685 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Jenonax 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.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

[Jenonax]

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible is not forcing anything  on the star child. Nothing even remotely point to that. If it did the Shepard could just use the crucible to make the star child stop the reaper with out having to die to do it.
The star child is the one in charge.That is clear.

Yet he's not driving the plot forward towards the choice.  He leaves it to Shepard to decide.  Who then says nothing, which then leaves me frustrated and just picking whatever colour I like best.

The end choice is an uncontrolable mess.

The Catalst says that the Crucible has changed him, created new possibilites. Which he then does little with.  He just hands them over with little expository dialogue, to a bloke who doesn't question it at all.

Do you know, I'm starting to think that the Crucible is the real villain in all this.  Why the hell are we trusting that thing?  Can someone make me a banner of this please?

Modifié par Jenonax, 02 juin 2012 - 03:52 .

[The Angry One]

lillitheris wrote...

Jenonax 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.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

Actually since the Catalyst is the one of only 3 beings in the entire Mass Effect series promoting synthesis, the other two being Saren and Harbinger, it's trustworthiness becomes rather important, since the benefits of synthesis are entirely based on what it claims.

[Jenonax]

lillitheris wrote...

Jenonax 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.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

I apologise for answering a question that was asked of me.

And whether or not you trust the little blighter is integral to all the endings, including synthesis.

But yes, not part of the question asked, point taken.

[dreman9999]

Jenonax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible is not forcing anything  on the star child. Nothing even remotely point to that. If it did the Shepard could just use the crucible to make the star child stop the reaper with out having to die to do it.
The star child is the one in charge.That is clear.

Yet he's not driving the plot forward towards the choice.  He leaves it to Shepard to decide.  Who then says nothing, which then leaves me frustrated and just picking whatever colour I like best.

The end choice is an uncontrolable mess.

The Catalst says that the Crucible has changed him, created new possibilites. Which he then does little with.  He just hands them over with little expository dialogue, to a bloke who doesn't question it at all.

Do you know, I'm starting to think that the Crucible is the real villain in all this.  Why the hell are we trusting that thing?  Can someone make me a banner of this please?

And that is the illusion. It's clear when the crucible is parks, the allied forces still have control over the crucible...But that does not mean they have control the star child. Just because he give yiou the option doesn't mean they ar what he says they are. Nothing is shown he is under any control or is telling the truth.

[dreman9999]

lillitheris wrote...

Jenonax 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.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

Yes, it does....To use the crucible to proform Synthesis is his Idea. Whether or not he is telling the truth about it is an issue no matter what.

[Jenonax]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible is not forcing anything  on the star child. Nothing even remotely point to that. If it did the Shepard could just use the crucible to make the star child stop the reaper with out having to die to do it.
The star child is the one in charge.That is clear.

Yet he's not driving the plot forward towards the choice.  He leaves it to Shepard to decide.  Who then says nothing, which then leaves me frustrated and just picking whatever colour I like best.

The end choice is an uncontrolable mess.

The Catalst says that the Crucible has changed him, created new possibilites. Which he then does little with.  He just hands them over with little expository dialogue, to a bloke who doesn't question it at all.

Do you know, I'm starting to think that the Crucible is the real villain in all this.  Why the hell are we trusting that thing?  Can someone make me a banner of this please?

And that is the illusion. It's clear when the crucible is parks, the allied forces still have control over the crucible...But that does not mean they have control the star child. Just because he give yiou the option doesn't mean they ar what he says they are. Nothing is shown he is under any control or is telling the truth.

I think we're arguing semantics here.

When I talk of controlling the ending I am talking about who is driving the plot forward not who controls each little bit of the set up.  There's a difference.

I don't know how the Crucible functions, I have yet to find anyone who does.  I don't trust the Catalyst but then again he has little reason to outright lie, he could have just left Shepard down there to die after all.

[jtav]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
I've had a few months to mull this over. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*I don't believe the Catalyst. That is, the notion of a technological singularity leading to extinction was so poorly set up that I don't regard it as a threat.
*No option leaves Shepard with clean hands. Pretending humility is hypocritical at best.
*Within the context of the universe, synthetics are clearly people.
*Genocide is evil always and everywhere, regardless of the consequences. I cannot morally choose Destroy.
*Synthesis is problematic. If you don't believe the Catalyst regarding the Singularity, then the justification becomes the possible benefits. Which aren't clearly stated.
*I'm a Paragon. I like playing characters that do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If all my lecturing about second chances and mercy are to mean anything, I better be willing to extend that mercy even to people I hate.
*Related, I have an obligation to save as many lives as I can.

So the moral superiority of the Destroy faction confounds me. Given what we know, I choose Control. Synthesis is problematic mostly because it seems like it wandered in from a different story.

I agree that Control appears to be the best choice if you don't believe the singularity is a problem. You save galactic civilization and avoid the genocide of the geth. However, I would think that the billions of minds conjoined in the Reapers also deserve some consideration, given that they're "servants of the pattern", not its master. Hmm....I'm now wondering how those fit into the Unofficial Epilogue scenario for Control.

Anyway, I hope the EC will turn the Catalyst's reasoning into something coherent. I think the singularity is a premise that works, but what we're given in the game looks more like a "standard robot war scenario", and we know how to defuse those. 

Of course they do. Were it up to me, I would set them free to do as they pleased. But if I can choose to rewrite the heretics, I can choose Control. It seems to me the same kind of thing: replacing directives I consider evil with my own. It's not a great choice, but it's the one that lets me sleep easiest. Especially now that the Citadel is intact.

[Lord Goose]

Actually since the Catalyst is the one of only 3 beings in the entire Mass Effect series promoting synthesis, the other two being Saren and Harbinger, it's trustworthiness becomes rather important, since the benefits of synthesis are entirely based on what it claims.

That is only working if we assume that Reapers have different goals from "preventing synthetics from wiping out organics".

If you choose Synthesis, and all living beings would really become synthetics-organics hybrids, yes, their goal is achieved. But also this would stop the harvest and would prevent future synthetics organics war in the Galaxy.

[Ieldra]

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.

[The Angry One]

Lord Goose wrote...

That is only working if we assume that Reapers have different goals from "preventing synthetics from wiping out organics".

If you choose Synthesis, and all living beings would really become synthetics-organics hybrids, yes, their goal is achieved.

The Reapers are convinced that their form, that of the hybrid, is the pinnacle of evolution.
They consider Reaperisation "ascension" and wish to impose it on all organics eventually. The cycle facilitates this. Synthesis merely makes it permanent for all future generations.

But also this would stop the harvest

Sure, because all are now Reapers.

and would prevent future synthetics organics war in the Galaxy.

No it won't.

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
I've had a few months to mull this over. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*I don't believe the Catalyst. That is, the notion of a technological singularity leading to extinction was so poorly set up that I don't regard it as a threat.
*No option leaves Shepard with clean hands. Pretending humility is hypocritical at best.
*Within the context of the universe, synthetics are clearly people.
*Genocide is evil always and everywhere, regardless of the consequences. I cannot morally choose Destroy.
*Synthesis is problematic. If you don't believe the Catalyst regarding the Singularity, then the justification becomes the possible benefits. Which aren't clearly stated.
*I'm a Paragon. I like playing characters that do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If all my lecturing about second chances and mercy are to mean anything, I better be willing to extend that mercy even to people I hate.
*Related, I have an obligation to save as many lives as I can.

So the moral superiority of the Destroy faction confounds me. Given what we know, I choose Control. Synthesis is problematic mostly because it seems like it wandered in from a different story.

I agree that Control appears to be the best choice if you don't believe the singularity is a problem. You save galactic civilization and avoid the genocide of the geth. However, I would think that the billions of minds conjoined in the Reapers also deserve some consideration, given that they're "servants of the pattern", not its master. Hmm....I'm now wondering how those fit into the Unofficial Epilogue scenario for Control.

Anyway, I hope the EC will turn the Catalyst's reasoning into something coherent. I think the singularity is a premise that works, but what we're given in the game looks more like a "standard robot war scenario", and we know how to defuse those. 

Of course they do. Were it up to me, I would set them free to do as they pleased. But if I can choose to rewrite the heretics, I can choose Control. It seems to me the same kind of thing: replacing directives I consider evil with my own. It's not a great choice, but it's the one that lets me sleep easiest. Especially now that the Citadel is intact.

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?

[dreman9999]

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?

[Vigilant111]

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.

Reapers are not superpowered nor semi-devine, they are not even anti-heroes, they are the villian, the antagonist

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juin 2012 - 04:12 .

[StrawberryJam]

The Angry One wrote...



Sure, because all are now Reapers.

Are they? I thought the Synthesis at the end would create an entirely new form of life. Has it been established anywhere that every combination of synthetics + organics = Reapers?

[The Night Mammoth]

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? 

No one answer this question, anything that might validate control is apparently wrong. 

[wright1978]

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.

But you have direct proof that he is a genocidal creature(possibly insane) willing to murder trillions based on his philosphy with the goal of possibly saving millions of them in a new goo based form. Now if he/itwas presented as the creator of the reapers who then have gone off and run amok while he has spent millions of years prodding races to the build of the crucible. Then he'd be extricated, sympathised and then he might be able to be the plot device to deliver the endings without infecting them with his very nature.

[dreman9999]

Jenonax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The crucible is not forcing anything  on the star child. Nothing even remotely point to that. If it did the Shepard could just use the crucible to make the star child stop the reaper with out having to die to do it.
The star child is the one in charge.That is clear.

Yet he's not driving the plot forward towards the choice.  He leaves it to Shepard to decide.  Who then says nothing, which then leaves me frustrated and just picking whatever colour I like best.

The end choice is an uncontrolable mess.

The Catalst says that the Crucible has changed him, created new possibilites. Which he then does little with.  He just hands them over with little expository dialogue, to a bloke who doesn't question it at all.

Do you know, I'm starting to think that the Crucible is the real villain in all this.  Why the hell are we trusting that thing?  Can someone make me a banner of this please?

And that is the illusion. It's clear when the crucible is parks, the allied forces still have control over the crucible...But that does not mean they have control the star child. Just because he give yiou the option doesn't mean they ar what he says they are. Nothing is shown he is under any control or is telling the truth.

I think we're arguing semantics here.

When I talk of controlling the ending I am talking about who is driving the plot forward not who controls each little bit of the set up.  There's a difference.

I don't know how the Crucible functions, I have yet to find anyone who does.  I don't trust the Catalyst but then again he has little reason to outright lie, he could have just left Shepard down there to die after all.

1. He hs every reason to lie. It's ether.
1. You about to kill him and the reapers.
2. You just applied this new tech into his system the he sees he can use as he please if only he had asses to.
3.To get Shepard to do what he wants.

He has every reason to lie.

You really giving the star child way too much trust.

[jla0644]

dreman9999 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Jenonax 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.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

Yes, it does....To use the crucible to proform Synthesis is his Idea. Whether or not he is telling the truth about it is an issue no matter what.

If  you conclude that it is lying to you about synthesis, then you have to assume it's lying to you about the other two choices. Then what do you do? You still have to choose one.

The game forces us to accept what it tells us, which means all 3 choices are viable. It doesn't really show us what any of them do, but we have to assume they all result in ending the Reaper threat, at least temporarily. How this occurs is open to anyone's interpretation. This is where the "speculation"  they wanted comes in to play.

[dreamgazer]

Lord Goose wrote...

If you choose Synthesis, and all living beings would really become synthetics-organics hybrids, yes, their goal is achieved. But also this would stop the harvest and would prevent future synthetics organics war in the Galaxy.

Just because humanity has become synthetic-organic hybrids, it doesn't mean that the inherent organic nature to thrive for technological advancement will just disappear due to this paradigm shift.  I'm struggling with the idea that there's still the chaos, that out-of-control hubris, if we're essentially the same people with "modifications".

[dreman9999]

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.

[Lord Goose]

Isn't you oun memeories that can be lost part of that everything?

The statement is open. Even if you personally could interpret in a way which means what it was bad decision... it changes nothing, since we clearly see Reapers leaving Earth and have the same note that Shepard stopped Reapers threat. No matter what it was meant to be, he did exactly the same thing as in all other endings, just in his own way.

Sure, because all are now Reapers.

I would rather say "like Reapers". Reapers clearly aren't exactly what Catalyst wanted to see, because in that case he should have "reaperised everything".

But yeah. No harvesting, and everybody are free to live as they live now. Reapers had accomplished their goals.

No it won't.

At least from Catalyst's perspective.

I am aware of idea, that it is possible to new organic life to develop, but... let's face it, Mass Effect is not "hard science fantasy" which takes into account all possibilities. Because, Catalyst goal is stupid in the first place, since it only concerns ONE galaxy of myriads of others. Well, its possible to argue that where are Catalysts in all the Galaxies, but... Thats too far into speculations.

[jtav]

We speak often of losing everything. Home. Family. Friends. Lovers. Shepard will have to give up everything to become the new Catalyst. It's the godhood ending of TOB in new clothes.

And I'm not ignoring what's been done. But you give mercy to people precise;y because they don't deserve it. That's why it's mercy. If I can make the Reapers less murderous, I should do so.

[lillitheris]

Jenonax wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Jenonax 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.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Whether you trust the Catalyst is an integral question, but it has nothing to do with the merits of Synthesis. So, kindly, don’t derail with that argument.

I apologise for answering a question that was asked of me.

And whether or not you trust the little blighter is integral to all the endings, including synthesis.

But yes, not part of the question asked, point taken.

It’s got f—all to do with what Synthesis actually does. Like I said, it’s an important topic (more important than the details of any of the choices, really), but it’s tiresome to have to sift through it in every single thread.

[The Angry One]

StrawberryJam wrote...

The Angry One wrote...



Sure, because all are now Reapers.

Are they? I thought the Synthesis at the end would create an entirely new form of life. Has it been established anywhere that every combination of synthetics + organics = Reapers?

No, but they are this in essence. It's a form of life analagous to Reapers, and one they find acceptable.
The fact that the green "circuit board" skin Joker gets in synthesis is exactly the same as the pattern on TIM with Reaper implants and the one on the surface of the human Reaper is... eerie, at least.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juin 2012 - 04:12 .