1256 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

[quote]The Night Mammoth wrote...

[quote]memorysquid wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

You can make it based on your preference of color alone, fine.  However, the game casts Shepard as the decision maker, not you - the game is in third person, not first.  And you're also wrong.  Shepard's point of view often differed from my own.  He's a collection of pre-written monologue pieces many of them concerning ethics, few of which matched my ethics personally.  So yeah I choose, but his stated rationale and the options from which I can make choices is necessarily constrained.

 [quote]


[quote]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."  [/quote]

Something which shouldn't factor into the decision making process. [/quote]

Whose?  Shepard's or your own?  I can pick my perfect universe in retrospect in this game.  Shepard can't but you just pointed out that I am not Shepard.[/quote]

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

What is to interpret?  They wrote what they wrote.  You are arguing ex post facto.  It's not mindless to refuse to conflate interpretation and invention.  Don Quixote straight into this windmill, but your headcanon is simply not what the game is.  Write a fanfic, write a new novel but don't tell me that an extant work of art is what you desire it to be rather than what the authors clearly communicated.

[Vigilant111]

jla0644 wrote...

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?

subjective right interpretation (Destroy) vs objective wrong interpretation (Synthesis)

vice versa for a synthesis supporter

EDIT: replace "right" and  "wrong" with "justified, idealistic, ethical" and "unjustified, realistic, unethical" respectively

Modifié par Vigilant111, 15 juin 2012 - 07:38 .

[The Night Mammoth]

memorysquid wrote...

You can make it based on your preference of color alone, fine.  However, the game casts Shepard as the decision maker, not you - the game is in third person, not first.  

Who's using the controller, me or Shepard?

I think you'll find it's me. I'm the one choosing destroy, control, or synthesis, based on what I know at that point.

And you're also wrong.  Shepard's point of view often differed from my own.  He's a collection of pre-written monologue pieces many of them concerning ethics, few of which matched my ethics personally.  So yeah I choose, but his stated rationale and the options from which I can make choices is necessarily constrained.

People can be wrong about things they never makes statements or assertions about, apparently. 

Think that if you want, I'm not arguing the grander point of whether you are Shepard or not, because I don't care and it's irrelevant to the point. 

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

Whose?  Shepard's or your own?  I can pick my perfect universe in retrospect in this game.  Shepard can't but you just pointed out that I am not Shepard.

I said you shouldn't.

You shouldn't use hindsight to reason anything. 

What is to interpret?

Everything that doesn't have a definite answer.

They wrote what they wrote.  You are arguing ex post facto.  It's not mindless to refuse to conflate interpretation and invention.  Don Quixote straight into this windmill, but your headcanon is simply not what the game is.

I'm struggling to understand how any of this is at all relevant to anything I posted.

Headcanon? Invention? I said nothing about anything that is even remotely related to what you're saying.

Write a fanfic, write a new novel

200 page rewrite of Mass Effect's story says hi.

but don't tell me that an extant work of art is what you desire it to be rather than what the authors clearly communicated.

Okay, I wont.

Not that I ever did, so this is basically another irrelevant point.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 juin 2012 - 07:50 .

[Taboo]

 The Star Gazer scene was clarified to take place ten thousand years in the future byt the lead writer. If one good thing has come from Mac Walters nonsense, is that he invalidated Synthesis by doing so.

This is an open interpretation ending, not a literal one. It is structured as such and has been clarified as such. There are no wrong answers in interpreting the ending as you see fit. This is more common in European cinema, and was the great fault that Bioware made. They assumed that the audience wanted to finish it in their heads. Wrong. In doing so however, they have allowed both chaos and wonder to be sown. No one has any idea what has happened, but no one is wrong either.

The aesthetics are there regardless of how you interpret them. Objective and Subjective are two different things. All the endings have terrible aesthetics attached to them but that alone does not make them Fascist, Murderous or Hubris laden. They have AESTHETICS. I cannot stress enough that just because something HAS that certain aesthetic, that it makes it so.

You kill in Destroy.
You enslave in Control
You force change in Synthesis.

They have AESTHETICS. These are facts, and cannot be distinguished from the material. I cannot spell it out in a more straight forward manner than this, but a continous inablity to grasp this concept has left me with no choice.

[AngryFrozenWater]

@Ieldra2:

"I didn't just say that there can't be a hybrid DNA."

The note was intended to allow anything you see fit in that "new framework". I was not suggesting anything. It is fine by me. It would save a lot of words when I could just call whatever it is you have in mind that makes synthesis tick "the new framework". That's all.

"There is no evolutionary ladder."

Fine. Synthesis is surely not intended to degenerate the races. In that context the phrase was intended. But I am sure you understood that.

"Yes, I am forcing that transition. No it doesn't have implications for free will."

Forcing the transition is a violation of the right of self-determination. Whatever synthesis is supposed to do disables the ability to want anything else. That clearly imposes a limit on free will.

"You forget the context: All decisions do that."

Yes. But synthesis does so too. And we are talking about that one and not the others.

"And that's the core of what *I* believe in."

That's obvious.

"As for species identity: species will be as distinctive as they were before. There's no reason to believe otherwise given the presentation."

You are avoiding the issue. It is not about distinctiveness. It is about changing the racial identity by transforming them into some kind of hybrid using the new framework without their consent.

"I can also change people''s way of thinking by talking to them, punching them in the gut, shooting at them and in countless other ways."

I can punch you back. The races subject to synthesis cannot. They are already too late with punching you, because you have already invoked synthesis without their consent. The change is irreversible. So it still violates the right of self-determination.

"As for the details: I do not know, it's a jump into the unknown. But this is a damned story, and I suspend my disbelief and just accept that things aren't meant to go to hell if I choose Synthesis. Because you know, the story *does* indicate that."

Every story has its influence. That story sure looks like Lebensborn on a galactic scale. This time no mothers involved, though. It is just a beam jump away.

"You're over-thinking this way too much."

I am not the one who has created numerous threads about the topic.

"Believe me, you would never do this with an option you liked."

There is no such option. All 3 options are solutions to a non-existent problem. I've explained that before.

"Note that that doesn't mean there won't be some psychological fallout here and there."

Ah. Yes. Minor problem, not? It's all for the greater good, of course. And clearly organics are now better equipped to deal with what they have solved perfectly well before the reaper interference. That fallout is sure worth it when nobody needs synthesis, right?

"I would prefer it if this attempt at a debate stayed polite."

I treat you the same way as you treat me.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

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.

He gets the Catalyst is saying all synthetic life will die as evidenced by his follow up "But the Reapers will die?"

Your attempts to cast it as insane are headcanon.

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

That was the writers, not me.  I think it is not as morally problematic as destroy or control, although watching again control implies that the Reapers go away for good and Shepard got dissolved, so maybe that isn't as bad as I originally thought.

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?"

I simply meant the hand waving nonsense works like the writer says it works.  And the Catalyst, at best, figuratively says that.  Herp a derp.

[DrZann]

 I chose synthesis as well. Because Joker and EDI looked so damned cute together at the end.

And maybe Mass Effect 4 will have a neato trans-humanist thing going for it.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

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.

He gets the Catalyst is saying all synthetic life will die as evidenced by his follow up "But the Reapers will die?"

Your attempts to cast it as insane are headcanon.

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

That was the writers, not me.  I think it is not as morally problematic as destroy or control, although watching again control implies that the Reapers go away for good and Shepard got dissolved, so maybe that isn't as bad as I originally thought.

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?"

I simply meant the hand waving nonsense works like the writer says it works.  And the Catalyst, at best, figuratively says that.  Herp a derp.

1. That doesn't prove a single goddamned thing.

2. Because Shepard can Control the Reapers while disintegrated. Wait...

3. At best? That's the exact message he sends to Shepard. Like it or not, it's what the writers wanted, liek you're so gallantly exclaiming.

[antares_sublight]

DrZann wrote...
And maybe Mass Effect 4 will have a neato trans-humanist thing going for it.

Except that Synthesis affects ALL LIFE FORMS in the ENTIRE GALAXY, not just humans.

[lillitheris]

memorysquid wrote...

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.

Nope. EDI is the ship. Clearly still alive. No dead geth anywhere that I can see. There’s a wave of energy, but it’s Reaper-only-killing-energy, though. Why do you insist on adding things that are nowhere to be seen in the game? That’s what the writers intended, clearly, since there’s no dead EDI or dead geth.

Shepard just confirms that she can kill EDI, geth, and other synthetics if she chooses, but no matter what, the Reapers will be destroyed. But she chose to only go with the Reapers.

Destroy is obviously the best option.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 juin 2012 - 08:20 .

[memorysquid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Who's using the controller, me or Shepard?

I think you'll find it's me. I'm the one choosing destroy, control, or synthesis, based on what I know at that point.

I think you'll find you managed a category error and a false dichotomy in one short sentence.  Control lies with the author who's dictated the nature and resolution of every dilemma in game.  Within that constraint, they've cast Shepard as the decision maker and you get to choose which prewritten responses get enacted. 

The game could be cast from a first person perspective; it just happens not to be.  From your asserted perspective, none of the choices are morally abominable because they are simply choices about which images play on a screen, but a number of people are claiming synthesis is morally abominable which means they are involved in a thought experiment about it really occurring.

The people to whom I was responding were making a claim about the moral nature of synthesis as a choice in this game.

[lillitheris]

memorysquid wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Who's using the controller, me or Shepard?

I think you'll find it's me. I'm the one choosing destroy, control, or synthesis, based on what I know at that point.

I think you'll find you managed a category error and a false dichotomy in one short sentence.  Control lies with the author who's dictated the nature and resolution of every dilemma in game.  Within that constraint, they've cast Shepard as the decision maker and you get to choose which prewritten responses get enacted.

You should probably just stop arguing since you’re arguing about something entirely different than either the pro- or anti- fantasy synthesis contingents.

You appeal to authority of the writers; like I’ve been saying, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Synthesis is factually and objectively written worse than Destroy or Control. Both of the latter can be explained with in-game mechanics. Synthesis can’t.

This is why the pro-fantasy synthesis people invent their headcanon synthesis and try to peddle it off as the real thing.

In addition to that there is a subjective argument to be made that it’s also morally the worst option, but then we’re back to a more even balance of fact and opinion, which actually enables a debate to be had on the topic.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 juin 2012 - 08:33 .

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

I simply meant the hand waving nonsense works like the writer says it works.  And the Catalyst, at best, figuratively says that.  Herp a derp.

1. That doesn't prove a single goddamned thing.

2. Because Shepard can Control the Reapers while disintegrated. Wait...

3. At best? That's the exact message he sends to Shepard. Like it or not, it's what the writers wanted, liek you're so gallantly exclaiming.

2. Sure he can; he's rewrites their programming and then dies.  They're controlled.

3. At best, yes, because the Catalyst never literally says "full retard."  What he literally says is something like "you can advance all life by doing X" to which you've taken umbrage.  I didn't think I was being particularly gallant by pointing out what the writers wrote is LITERALLY what the writers wrote.  Sheesh!  I get that people don't like the ending, but wow!  The emotional investment into this is scary as hell and makes me really despair for US society as an engine of rational thought.  There was plenty wrong with the plot; I even started a thread about it, but the decision at the end is not really so unclear.  They even stuck with the red/renegade blue/paragon ethical color coding.  Yeah green is a new one, but still?

[lillitheris]

memorysquid wrote...
They even stuck with the red/renegade blue/paragon ethical color coding.  Yeah green is a new one, but still?

Actually LOL at you including this gem in the same paragraph where you disparage others’ rational thinking…

I get that you get off thinking you’re the big, intellectual man…but you don’t actually understand this issue at all.

Modifié par lillitheris, 15 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[DrZann]

antares_sublight wrote...

DrZann wrote...
And maybe Mass Effect 4 will have a neato trans-humanist thing going for it.

Except that Synthesis affects ALL LIFE FORMS in the ENTIRE GALAXY, not just humans.

Even better! Imagine the possibilities.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

I simply meant the hand waving nonsense works like the writer says it works.  And the Catalyst, at best, figuratively says that.  Herp a derp.

1. That doesn't prove a single goddamned thing.

2. Because Shepard can Control the Reapers while disintegrated. Wait...

3. At best? That's the exact message he sends to Shepard. Like it or not, it's what the writers wanted, liek you're so gallantly exclaiming.

2. Sure he can; he's rewrites their programming and then dies.  They're controlled.

3. At best, yes, because the Catalyst never literally says "full retard."  What he literally says is something like "you can advance all life by doing X" to which you've taken umbrage.  I didn't think I was being particularly gallant by pointing out what the writers wrote is LITERALLY what the writers wrote.  Sheesh!  I get that people don't like the ending, but wow!  The emotional investment into this is scary as hell and makes me really despair for US society as an engine of rational thought.  There was plenty wrong with the plot; I even started a thread about it, but the decision at the end is not really so unclear.  They even stuck with the red/renegade blue/paragon ethical color coding.  Yeah green is a new one, but still?

2. Except he's, y'know, dead. I doubt he was somehow making a mental command whilst fondling those handles. The lethal dosage of electricity turning him into ash must have been occupying his mind. how does Shepard "rewrite their programming" when he has no idea how they work? If the Reapers had "programming", doesn't that conflict with th notion that they aren't fully synthetic? Even if he rewrote them, that doesn't mean he controlled them. He repurposed them, that's it. Shepard doesn't take control of the heretic geth by rewriting their programming, does he?

[karushna5]

wow surprised how many people associate Fascism with Synthesis. It is a sad thing about the modern day that people like to throw the word **** at anything they don't like. No one died. In fact no one killed anyone afterward in that scene.

Too often people throw slurs too readily. It's racist, it's homophobic, it's ****. Shepard had to make a choice, destruction is an acceptable choice, the game was to fight Reapers we did, we destroy, that is acceptable.

So is synthesis. It is highly implied we are not changing minds just capability so no one would die that day or any other in the future. No more Synthetic or organic. The choice is Shepard's and as far as we can tell from that scene, it worked. No one died after that but Shepard. To equate it with fascism is ridiculous.

Everyone has a right to make a choice. whether destroy, control, or synthesis

[Ieldra]

Oops. Wrong thread.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 08:42 .

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Who's using the controller, me or Shepard?

I think you'll find it's me. I'm the one choosing destroy, control, or synthesis, based on what I know at that point.

I think you'll find you managed a category error and a false dichotomy in one short sentence.  Control lies with the author who's dictated the nature and resolution of every dilemma in game.  Within that constraint, they've cast Shepard as the decision maker and you get to choose which prewritten responses get enacted.

You should probably just stop arguing since you’re arguing about something entirely different than either the pro- or anti- fantasy synthesis contingents.

You appeal to authority of the writers; like I’ve been saying, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Synthesis is factually and objectively written worse than Destroy or Control. Both of the latter can be explained with in-game mechanics. Synthesis can’t.

Being an example of poorer writing doesn't make it a worse choice does it?  Plus the whole game is mostly hand waving magical nonsense, so taking umbrage at synthesis for adding a little more waving seems petty.  And isn't appeal to the authority of the writer WRT a fictive event simply common sense?  The event didn't happen, it was invented by someone .... oh yeah, the writer.

This is why the pro-fantasy synthesis people invent their headcanon synthesis and try to peddle it off as the real thing.

 

The "real thing" in game is simply a green glow, circuit board derma and the assertion that you are advancing evolution.  Not too bad to avoid genocide or being reaper tyrant in my opinion.

In addition to that there is a subjective argument to be made that it’s also morally the worst option, but then we’re back to a more even balance of fact and opinion, which actually enables a debate to be had on the topic.

1) This is what I was addressing as interesting.
2) I don't agree that ethics is subjective.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

2) I don't agree that ethics is subjective.

Huh. No wonder your arguments are ******-awful.

[Taboo]

Instant Karma!

Revolutions through authortiarian measures? 

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
They even stuck with the red/renegade blue/paragon ethical color coding.  Yeah green is a new one, but still?

Actually LOL at you including this gem in the same paragraph where you disparage others’ rational thinking…

I get that you get off thinking you’re the big, intellectual man…but you don’t actually understand this issue at all.

I certainly don't understand you or the point in writing the above.  If that makes me a dummy, I'll own it.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

2) I don't agree that ethics is subjective.

Huh. No wonder your arguments are ******-awful.

Poorly stated and infra dig.  Typical of some boo-rah emotivist ethical proponent though.

[Ieldra]

DrZann wrote...
I chose synthesis as well. Because Joker and EDI looked so damned cute together at the end.

And maybe Mass Effect 4 will have a neato trans-humanist thing going for it.

Joker and EDI - if romanced - are almost the symbolic embodiment of Synthesis. As for your ME4 setup - as much as I'd like to see that, there won't be a Mass Effect game set after the Reapers.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

2. Except he's, y'know, dead. I doubt he was somehow making a mental command whilst fondling those handles. The lethal dosage of electricity turning him into ash must have been occupying his mind. how does Shepard "rewrite their programming" when he has no idea how they work? If the Reapers had "programming", doesn't that conflict with th notion that they aren't fully synthetic? Even if he rewrote them, that doesn't mean he controlled them. He repurposed them, that's it. Shepard doesn't take control of the heretic geth by rewriting their programming, does he?

I don't doubt he made them all into shackled AI's or got turned into controlling Reaper code or something because the event changed what the Reapers did. So who cares if he specifically turned them all into shackled AI's or rewrote behavior code like EDI does to herself frequently or whatever hand waving magic is used to explain their change in behavior?  This is like an argument with a theist.  You will multiply entities until you can escape what the authors wrote so further discussion is pointless.