1256 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I didn't have a choice. Tali was exiled in ME2. It's either the Quarians or the Geth. Tali being alive is good, and the Quarians I felt, were more trustworthy. That was my fault.

You've already commited genocide, completing Mass Effect 2 requires that.

The Collectors aren't a race; they have no culture - you don't even know if they are self-aware.  They don't even meet the definition of a species, they don't reproduce.  They seem more like organic VIs from what Mordin tells you; they aren't free willed.

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

Or it's a metaphor. A sloppy, poorly done metaphor but still a metaphor. I don't have to take it literally any more than I take the Biblical creation story literally. When literalism leads to something demonstrably false, figurative language is likely.

I really hope you’re not trying to make a “the bible is true” argument.

Your defense for making this irrevocable change of transforming everyone into cyborgs (the ‘new DNA’ is just a metaphor, it really turns everyone into synthetics) is because you think it might be using a metaphor that could possibly mean something that is acceptable to you?

No snark, please actually consider that statement. Put yourself in the position of Shepard. Remember, you don’t know what will happen yet. You can’t rely on any information you learn after this.

You’re telling me that you’re going to wager everything on something that you think might be a metaphor but you don’t know what for?

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 juin 2012 - 05:09 .

[Taboo]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I didn't have a choice. Tali was exiled in ME2. It's either the Quarians or the Geth. Tali being alive is good, and the Quarians I felt, were more trustworthy. That was my fault.

You've already commited genocide, completing Mass Effect 2 requires that.

The Collectors aren't a race; they have no culture - you don't even know if they are self-aware.  They don't even meet the definition of a species, they don't reproduce.  They seem more like organic VIs from what Mordin tells you; they aren't free willed.

I could make the same case for the Reapers. They have no free will either. No culture.

[memorysquid]

Noxis6 wrote...

What I'm wondering is in case of the green ending what is stopping the new cyborg master race or whatever you paint the post synthesis species to be from wipping out the reapers anyway since they kind of invaded the galaxy killing billions or is everyones brain reprogramed to love them now.

All in all my personal problem with the green ending is simply it leaves the reapers as a wild card with no guarantees that they would remain peaceful or rebuilt the relays while at least red guarantees they are stopped permanently
As for post synthesis I dont see this as the perfect new world it just solves some problems and gives you a ton of potential new ones depending on how you pitcure it if you go with the nanobot aproach you would just need someone to figure out how to affect another persons and the way is pretty much open for a whole new bunch of nightmares
Also it begs the question is "empowering" already potentialy dangerous races like the yagh really that wise,who is to say that will work out great

In the end though what I'm wondering the most is how are they going to work with all three colors in the future blue and red are somewhat easy the reapers are gone either way the universe is more or less the same while green presents an fundamental change to the existing universe

I think what will prevent the Reaper's from going nuts again is the writers' of the game.  Didn't you notice the Reapers turn green too?  Not saying your concern isn't a good one, it just doesn't seem valid in this game.  See blue and red represent the old paragon/regenade paradigm and green represents a new step forward into a new paradigm.  The Catalyst says as much and the cutscene right after verifies it.

[lillitheris]

Anyway, just to summarize:

1. Everything about Synthesis in the game is ludicrous, and nobody sane could ever choose that option;

2. Ieldra2’s headcanon/fanfiction Fantasy Synthesis does away with some of the most glaring problems but still handwaves the issues with actually solving the problem it purports to solve (it doesn’t), and leaves the moral question — on which there can be various views.

That’s it. If you want to choose Fantasy Synthesis, that’s peachy…but which option would you pick in the actual game, Destroy or Control?

[Taboo]

Ieldra still hasn't figured out that I'm not attacking him when I say Synthesis has fascist aesthetics.

I like Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries as much as anyone. His political views are still there, but it doesn't make me want to invade Poland when I hear it.

[jtav]

lillitheris wrote...

jtav wrote...

Or it's a metaphor. A sloppy, poorly done metaphor but still a metaphor. I don't have to take it literally any more than I take the Biblical creation story literally. When literalism leads to something demonstrably false, figurative language is likely.

I really hope you’re not trying to make a “the bible is true” argument.

Your defense for making this irrevocable change of transforming everyone into cyborgs (the ‘new DNA’ is just a metaphor, it really turns everyone into synthetics) is because you think it might be using a metaphor that could possibly mean something that is acceptable to you?

No snark, please actually consider that statement. Put yourself in the position of Shepard. Remember, you don’t know what will happen yet. You can’t rely on any information you learn after this.

You’re telling me that you’re going to wager everything on something that you think might be a metaphor but you don’t know what for?

The Catalyst is Mr. Exposition at this point. There is not even the possibility of challenging him, so I (the player) conclude he is supposed to be truthful. So given thr choice of believing that DNA actually becomes a mishmash of organic and synthetic or that the Catalyst was searching for an anology to explain it, I choose option two because option one is even more ignorant of biology than the series has been so far. It's badly written, but I'm trying to work with the writers.

And no, Shepard doesn't know the precise details, but peace is the promise from the writer mouthpiece.

[Taboo]

You cannot work with bad writing. Thinking about it only makes it worse. It's a hapax legomena. A thing said once. It's absurd. Were it a film I would have thought the director was trying to break the fourth wall or become satirical.

Putting my ethical thoughts aside, I'll never pick it because it's so logically absurd I can't even fathom it.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I didn't have a choice. Tali was exiled in ME2. It's either the Quarians or the Geth. Tali being alive is good, and the Quarians I felt, were more trustworthy. That was my fault.

You've already commited genocide, completing Mass Effect 2 requires that.

The Collectors aren't a race; they have no culture - you don't even know if they are self-aware.  They don't even meet the definition of a species, they don't reproduce.  They seem more like organic VIs from what Mordin tells you; they aren't free willed.

I could make the same case for the Reapers. They have no free will either. No culture.

At best, you can't know what their internal state is.  Mordin tells us about Collectors, so no question there.  But there is plenty of evidence that the Reapers are a gestalt consciousness comprised of many stored intellects, including the Catalyst telling you so outright.  So they could easily be active in a VR; or perhaps they are stored inactive.  The game doesn't tell you.

Edit: On 2nd thought, the game does tell you; Sovereign says he is a nation unto himself so more than one consciousness at least is active.

Modifié par memorysquid, 15 juin 2012 - 05:39 .

[Noxis6]

memorysquid wrote...
I think what will prevent the Reaper's from going nuts again is the writers' of the game.  Didn't you notice the Reapers turn green too?  Not saying your concern isn't a good one, it just doesn't seem valid in this game.  See blue and red represent the old paragon/regenade paradigm and green represents a new step forward into a new paradigm.  The Catalyst says as much and the cutscene right after verifies it.

Now I'm not saying the Reapers will just restart the Cycle on their own again,although unless the green light forces everyone to be friends or something the now free Reapers gain the option to wage war for various other reasons like resources or dominance.
Thats the risk I see,also taking into consideration that in my opinion the green ending doesnt auto jump everyone forward to reaper tech level and repair all damage from the war,the galaxy is potentially left at the mercy of the reapers.
As for the colors honestly I didnt think about them to much,since to me regardless what color you went with in the end it just felt completely broken

[clennon8]

Somebody needs to come up with a banner for the "Save the Reapers!" campaign.

[Taboo]

They are a new conscience made from millions of others. Whatever they were is long dead. Shepard alludes to this in game. Stopping the opposing force was the goal, and I'm going to do it in a manner that causes the least amount of harm to the galaxy.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra still hasn't figured out that I'm not attacking him when I say Synthesis has fascist aesthetics.

I like Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries as much as anyone. His political views are still there, but it doesn't make me want to invade Poland when I hear it.

If you know enough about political philsophy to identify synthesis with Hegelian dialectic, you probably know the connection between Hegel and German fascism.  More importantly if the writers were aware of some form of that idea, you also know then that the green option is the writers' preferred choice as the synthetic advancement of the dialectic, History, the mind of God, whatever.  So you can say green has a fascist aesthetic, but then you'd also note that red has a murderer's aesthetic and blue has the aesthetic of obvious hubris.  No offense.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

They are a new conscience made from millions of others. Whatever they were is long dead. Shepard alludes to this in game. Stopping the opposing force was the goal, and I'm going to do it in a manner that causes the least amount of harm to the galaxy.

Shepard, as I pointed out to you earlier, is in no position to know.  He has a point of view, but Renegade and Paragon Sheps often hold conflicting views and the Catalyst contradicts his point of view.  The Catalyst tells you they are stored, not dead.

[Taboo]

Oh, I know they do. I'm just never asked about it. Ieldra never brings it up, as he's too busy with Synthesis.

I would argue that being stored is not the same as being alive. I'd rather die than be stored in a machine for thousands of years.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Oh, I know they do. I'm just never asked about it. Ieldra never brings it up, as he's too busy with Synthesis.

I would argue that being stored is not the same as being alive. I'd rather die than be stored in a machine for thousands of years.

It wouldn't be you being stored; you'd have died when you got gooped.  Your consciousness would be gone and then whatever got reconstructed assuming it was a true AI would simply be a different person with your memories.  Being stored and aware, like the Geth in their servers, is being alive by game doctrine.  Being stored and unaware, like suspended animation, is arguable but I don't think it is being dead per se.  Reapers, according to game doctrine are somehow something like the first.

[Taboo]

I find the idea of making that conciseness aware of what it is in Synthesis to be unethical and I feel that taking control of it is also unethical.

I kill them, yes, but I also assume responsibility for doing so. That's something I choose to live with. I would, and so would my Shepard. I don't like it, but I find it to be the least repulsive.

[memorysquid]

Noxis6 wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
I think what will prevent the Reaper's from going nuts again is the writers' of the game.  Didn't you notice the Reapers turn green too?  Not saying your concern isn't a good one, it just doesn't seem valid in this game.  See blue and red represent the old paragon/regenade paradigm and green represents a new step forward into a new paradigm.  The Catalyst says as much and the cutscene right after verifies it.

Now I'm not saying the Reapers will just restart the Cycle on their own again,although unless the green light forces everyone to be friends or something the now free Reapers gain the option to wage war for various other reasons like resources or dominance.
Thats the risk I see,also taking into consideration that in my opinion the green ending doesnt auto jump everyone forward to reaper tech level and repair all damage from the war,the galaxy is potentially left at the mercy of the reapers.
As for the colors honestly I didnt think about them to much,since to me regardless what color you went with in the end it just felt completely broken

They use the colors as a very blatant symbolism; Red = Renegade, Blue = Paragon, Green = Synthesis of the two.  I think the whole Catalyst scene probably takes place in some kind of VR.  You know they've scanned his mind at least, no reason for them to bother and construct a bunch of big stupid levers when the whole chat can take place in his brain and get enacted afterwards.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Ieldra still hasn't figured out that I'm not attacking him when I say Synthesis has fascist aesthetics.

Embracing ideals of physical perfection doesn't make fascist aesthetic, in spite of what Susan Sontag has to say about it. You find the same in the Christian resurrection myth. On the biological level, physical perfection indicates health, and I think I can say with some justification that that's one of the things we deservedly value most. I find this worship of physical imperfection hypocritical. That physical flaws don't impact your worth as a human being does not make them less undesirable.

[Taboo]

Taking control and dominating another being is not Paragon. At all.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Ieldra still hasn't figured out that I'm not attacking him when I say Synthesis has fascist aesthetics.

Embracing ideals of physical perfection doesn't make fascist aesthetic, in spite of what Susan Sontag has to say about it. You find the same in the Christian resurrection myth. On the biological level, physical perfection indicates health, and I think I can say with some justification that that's one of the things we deservedly value most. I find this worship of physical imperfection hypocritical. That physical flaws don't impact your worth as a human being does not make them less undesirable.

That. Is. My. Point.

It has aesthetics of Facism, but is not fascist.

Some of the Soviet Propaganda films, especially those from Sergei Eisenstein contain similiar aesthetics but are not Fascist, for obvious reasons.

I use the word aesthetics for a reason. I have no issue with wanting to improve, but forcing people to do it is where I draw the line. I have reiterated this time and time again but all people seem to do is take it as a personal attack.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 06:15 .

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

jtav wrote...

Or it's a metaphor. A sloppy, poorly done metaphor but still a metaphor. I don't have to take it literally any more than I take the Biblical creation story literally. When literalism leads to something demonstrably false, figurative language is likely.

I really hope you’re not trying to make a “the bible is true” argument.

Your defense for making this irrevocable change of transforming everyone into cyborgs (the ‘new DNA’ is just a metaphor, it really turns everyone into synthetics) is because you think it might be using a metaphor that could possibly mean something that is acceptable to you?

No snark, please actually consider that statement. Put yourself in the position of Shepard. Remember, you don’t know what will happen yet. You can’t rely on any information you learn after this.

You’re telling me that you’re going to wager everything on something that you think might be a metaphor but you don’t know what for?

The Catalyst is Mr. Exposition at this point. There is not even the possibility of challenging him, so I (the player) conclude he is supposed to be truthful.

That’s not what I asked.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I find the idea of making that conciseness aware of what it is in Synthesis to be unethical and I feel that taking control of it is also unethical.

I kill them, yes, but I also assume responsibility for doing so. That's something I choose to live with. I would, and so would my Shepard. I don't like it, but I find it to be the least repulsive.

I don't understand what that construction means.  Assuming responsibility for killing means what?  Yes I did that which ought not to be done, but I am owning it?  Ethics are expressed in action; you own every action you take regardless.  Either killing them is good or not.  If it is, then it isn't bad.  If it isn't, then saying "Yup I did it." isn't some form of amelioration.

And why is making a galaxy's worth [minus those killed in the Reaping] of people aware a bad thing?  You're anti-birth?  I'm missing something big in your point of view.

[Ieldra]

clennon8 wrote...
@Ieldra: But, but, the ethics of it are the thing we have the biggest problem with. That is the meat of the debate, as far as most anti-Synths are concerned.

However, even we get bored. So, we have also tried to discuss the technical aspects of Synthesis, just for kicks and grins. Can't seem to get anywhere on that front, either.

Did you really expect any different? With as few hard facts as we have, criticism that undermines the whole scenario is almost impossible to come by. Bad criticism is summarily rejected, and good criticism only serves to refine our interpretations. In fact, the ethical concerns made me recognize that the scenario I outlined in the other thread works just as well if the change is reversible on an individual basis. A few million dropouts won't impact the big picture much. Since there are no hard facts contradicting this interpretation, I might as well use it.

And since I'm sure lillitheris will come in again and belabor the point that it's all interpretation and fabrication - yeah. So what? More than any other ending, Synthesis depends on interpretation, and any criticism aimed at Synthesis in general must apply to all possible scenarios to be valid. The ethics are a valid concern since that applies to all possible Synthesis scenarios. "It isn't a solution" is not because several ways have been outlined how it can be a solution. That some people choose not to believe it is irrelevant.

@lillitheris:
As long as you are unwilling to accept that there is no canonical Synthesis scenario we won't get anywhere. "Wagering on it being a metaphor"? There is no "wagering". The results are what you imagine them to be, as long as you don't contradict the presentation. Also you're unwilling to leave the in-world perspective here. I'm tempted to call it genre blindness. You're in a story with a heroic sacrifice, and Synthesis is presented in a way that makes it clear it won't make everything go to Hell in a basket. Yeah, it's Bioware's fault that they didn't manage to bring this into the in-world perspective, but that doesn't make it less true.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 06:31 .

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

Or it's a metaphor. A sloppy, poorly done metaphor but still a metaphor. I don't have to take it literally any more than I take the Biblical creation story literally. When literalism leads to something demonstrably false, figurative language is likely.

I'll assume this hyper-advanced AI or VI construct that operates on cold logic (but flawed) is speaking to Shepard in metaphor when my iMac speaks to me in in Old English.

Modifié par o Ventus, 15 juin 2012 - 06:26 .