeatedly.

The Reapers want to harvest us and turn us into a new Reaper. I don't think Synthesis is what they had in mind when they said they are our destiny. With Synthesis we are not harvested, we are still individuals, and they get no new Reaper.

However, the base result is the same. We end up much like husks. We become simply Reapers in different form.

And like I said, you can see it that way if you want. I see it as they disengage because there is no longer any reason to harvest us.

Yes. Why don't they have reason to harvest? Because we're already a form that they approve of.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

So you can stop the Reapers while forgetting why you need to stop the Reapers and that you need to at all.

What?

I was only trying to be logical.

1. Shepard loses everything.
2. Reapers are flying away.
3. Shepard stopped their threat.

Ergo, he doesn't need everything to stop the invasion.

Personally, I favour the interpretation, whrere Shepard grabbed control rods, simply give them single order like: "go away forever", and died.

The reaper flying away doesn't mean it's over I hope you know... It can mean the reaper just left the allied fleet stuck in the sol sytem as they rebuild...

It could, but I have no reason to believe that, else the choice at the end becomes meaningless, and the message recieved after the credits, however much I hate it, becomes a lie. 

Which I highly doubt. 

Added, yu don't even know what you see at the end is real.

No reason to believe otherwise. There's no deeper meaning to be found, I don't think it's a dream or whatever, the ending is just bad. 

[Ieldra]

jla0644 wrote...
I assumed that comment to mean Shepard would lose everything about his/her previous life, friends, possessions, etc. I did not assume it to mean that Shep would cease to exist in any form. Otherwise, how would he/she control the Reapers at all? If from the moment he/she touches those rods and disintgrates, Shepard ceases to exist, then control is not a viable option, and I don't believe that is what Bioware intended. Shepard's essence or spirit, if you will, is still present, and that is what controls the Reapers.

Exactly. This only makes sense if Shepard continues to exist. Shepard "dies" as an organic being, losing all the trappings of his life as a human, 

As I see it, the most intuitive interpretation is that Control is the pro-Synthetic choice. Shepard sacrifices his organic aspect, gets uploaded and turned into some kind of AI god, replacing the Catalyst. From now on, organics exist under the benevolent guardianship of synthetics. Destroy is the pro-organic choice, where Shepard sacrifices his synthetic aspect and preserved the integrity, the "chaos" of organic life, at the risk of it being eventually wiped out by synthetics.
Synthesis is the choice that overcomes the dichotomy and brings about "a new ascension, for both organic and synthetic life" (unpublished game script, 11/2011), at the price of everything that Shepard is.  

[jla0644]

dreman9999 wrote...

No, one is telling youhow to interprite anything. In fact, when someone gives a vague awnser, they want you to interprate what it think it means...It's doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. This to same tactic lawyers do to cheat people. Added, you never given control to what everything you lose is, you just have control on the choice you pick. 
What I'm sayin gis you have all the power to interperate the meaning of the vague statement, but that does not mean that's how it applied because you are not the one appling it...The star child is and he want you to interperate what it mean so you won't see what it really means.

But if you can point to me where you the player is given the option in the game to choose what the everything you lose in the game is, then you can say it's what were you say it is...

Yes, you are. You're screaming (or maybe whistling would be more accurate) to anyone who will listen that "everything" HAS to mean everything.

And you really are amazing. You admit something is vague, that is intentionally vague, that we are meant to interpret it was we will, and then you want in-game proof from people to PROVE that  their interpretation is valid? Do you even read what you post? If there was in-game proof of something, it wouldn't be vague, would it?

Modifié par jla0644, 02 juin 2012 - 04:42 .

[Fixers0]

There is flaw in the OP, the higgest possible ending achievable is destruction with shepard alive, and that's the reward you get from collection ships and making arbitrary choices,

I Might want to remind you that the Soldiers never cheer of synthesis is chosen, probably because the knew there jobs are going to be useless in the future.

[dreman9999]

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No, one is telling youhow to interprite anything. In fact, when someone gives a vague awnser, they want you to interprate what it think it means...It's doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. This to same tactic lawyers do to cheat people. Added, you never given control to what everything you lose is, you just have control on the choice you pick. 
What I'm sayin gis you have all the power to interperate the meaning of the vague statement, but that does not mean that's how it applied because you are not the one appling it...The star child is and he want you to interperate what it mean so you won't see what it really means.

But if you can point to me where you the player is given the option in the game to choose what the everything you lose in the game is, then you can say it's what were you say it is...

Yes, you are. You're screaming (or maybe whistling would be more accurate) to anyone who will listen that "everything" HAS to mean everything.

And you really are amazing. You admit something is vague, that is intentionally vague, that we are meant to interpret it was we will, and then you want in-game proof from people to PROVE that  their interpretation is valid? Do you even read what you post? If there was in-game proof of something, it wouldn't be vague, would it?

Point to me in the story that you can choose the limit of everything and then we can go on...

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juin 2012 - 04:47 .

[jla0644]

The Angry One wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

The Catalyst's statement about "final" evolution, while non-sensical and contradictory to what had been stated about evolution previously in the game, does not suggest that it is what the Catalyst desired. It gave you the three options with very little explanation, and did not appear to me to desire one over the other. The most it says about any of them was to say Destroy wouldn't really solve the problem.

It's engaging in propaganda, and telling you synthesis is the best choice repeatedly.

The Reapers want to harvest us and turn us into a new Reaper. I don't think Synthesis is what they had in mind when they said they are our destiny. With Synthesis we are not harvested, we are still individuals, and they get no new Reaper.

However, the base result is the same. We end up much like husks. We become simply Reapers in different form.

And like I said, you can see it that way if you want. I see it as they disengage because there is no longer any reason to harvest us.

Yes. Why don't they have reason to harvest? Because we're already a form that they approve of.

All that happens in your head, which is fine. But I don't see the Catalyst "repeatedly" telling me Synthesis is what it wants - I see it being very vague about all three choices. I don't see anyone turning into a husk - I see joker an edi with green lines. And I don't see the Reapers leaving because they "approve" of us now - I see them leaving and why is open to interpretation. It's all your headcanon, which is all any of us have.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
All I do is point out the the comment everything is not given a limit. You guys get wrong becouse you apply whatyou think the limit is even when you never given the option of it. That's why you get the question wrong.

So I was right, any interpretation that doesn't match your specific view is wrong. 

Which is why the question is self-defeating. 

Either you acknowledge it's vague and can be interpreted in various ways, or you don't. 

Which is it? Right now, you insist on the former. 

1. How you interpete it is point less because you not the one appling the result of the choice. In fact Shepard is well dead by then...the Star child is the one.

2.
Point to me in the story that you can choose the limit of everything and then we can go on... 

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
Point to me in the story that you can choose the limit of everything and then we can go on...

So you're choosing to take it literally. 

I hope you realize that doing so dooms you to madness, most things about this ending need to be take non-literally for it to make any sense. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 02 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[Ieldra]

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I choose for the future, not for the past. If a future that I envision as good and desirable has as its price that I let the Reapers go, then I have absolutely no problem with it.

You call that a future? Your future is one I'd never be a part of.

I bet that if it suddenly happened, and you had had neither choice nor advance knowledge, you would not kill yourself but use the synthetic upgrades instead. Things only look bad from this side of the fence, because the problem is not that you wouldn't like the results, but that it was another human who made the decision for you. Of course, the people in the ME universe wouldn't know who or what was responsible, or if their synthetic symbionts weren't a necessary price for the Reapers' going away.

Also, if their will had been subverted by the Catalyst as I hypothesize, they might not actually be responsible.

"I was only following orders! I was forced to be a member of the party!"

Not a valid comparison. If the Reapers' will was subverted, they are not responsible. Humans are held responsible because we assume that as a rule, our will cannot be subverted. 

And lastly, ever since Legion told me what the Reapers were, I found them interesting. They were enemies I would have destroyed if nececessary, but fortunately it turns out it isn't necessary.

Much better to serve them, is it not?

If Synthesis means that in *your* ME universe, then by all means don't choose it. It doesn't mean that in *my* ME universe. Since they're not enemies any more and Synthesis has leveled the playing field, it will now be possible to communicate with them. See the unofficial epilogues. The high-EMS Synthesis ending is rather close to what I envision.

[jla0644]

dreman9999 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No, one is telling youhow to interprite anything. In fact, when someone gives a vague awnser, they want you to interprate what it think it means...It's doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. This to same tactic lawyers do to cheat people. Added, you never given control to what everything you lose is, you just have control on the choice you pick. 
What I'm sayin gis you have all the power to interperate the meaning of the vague statement, but that does not mean that's how it applied because you are not the one appling it...The star child is and he want you to interperate what it mean so you won't see what it really means.

But if you can point to me where you the player is given the option in the game to choose what the everything you lose in the game is, then you can say it's what were you say it is...

Yes, you are. You're screaming (or maybe whistling would be more accurate) to anyone who will listen that "everything" HAS to mean everything.

And you really are amazing. You admit something is vague, that is intentionally vague, that we are meant to interpret it was we will, and then you want in-game proof from people to PROVE that  their interpretation is valid? Do you even read what you post? If there was in-game proof of something, it wouldn't be vague, would it?

Point to me in the story that you can choose the limit of everything and then we can go on...

OMG last post and then I'm done with you. Point to me the part of the story where I have to assume "you will lose everything you have" means Shepard ceases to exist in any form.

If it was in the story, it wouldn't be vague. You admit it's vague, so you're admitting it's not in the story, so you're admitting that no one's interpretation is wrong. We don't all see it like you do. Get over it.

[dreamgazer]

What do the Reapers do when they don't have their preordained purpose, yet still possess superior physical power and the established potential to continue indoctrination?

That's a big variable.

[Vigilant111]

Fixers0 wrote...

There is flaw in the OP, the higgest possible ending achievable is destruction with shepard alive, and that's the reward you get from collection ships and making arbitrary choices,

I Might want to remind you that the Soldiers never cheer of synthesis is chosen, probably because the knew there jobs are going to be useless in the future.

Be careful, synthesis supporters may use this to paint an idealistic image of their choice that conflicts will cease, however, it can be quickly refuted by us saying organic/organic conflicts will ensue

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. How you interpete it is point less because you not the one appling the result of the choice. In fact Shepard is well dead by then...the Star child is the one.

Erm, I am the one applying the result, because we literally have no clue what it is. You come up with your own outcome.

Your's seems to be based on Shepard's death, stating it as fact, despite having no evidence. 

[Vigilant111]

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No, one is telling youhow to interprite anything. In fact, when someone gives a vague awnser, they want you to interprate what it think it means...It's doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. This to same tactic lawyers do to cheat people. Added, you never given control to what everything you lose is, you just have control on the choice you pick. 
What I'm sayin gis you have all the power to interperate the meaning of the vague statement, but that does not mean that's how it applied because you are not the one appling it...The star child is and he want you to interperate what it mean so you won't see what it really means.

But if you can point to me where you the player is given the option in the game to choose what the everything you lose in the game is, then you can say it's what were you say it is...

Yes, you are. You're screaming (or maybe whistling would be more accurate) to anyone who will listen that "everything" HAS to mean everything.

And you really are amazing. You admit something is vague, that is intentionally vague, that we are meant to interpret it was we will, and then you want in-game proof from people to PROVE that  their interpretation is valid? Do you even read what you post? If there was in-game proof of something, it wouldn't be vague, would it?

Point to me in the story that you can choose the limit of everything and then we can go on...

OMG last post and then I'm done with you. Point to me the part of the story where I have to assume "you will lose everything you have" means Shepard ceases to exist in any form.

If it was in the story, it wouldn't be vague. You admit it's vague, so you're admitting it's not in the story, so you're admitting that no one's interpretation is wrong. We don't all see it like you do. Get over it.

u may be wrong (that is my opinion), but you are still entitled to your intepretation

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juin 2012 - 04:55 .

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I bet that if it suddenly happened, and you had had neither choice nor advance knowledge, you would not kill yourself but use the synthetic upgrades instead.

Different people react differently, you cannot predict what the entire galactic population would do.
I for one would hunt down those responsible before anything else.

Things only look bad from this side of the fence, because the problem is not that you wouldn't like the results, but that it was another human who made the decision for you. Of course, the people in the ME universe wouldn't know who or what was responsible, or if their synthetic symbionts weren't a necessary price for the Reapers' going away.

They'd know it was the Reapers, and guess it was Shepard because Hackett knew Shepard was on the Citadel.
At best there'd be resentment of humans, at worst all out war and possibly an attempt to get back at the Reapers eventually. Assuming society could even recover from the mass hysteria and eco-system collapse.

This isn't even bringing in the primitive socities who know nothing other than this frightening change has come down on them from the gods themselves or something.

Not a valid comparison. If the Reapers' will was subverted, they are not responsible. Humans are held responsible because we assume that as a rule, our will cannot be subverted. 

Harbinger and Sovereign revelled in their roles. Were their opinions subverted too?

If Synthesis means that in *your* ME universe, then by all means don't choose it. It doesn't mean that in *my* ME universe. Since they're not enemies any more and Synthesis has leveled the playing field, it will now be possible to communicate with them. See the unofficial epilogues. The high-EMS Synthesis ending is rather close to what I envision.

No, it means that in every ME universe. Don't start getting meta on me to justify your attempts to headcanon your way out of synthesis' blatant implications.
Synthesis has levelled nothing. We are now approved by the Reapers, but the Reapers have nothing to apologise for because... and I know you don't want to accept this.. they won. Their actions have been fully justified in their minds. They are superior. They have shown the way for all life.

[ArcanistLibram]

What is the science behind synthesis? What does it consider to be an organic? Does it only affect sentients? Sapients? Does it affect plants? Bacteria? How do the galaxy's various Bronze Age civilizations react to turning into cyborgs? What does synthesis count as a synthetic lifeforms? True AIs? VIs? Toasters? What about the moral implications of performing invasive life-altering surgery on every being in the galaxy without their consent?

The Synthesis ending makes no sense because the game makes absolutely no effort to explain how it works or to discuss its consequences and implications. This is the core problem with all the endings.

If you want to see what Synthesis looks like when it's done well, go read Eclipse Phase.