1256 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

It's better to force people to be dead?  Or force them to be subject to your hubris as Reaper tyrant?  Because you only get these 3 options.  See my point is you already know that in game, green is a better choice, you're just headcanoning your way out of that because you don't like the ending altogether.

[Taboo]

I remember a particularly effective episode of Doctor Who when the Cyber men became aware of what they were, if for a brief moment. They were once alive, human beings, but are now something else entirely. I don't want to even take that chance. The Doctor destroyed them shortly there after, because death was a release, not a punishment.

You accept responsibility for their deaths in Destroy because you survive. I believe you have an obligation to take responsibility for your actions here. You do not do so in Synthesis, or Control. You die and bet on an unknown, which I don't like.

Given the Catalyst's propensity for fallacious statements, I don't know what to think at this moment.

I am not going to enact a fundamental change on the galaxy, refuse responsibility, and kill myself in order to stop something that cannot possibly be known.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 06:29 .

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

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?

1. That is an out of the game context argument.  Shepard gets it implicitly.

2. The actual game includes synthesis.  You're truly headcanoning this because you are terming a literal choice in the game as a fantasy option, when the cutscenes after Shepard's dissolution [i.e. 3rd person omniscient POV] reveal that it is not.

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@clennon8:
She's right, though. If people are unwilling to accept that other people's ethics might work a little different from theirs, and that this is OK, you lose all possibility for a good debate.

Shouting, yeah, not so much of that lately (heh.....I just had to write this after Night Mammoth quoted that post above). But false assumptions and Godwinizing galore.

It's funny because pro-synths (Not exclusive to them, but it's easily the most prevalent group) who follow the Catalyst's circular logic employ Godwin just as hard, if not harder.

[Taboo]

It is not the best choice, as he presents a fallacy. If this is not addressed Synthesis loses even more credibility with me.

They can't address it either, unless the Catalyst begins to sprout accurate measurements about cycles, which he cannot as he eliminates cultures before they hit a feedback loop within a hyperbolic growth curve.

Nothing he says has any bearing on reality. He doesn't lie, but he isn't right either.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I remember a particularly effective episode of Doctor Who when the Cyber men became aware of what they were, if for a brief moment. They were once alive, human beings, but are now something else entirely. I don't want to even take that chance. The Doctor destroyed them shortly there after, because death was a release, not a punishment.

You accept responsibility for their deaths in Destroy because you survive. I believe you have an obligation to take responsibility for your actions here. You do not do so in Synthesis, or Control. You die and bet on an unknown, which I don't like.

Given the Catalyst's propensity for fallacious statements, I don't know what to think at this moment.

I am not going to enact a fundamental change on the galaxy, refuse responsibility, and kill myself in order to stop something that cannot possibly be known.

I admit I often choose based on retrospective results in games, but you must admit that beforehand, Shepard has no clue if he will survive any of the three, in fact is informed he will survive none of them extant.  Shepard has no reason in game to assume the thing is offering any fallacy beyond its assessment of the singularity.  In fact, if it is THAT smart, then maybe the probability of the singularity is truly so high that its solution really was warranted.  It's like you would want to stop someone from firing a bullet straight up in the midst of a crowd.  It might not hurt someone, but the chances are high and the shooter's feelings on the topic are irrelevant.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I remember a particularly effective episode of Doctor Who when the Cyber men became aware of what they were, if for a brief moment. They were once alive, human beings, but are now something else entirely. I don't want to even take that chance. The Doctor destroyed them shortly there after, because death was a release, not a punishment.

You accept responsibility for their deaths in Destroy because you survive. I believe you have an obligation to take responsibility for your actions here. You do not do so in Synthesis, or Control. You die and bet on an unknown, which I don't like.

Given the Catalyst's propensity for fallacious statements, I don't know what to think at this moment.

I am not going to enact a fundamental change on the galaxy, refuse responsibility, and kill myself in order to stop something that cannot possibly be known.

I admit I often choose based on retrospective results in games, but you must admit that beforehand, Shepard has no clue if he will survive any of the three, in fact is informed he will survive none of them extant.  Shepard has no reason in game to assume the thing is offering any fallacy beyond its assessment of the singularity.  In fact, if it is THAT smart, then maybe the probability of the singularity is truly so high that its solution really was warranted.  It's like you would want to stop someone from firing a bullet straight up in the midst of a crowd.  It might not hurt someone, but the chances are high and the shooter's feelings on the topic are irrelevant.

Knee-jerk logic at its finest.

Do you want me to tell you why the Catalyst can't have possibly experienced a singularity?

Modifié par o Ventus, 15 juin 2012 - 06:39 .

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@clennon8:
She's right, though. If people are unwilling to accept that other people's ethics might work a little different from theirs, and that this is OK, you lose all possibility for a good debate.

Shouting, yeah, not so much of that lately (heh.....I just had to write this after Night Mammoth quoted that post above). But false assumptions and Godwinizing galore.

It's funny because pro-synths (Not exclusive to them, but it's easily the most prevalent group) who follow the Catalyst's circular logic employ Godwin just as hard, if not harder.

If I never see a reference to Godwin's "law" or a "meme" again it will be just soon enough.

[Taboo]

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future. My Shepard is long dead. We also haven't been wiped out by this singularity everyone seems to be worried about.

He is told he will die in Synthesis and lose everything he has in Control.

He is told he "might" die in Destroy. You keep making statements about Shepard being aware? Then he knows damn good and well what's going to happen to him in Synthesis and Control.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I remember a particularly effective episode of Doctor Who when the Cyber men became aware of what they were, if for a brief moment. They were once alive, human beings, but are now something else entirely. I don't want to even take that chance. The Doctor destroyed them shortly there after, because death was a release, not a punishment.

You accept responsibility for their deaths in Destroy because you survive. I believe you have an obligation to take responsibility for your actions here. You do not do so in Synthesis, or Control. You die and bet on an unknown, which I don't like.

Given the Catalyst's propensity for fallacious statements, I don't know what to think at this moment.

I am not going to enact a fundamental change on the galaxy, refuse responsibility, and kill myself in order to stop something that cannot possibly be known.

I admit I often choose based on retrospective results in games, but you must admit that beforehand, Shepard has no clue if he will survive any of the three, in fact is informed he will survive none of them extant.  Shepard has no reason in game to assume the thing is offering any fallacy beyond its assessment of the singularity.  In fact, if it is THAT smart, then maybe the probability of the singularity is truly so high that its solution really was warranted.  It's like you would want to stop someone from firing a bullet straight up in the midst of a crowd.  It might not hurt someone, but the chances are high and the shooter's feelings on the topic are irrelevant.

Knee-jerk logic at it's finest.

You don't seem to understand that someone intelligent enough would basically make a hash of "free will."  Will is determined by any number of factors.  What's the point of your bland nay-saying above?

[o Ventus]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future. My Shepard is long dead. We also haven't been wiped out by this singularity everyone seems to be worried about.

He is told he will die in Synthesis and lose everything he has in Control.

He is told he "might" die in Destroy. You keep making statements about Shepard being aware? Then he knows damn good and well what's going to happen to him in Synthesis and Control.

@bold- He's also told that he can destroy all synthetics, not that he will. So that means in my Destroy ending, the geth and EDI are alive!

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future. My Shepard is long dead. We also haven't been wiped out by this singularity everyone seems to be worried about.

He is told he will die in Synthesis and lose everything he has in Control.

He is told he "might" die in Destroy. You keep making statements about Shepard being aware? Then he knows damn good and well what's going to happen to him in Synthesis and Control.

@bold- He's also told that he can destroy all synthetics, not that he will. So that means in my Destroy ending, the geth and EDI are alive!

Problem Hudson?

That's what an interpretation means people. You can blow the Reapers away along with Geth and EDI or just the Reapers.

This is art, there are no wrong interpretations.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 06:44 .

[Ieldra]

(This applies to post #12592118 further up on this page)

@Taboo:
A meaningless assertion. I've countered it about a dozen times, jtav has countered it about a dozen times. Others have, too. Genre blindness. You can't measure the Catalyst with the standards of the real world because we'd need an exposition dump the size of a skyscraper then. It's clearly meant to be taken seriously, never are we, as a player, called to question its status and its statements, and that it's difficult to take it seriously because of the bad writing doesn't change this one bit.

So you can go with what the out-of-world perspective indicates and try to make sense of it as best as you can, or you can insist that the out-of-world perspective doesn't matter which is an indication of genre blindness.

It's all Bioware's fault. The perspectives don't match. But pardon me if I find a constructive approach more satisfying.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 06:47 .

[Taboo]

Yes you can. That's what an interpretation is. You do the exact same thing with Synthesis.

This is a disorganized crap shoot, not a satirical farce meant to espouse some commentary on how man creates his own monsters.

That's what they wanted, speculation. The Star Gazer scene means that no singularity has happened for ten thousand years. That is an established fact.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...
That's what they wanted, speculation. The Star Gazer scene means that no singularity has happened for ten thousand years. That is an established fact.

Well, a singularity could well have happened.

You know, since a singularity in technological terms is not inherently a bad thing or the cause of an extinction scenario or....... anything, really. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 juin 2012 - 07:00 .

[o Ventus]

Since no one has mentioned this yet...

Ignoring the implausibility of a singularity, such an event would much more likely be beneficial to us than harmful.

It's hilarious how Moore (The same Moore whose "law" everyone treats like gospel around here) also opposes the idea of a singularity.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future. My Shepard is long dead. We also haven't been wiped out by this singularity everyone seems to be worried about.

He is told he will die in Synthesis and lose everything he has in Control.

He is told he "might" die in Destroy. You keep making statements about Shepard being aware? Then he knows damn good and well what's going to happen to him in Synthesis and Control.

Where does it mention 10,000 years?  And so?  Killing off EDI, [for some] a race of Geth and whatever state of the stored remains of the previous Reapings is a large price to pay to maybe live.  So is making yourself Reaper King 5 minutes after convincing TIM to kill himself for the insanity of the idea and after seeing all the negative examples of attempts at AI subjugation.  Yeah you are told you die in synthesis, but you are also told it is an evolutionary advance.  It's just up to you and your decision affects everyone regardless of your choice. 

See they make it plain.  Destroy is red because it is a Renegade choice.  You survive and get the job done at the cost of many innocent lives.  Control is blue as a Paragon choice.  You sacrifice yourself, apparently dissolving after reaperizing, to preserve a bunch of lives although it may be a sub optimal choice and create more danger - as so many of the Paragon choices did.  Synthesis is green as a new paradigm choice outside the old red/blue paragon/renegade paradigm of  ME1 and 2.  I just don't get why this ending was so confusing.  I can see why it is hated, but not why it is confusing.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future. My Shepard is long dead. We also haven't been wiped out by this singularity everyone seems to be worried about.

He is told he will die in Synthesis and lose everything he has in Control.

He is told he "might" die in Destroy. You keep making statements about Shepard being aware? Then he knows damn good and well what's going to happen to him in Synthesis and Control.

@bold- He's also told that he can destroy all synthetics, not that he will. So that means in my Destroy ending, the geth and EDI are alive!

Problem Hudson?

That's what an interpretation means people. You can blow the Reapers away along with Geth and EDI or just the Reapers.

This is art, there are no wrong interpretations.

That's nonsense.  The art is done.  If you ignore the art work, you aren't interpreting it, you are making your own art.  Which is fine, and may surpass the original piece, but it isn't the original piece.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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".

Yes, there is. jtav is wagering that A) it’s a metaphor, not literal and that the metaphor actually represents something specific.

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.

You’re f— right I am. Like I said, the Synthesis that the game presents to us at the time of making the decision is ludicrous (as is the insistence that you can use post hoc facts as arguments to support the decision). Nobody sane would ever pick that option.

The post-decision facts, of course, are only little less ludicrous, which is why your entire thesis is based on conjecture and still only manages to be barely plausible.

Like I keep telling you: you’re absolutely, 100% welcome to headcanon your very own Fantasy Synthesis. Just stop claiming that it’s one of the options in the game. IT’S NOT..

If you retitle your threads ‘Fanfic Synthesis’, I’ll have nothing further to say about it. Only when you try to claim it to be something it’s not.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 juin 2012 - 07:10 .

[lillitheris]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future. My Shepard is long dead. We also haven't been wiped out by this singularity everyone seems to be worried about.

He is told he will die in Synthesis and lose everything he has in Control.

He is told he "might" die in Destroy. You keep making statements about Shepard being aware? Then he knows damn good and well what's going to happen to him in Synthesis and Control.

@bold- He's also told that he can destroy all synthetics, not that he will. So that means in my Destroy ending, the geth and EDI are alive!

Problem Hudson?

That's what an interpretation means people. You can blow the Reapers away along with Geth and EDI or just the Reapers.

This is art, there are no wrong interpretations.

That's nonsense.  The art is done.  If you ignore the art work, you aren't interpreting it, you are making your own art.  Which is fine, and may surpass the original piece, but it isn't the original piece.

Nothing in the actual ending contradicts my interpretation of Destroy: the Catalyst says that I could kill the geth, EDI, and other synthetics, and blow up the relays. And could die myself. I choose not to, I just destroy the Reapers. Do you see any dead geth? Dead Shepard? Dead EDI? Blown relays except the one in Sol?

Also, I have no idea what your reply to me above meant…it didn’t seem to actually address what I said at all.

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is art, there are no wrong interpretations.

So it's possible to view Synthesis without seeing a fascist aesthetic at work, and this view isn't wrong?

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

You’re f— right I am. Like I said, the Synthesis that the game presents to us at the time of making the decision is ludicrous (as is the insistence that you can use post hoc facts as arguments to support the decision). Nobody sane would ever pick that option.

Shepard gets it, in game, plainly.  Your attempts to cast it as insane are headcanon.  Shepard doesn't question a thing the Catalyst asserts, he accepts it all at face value or after a clarifying question.  Third person omniscient end scenes let us know that the Catalyst wasn't some evil genius fooling Shepard into a false decision and provide "closure." 

You can personally find fault with the idea of roboDNA; I think it is crazy nonsense which implies my VI toaster or emergency beacon will be making babies.  But in game it works as advertised because that's the way they wrote it.  This valiant struggle against the writing in a completed work of fiction is just weird.

[The Night Mammoth]

memorysquid wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

You’re f— right I am. Like I said, the Synthesis that the game presents to us at the time of making the decision is ludicrous (as is the insistence that you can use post hoc facts as arguments to support the decision). Nobody sane would ever pick that option.

Shepard gets it, in game, plainly.  Your attempts to cast it as insane are headcanon.  Shepard doesn't question a thing the Catalyst asserts, he accepts it all at face value or after a clarifying question.  

Shepard isn't an autonomous sapient being making the decision by her virtual self.

I'm making it, based on what I know, not on what Shepard thinks.

This is also one of the problems people have with the ending.  

Third person omniscient end scenes let us know that the Catalyst wasn't some evil genius fooling Shepard into a false decision and provide "closure." 

Something which shouldn't factor into the decision making process.

You can personally find fault with the idea of roboDNA; I think it is crazy nonsense which implies my VI toaster or emergency beacon will be making babies.  But in game it works as advertised because that's the way they wrote it.  This valiant struggle against the writing in a completed work of fiction is just weird.

It's in the fiction, so we should just accept it.

No thanks. I'd rather interpret it and find the flaws and merits. You know, analyze it and not be a mindless goon who takes everything they're given without a second thought.

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

Nothing in the actual ending contradicts my interpretation of Destroy: the Catalyst says that I could kill the geth, EDI, and other synthetics, and blow up the relays. And could die myself. I choose not to, I just destroy the Reapers. Do you see any dead geth? Dead Shepard? Dead EDI? Blown relays except the one in Sol?

Also, I have no idea what your reply to me above meant…it didn’t seem to actually address what I said at all.

Semantic quibbling.  Shepard understands all synthetic life will die but just verifies the Reapers will be destroyed.  He plainly says "But the Reapers will be destroyed?"  Watch the scene again; it is plain to Shepard in advance all synthetics will die.  After he does it you see a wave of killing energy that sweeps the galaxy.  Unlike synthesis ending, you don't see EDI step out for a reason, you just killed her and the Geth off.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

Shepard gets it, in game, plainly.

As evidenced by what? It isn't like Shepard snaps his fingers and says "Oh, I get it now" after the Catalyst rambles on. Acceptance =/= Understanding.

Your attempts to cast it as insane are headcanon.

So is you painting it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Shepard doesn't question a thing the Catalyst asserts, he accepts it all at face value or after a clarifying question.  Third person omniscient end scenes let us know that the Catalyst wasn't some evil genius fooling Shepard into a false decision and provide "closure."  

Pointing to a recycled cutscene that is available for all 3 endings is not the best way to present your case.

You can personally find fault with the idea of roboDNA; I think it is crazy nonsense which implies my VI toaster or emergency beacon will be making babies.  But in game it works as advertised because that's the way they wrote it.  This valiant struggle against the writing in a completed work of fiction is just weird.

Nothing was advertised. Nothing at all. Bioware made the Catalyst into a game show host. He literally said this- 

"Now, you can either destroy us or control us. Door number 1? Door number 2? OR are you willing to go full-retard?"