982 réponses à ce sujet

[zambot]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

zambot wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
I don't see the utopien or enlightenment angle to the synthesis choice. I figure that everyone will be pretty much the same as they were, but with a new lease on life (of all kinds). I think the only space magic here is that communication is possible with all races. Well, to digress some, I spose the delivery system is a bit sketchy, but the the first TV was pretty strange as well... 

Yeah, but TV actually makes scientific sense when you describe it.  "Synthetic DNA" and using Shepard's "life essence" and giving machines "understanding of organics" is gibberish.  Then to take this gibberish and say that it means that everyone's dna is changed, and that now gives everyone magical super power that include green eyes is completely outlandish. 

But I tried to suspend my disbelief because I wanted to try to understand what the writers were trying to accomplish here.  Ok, we have this super technology that makes all of the above possible.  I'm going to call it "space magic" because it fits.  This super technology made EDI "feel alive".  It caused eternal peace.  It cured all sickness and granted immortality to everyone.  The reapers have joined the galactic society, and everyone accepts their help.   Both sides understand each other and new impossible things are being discovered.

That sounds an aweful lot like a transhumanist utopia.  All the things we humans fear: war, hunger,  disease, death have been eliminated through this "space magic" technology by augmenting our biologican nature with the synthetic.  Through "understanding" we've eliminated things like violence and greed.  This kind of thing is not new to fiction or even non-fiction if you follow the transhumanist and technicological singularity discussions.

I find it to be utter BS, but again, if I can accept "space magic", then I can pretty much accept anything that follows as a consequence of that.

So, you could have been fine with any other option?

I fail to see how my opinions on the other options matter to this debate, but to avoid being accused of avoiding the question I'll bite.  I believe every one of the 4 options Shepard has are "valid".  None are inherantly "evil" (unless you pick Control with the express purpose of ruling the galaxy, then yes, that one is evil.  Arguably picking destroy just to survive is evil as well if you truly picked it for just that reason alone).  I don't find Destroy, Control, and Refusal to be terribly space magiky (just somewhat).

 I find Destroy to be heroic, control to be tragic, and refusal to be somewhere between those two.  Destroy and Synthesis both lead to "happy endings", each with its own sacrifice to get there.  Refusal is not a happy ending persay, but is still opimistic since the next cycle does in fact defeat the reapers thanks to your actions.  Control I find to be the least happy ending as Shepard is transformed into a deity doomed to forever watch the galaxy to prevent it from destroying itself.  I do readily admit that is my own interpretation, and if you head canon the reapers into a black hole at the end of control, that is valid.

[Wayning_Star]

zambot wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

zambot wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
I don't see the utopien or enlightenment angle to the synthesis choice. I figure that everyone will be pretty much the same as they were, but with a new lease on life (of all kinds). I think the only space magic here is that communication is possible with all races. Well, to digress some, I spose the delivery system is a bit sketchy, but the the first TV was pretty strange as well... 

Yeah, but TV actually makes scientific sense when you describe it.  "Synthetic DNA" and using Shepard's "life essence" and giving machines "understanding of organics" is gibberish.  Then to take this gibberish and say that it means that everyone's dna is changed, and that now gives everyone magical super power that include green eyes is completely outlandish. 

But I tried to suspend my disbelief because I wanted to try to understand what the writers were trying to accomplish here.  Ok, we have this super technology that makes all of the above possible.  I'm going to call it "space magic" because it fits.  This super technology made EDI "feel alive".  It caused eternal peace.  It cured all sickness and granted immortality to everyone.  The reapers have joined the galactic society, and everyone accepts their help.   Both sides understand each other and new impossible things are being discovered.

That sounds an aweful lot like a transhumanist utopia.  All the things we humans fear: war, hunger,  disease, death have been eliminated through this "space magic" technology by augmenting our biologican nature with the synthetic.  Through "understanding" we've eliminated things like violence and greed.  This kind of thing is not new to fiction or even non-fiction if you follow the transhumanist and technicological singularity discussions.

I find it to be utter BS, but again, if I can accept "space magic", then I can pretty much accept anything that follows as a consequence of that.

I know, we all can identify with signposts that relate to our given reality, its a stretch to say that we'll adapt to anything 'instantly' with the help of a green beam from the future, or past in ME1,2,3, as its all from millions of years ago. I think the augumentation doesn't go so far as to completely alter the individual, but just enough to get an insight and communicate fully what they need to understand one another. Tall order, but isn't space magic, we don't really know exactly what happens, we only know that something happened. Heck, if we think of being around a million years from now, we'd be transhuminized something tough..

If you think about it, a transformation of man/machine isn't all that complicated, but we'd never know how it would work in real time, so we imagine it. As far as the delivery system,well, I spose we'll have to rack that one up to 'artistic rendition', like a picture of a http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Black_hole, or a mathamatical explanation of a gravitational singularity...of which I have to use a lot of space magic get a grip on that stuff.. (but apparently, they do exist for no reason what so ever..

My TV anology is kind of a weak representation of our ability to understand future tech with imaginative tools at hand for what goes on. In the MEU, we can just go plain nuts cause it's sci fi, although I do like it when they utililize at least standing layman principals to describe stuff.

I think I see what you're saying.  You're saying that the writers are asking us to imagine something that might make sense a million years from now, and they struggle to convey what they are thinking.  Sure, I can accept that, but that should also be a warning flag to the writers that what they are trying to convey is possibly meaningless.  Aside from the delivery mechanism (which I still call space magic), there is the notion that understanding and communication necessarily leads to peace (which I think you touched on).  I find that less "space magiky" for sure.  Even though I do not agree with that sentiment, I understand the arguments in favor of it.  

You can stop being so smart any day now... In the event of the MEU, getting a 'grip' on the reaper threat seemed paramount..lol Actually, to me anyway it makes sense, in the basic framework of the MEU, not in our reality. I figure we needn't over analyze it to enjoy it...and I do, at times feel that the writers created a sci fi monster they couldn't put back in the box as well. Meaningless isn't exactly the term I'd use tho, maybe inadequate would cover it? For a video game, I'm becoming more forgiving on Mass Effect, eventhough guarded.
 
I wouldn't venture to guess what might actually lead to peace, in the MEU or around here. I do feel what ever it is, people would refuse to endorse it out of boredom. Maybe a little transhumanization would give them something to do?

[AngryFrozenWater]

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

zambot wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
I don't see the utopien or enlightenment angle to the synthesis choice. I figure that everyone will be pretty much the same as they were, but with a new lease on life (of all kinds). I think the only space magic here is that communication is possible with all races. Well, to digress some, I spose the delivery system is a bit sketchy, but the the first TV was pretty strange as well... 

Yeah, but TV actually makes scientific sense when you describe it.  "Synthetic DNA" and using Shepard's "life essence" and giving machines "understanding of organics" is gibberish.  Then to take this gibberish and say that it means that everyone's dna is changed, and that now gives everyone magical super power that include green eyes is completely outlandish. 

But I tried to suspend my disbelief because I wanted to try to understand what the writers were trying to accomplish here.  Ok, we have this super technology that makes all of the above possible.  I'm going to call it "space magic" because it fits.  This super technology made EDI "feel alive".  It caused eternal peace.  It cured all sickness and granted immortality to everyone.  The reapers have joined the galactic society, and everyone accepts their help.   Both sides understand each other and new impossible things are being discovered.

That sounds an aweful lot like a transhumanist utopia.  All the things we humans fear: war, hunger,  disease, death have been eliminated through this "space magic" technology by augmenting our biologican nature with the synthetic.  Through "understanding" we've eliminated things like violence and greed.  This kind of thing is not new to fiction or even non-fiction if you follow the transhumanist and technicological singularity discussions.

I find it to be utter BS, but again, if I can accept "space magic", then I can pretty much accept anything that follows as a consequence of that.

So, you could have been fine with any other option?

I fail to see how my opinions on the other options matter to this debate, but to avoid being accused of avoiding the question I'll bite.  I believe every one of the 4 options Shepard has are "valid".  None are inherantly "evil" (unless you pick Control with the express purpose of ruling the galaxy, then yes, that one is evil.  Arguably picking destroy just to survive is evil as well if you truly picked it for just that reason alone).  I don't find Destroy, Control, and Refusal to be terribly space magiky (just somewhat).

 I find Destroy to be heroic, control to be tragic, and refusal to be somewhere between those two.  Destroy and Synthesis both lead to "happy endings", each with its own sacrifice to get there.  Refusal is not a happy ending persay, but is still opimistic since the next cycle does in fact defeat the reapers thanks to your actions.  Control I find to be the least happy ending as Shepard is transformed into a deity doomed to forever watch the galaxy to prevent it from destroying itself.  I do readily admit that is my own interpretation, and if you head canon the reapers into a black hole at the end of control, that is valid.

I was just wondering. It feels like you didn't really care about synthesis. So I thought that maybe you preferred something else. After all, if it can be answered by space magic then you are fine with it. And frankly, I am not interested in space magic at all. Same goes for the end justifies the means.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .

[Wayning_Star]

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

zambot wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
I don't see the utopien or enlightenment angle to the synthesis choice. I figure that everyone will be pretty much the same as they were, but with a new lease on life (of all kinds). I think the only space magic here is that communication is possible with all races. Well, to digress some, I spose the delivery system is a bit sketchy, but the the first TV was pretty strange as well... 

Yeah, but TV actually makes scientific sense when you describe it.  "Synthetic DNA" and using Shepard's "life essence" and giving machines "understanding of organics" is gibberish.  Then to take this gibberish and say that it means that everyone's dna is changed, and that now gives everyone magical super power that include green eyes is completely outlandish. 

But I tried to suspend my disbelief because I wanted to try to understand what the writers were trying to accomplish here.  Ok, we have this super technology that makes all of the above possible.  I'm going to call it "space magic" because it fits.  This super technology made EDI "feel alive".  It caused eternal peace.  It cured all sickness and granted immortality to everyone.  The reapers have joined the galactic society, and everyone accepts their help.   Both sides understand each other and new impossible things are being discovered.

That sounds an aweful lot like a transhumanist utopia.  All the things we humans fear: war, hunger,  disease, death have been eliminated through this "space magic" technology by augmenting our biologican nature with the synthetic.  Through "understanding" we've eliminated things like violence and greed.  This kind of thing is not new to fiction or even non-fiction if you follow the transhumanist and technicological singularity discussions.

I find it to be utter BS, but again, if I can accept "space magic", then I can pretty much accept anything that follows as a consequence of that.

So, you could have been fine with any other option?

I fail to see how my opinions on the other options matter to this debate, but to avoid being accused of avoiding the question I'll bite.  I believe every one of the 4 options Shepard has are "valid".  None are inherantly "evil" (unless you pick Control with the express purpose of ruling the galaxy, then yes, that one is evil.  Arguably picking destroy just to survive is evil as well if you truly picked it for just that reason alone).  I don't find Destroy, Control, and Refusal to be terribly space magiky (just somewhat).

 I find Destroy to be heroic, control to be tragic, and refusal to be somewhere between those two.  Destroy and Synthesis both lead to "happy endings", each with its own sacrifice to get there.  Refusal is not a happy ending persay, but is still opimistic since the next cycle does in fact defeat the reapers thanks to your actions.  Control I find to be the least happy ending as Shepard is transformed into a deity doomed to forever watch the galaxy to prevent it from destroying itself.  I do readily admit that is my own interpretation, and if you head canon the reapers into a black hole at the end of control, that is valid.

I didn't see the part where the reapers were defeated if you just walked away? When did that happen?!?

[Tigerman123]

lol

Modifié par Tigerman123, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:00 .

[zambot]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I was just wondering. It feels like you didn't really care about synthesis. So I thought that maybe you preferred something else. After all, if it can be answered by space magic then you are fine with it. And frankly, I am not interested in space magic at all. Same goes for the end justifies the means.

One of the (several) reasons I hated the ending of ME3 was that it broke my immersion as soon as starkid picked me up.  I stopped living in the shoes of Shepard and immediately started metagaming because I did not understand wtf was going on.  It stopped being "what would I do as Shepard" and started being "what are the writers trying to get me to do here."  After EC, I accepted this was Bioware's best attempt to explain wtf they meant in each ending and tried to just roll with it.  

The immersion was forever ruined, so instead I focused on trying to understand their intent.  That's why I find all this talk on BSN of synthesis to be "rape", "molestation", "slavery", "domination", and "conformity" to be crazy talk.  When you sit down and try to understand the writers' intent, it is clearly a "happy ending".  It takes space magic to get there (and thus losing the interest of you and people like you), but once you get there, it's clear they wanted to craft an ending where Shepard could sacrifice him/herself to create a utopian peace, thus saving everyone including the reapers.  It's almost like Synthesis was intended to be the Christ-figure ending.  Almost.

So still, I don't know which ending I "prefer".  Maybe after another full playthrough I'll be able to get back into the shoes of Shepard and find something that I can say represents what I would have done.  Or not.  Who knows.

[zambot]

Wayning_Star wrote...

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

zambot wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
I don't see the utopien or enlightenment angle to the synthesis choice. I figure that everyone will be pretty much the same as they were, but with a new lease on life (of all kinds). I think the only space magic here is that communication is possible with all races. Well, to digress some, I spose the delivery system is a bit sketchy, but the the first TV was pretty strange as well... 

Yeah, but TV actually makes scientific sense when you describe it.  "Synthetic DNA" and using Shepard's "life essence" and giving machines "understanding of organics" is gibberish.  Then to take this gibberish and say that it means that everyone's dna is changed, and that now gives everyone magical super power that include green eyes is completely outlandish. 

But I tried to suspend my disbelief because I wanted to try to understand what the writers were trying to accomplish here.  Ok, we have this super technology that makes all of the above possible.  I'm going to call it "space magic" because it fits.  This super technology made EDI "feel alive".  It caused eternal peace.  It cured all sickness and granted immortality to everyone.  The reapers have joined the galactic society, and everyone accepts their help.   Both sides understand each other and new impossible things are being discovered.

That sounds an aweful lot like a transhumanist utopia.  All the things we humans fear: war, hunger,  disease, death have been eliminated through this "space magic" technology by augmenting our biologican nature with the synthetic.  Through "understanding" we've eliminated things like violence and greed.  This kind of thing is not new to fiction or even non-fiction if you follow the transhumanist and technicological singularity discussions.

I find it to be utter BS, but again, if I can accept "space magic", then I can pretty much accept anything that follows as a consequence of that.

So, you could have been fine with any other option?

I fail to see how my opinions on the other options matter to this debate, but to avoid being accused of avoiding the question I'll bite.  I believe every one of the 4 options Shepard has are "valid".  None are inherantly "evil" (unless you pick Control with the express purpose of ruling the galaxy, then yes, that one is evil.  Arguably picking destroy just to survive is evil as well if you truly picked it for just that reason alone).  I don't find Destroy, Control, and Refusal to be terribly space magiky (just somewhat).

 I find Destroy to be heroic, control to be tragic, and refusal to be somewhere between those two.  Destroy and Synthesis both lead to "happy endings", each with its own sacrifice to get there.  Refusal is not a happy ending persay, but is still opimistic since the next cycle does in fact defeat the reapers thanks to your actions.  Control I find to be the least happy ending as Shepard is transformed into a deity doomed to forever watch the galaxy to prevent it from destroying itself.  I do readily admit that is my own interpretation, and if you head canon the reapers into a black hole at the end of control, that is valid.

I didn't see the part where the reapers were defeated if you just walked away? When did that happen?!?

Stargazer scene.  Because of Liara's time capsule the next cycle prepared in advance of the reapers' arrival.  How they actually defeated them is all head canon, but they did defeat them.

[Wayning_Star]

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I was just wondering. It feels like you didn't really care about synthesis. So I thought that maybe you preferred something else. After all, if it can be answered by space magic then you are fine with it. And frankly, I am not interested in space magic at all. Same goes for the end justifies the means.

One of the (several) reasons I hated the ending of ME3 was that it broke my immersion as soon as starkid picked me up.  I stopped living in the shoes of Shepard and immediately started metagaming because I did not understand wtf was going on.  It stopped being "what would I do as Shepard" and started being "what are the writers trying to get me to do here."  After EC, I accepted this was Bioware's best attempt to explain wtf they meant in each ending and tried to just roll with it.  

The immersion was forever ruined, so instead I focused on trying to understand their intent.  That's why I find all this talk on BSN of synthesis to be "rape", "molestation", "slavery", "domination", and "conformity" to be crazy talk.  When you sit down and try to understand the writers' intent, it is clearly a "happy ending".  It takes space magic to get there (and thus losing the interest of you and people like you), but once you get there, it's clear they wanted to craft an ending where Shepard could sacrifice him/herself to create a utopian peace, thus saving everyone including the reapers.  It's almost like Synthesis was intended to be the Christ-figure ending.  Almost.

So still, I don't know which ending I "prefer".  Maybe after another full playthrough I'll be able to get back into the shoes of Shepard and find something that I can say represents what I would have done.  Or not.  Who knows.

synthesis couldn't represent deity-figure, as if you get religion involved, the big guy would come in with guns blazing..reapers would be lining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn for some time to come. I'd say it's more valiant hero stuff tho..looking out for the underdogs everywhere. Besides, with synthesis, Sheppard really doesn't actually die off..remember the transmutation thing...

[AngryFrozenWater]

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I was just wondering. It feels like you didn't really care about synthesis. So I thought that maybe you preferred something else. After all, if it can be answered by space magic then you are fine with it. And frankly, I am not interested in space magic at all. Same goes for the end justifies the means.

One of the (several) reasons I hated the ending of ME3 was that it broke my immersion as soon as starkid picked me up.  I stopped living in the shoes of Shepard and immediately started metagaming because I did not understand wtf was going on.  It stopped being "what would I do as Shepard" and started being "what are the writers trying to get me to do here."  After EC, I accepted this was Bioware's best attempt to explain wtf they meant in each ending and tried to just roll with it.  

The immersion was forever ruined, so instead I focused on trying to understand their intent.  That's why I find all this talk on BSN of synthesis to be "rape", "molestation", "slavery", "domination", and "conformity" to be crazy talk.  When you sit down and try to understand the writers' intent, it is clearly a "happy ending".  It takes space magic to get there (and thus losing the interest of you and people like you), but once you get there, it's clear they wanted to craft an ending where Shepard could sacrifice him/herself to create a utopian peace, thus saving everyone including the reapers.  It's almost like Synthesis was intended to be the Christ-figure ending.  Almost.

So still, I don't know which ending I "prefer".  Maybe after another full playthrough I'll be able to get back into the shoes of Shepard and find something that I can say represents what I would have done.  Or not.  Who knows.

I can undertand that position, but that makes talking to you very tiresome. I had a conversation in another thread and the same happened. Space magic here and there, end justifies the means, and what a beautiful world. Then I don't have much to say anymore. You know what I mean? The same goes in trying to make it work like BW intended. If they really want to know what is wrong then it doesn't help if synthesis fans stay quiet about it and are unwilling to discuss it.

I also noted that when you talk to a synthesis fan about free will and the inevitable threat then suddenly you talk to a brick wall. Same goes for ethics. They want to stay untouchable.

[Wayning_Star]

I didn't see the part where the reapers were defeated if you just walked away? When did that happen?!?[/quote]

Stargazer scene.  Because of Liara's time capsule the next cycle prepared in advance of the reapers' arrival.  How they actually defeated them is all head canon, but they did defeat them.

[/quote]

that's weird, I remember that scene(kind of) didn't even pick up on it..you know that changes a lot about decisions in the end game, as the synthesis (et al) option loses  luster with such aforementioned data.. but then I cannot even figure out what a head cannon is..lol

[Wayning_Star]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I was just wondering. It feels like you didn't really care about synthesis. So I thought that maybe you preferred something else. After all, if it can be answered by space magic then you are fine with it. And frankly, I am not interested in space magic at all. Same goes for the end justifies the means.

One of the (several) reasons I hated the ending of ME3 was that it broke my immersion as soon as starkid picked me up.  I stopped living in the shoes of Shepard and immediately started metagaming because I did not understand wtf was going on.  It stopped being "what would I do as Shepard" and started being "what are the writers trying to get me to do here."  After EC, I accepted this was Bioware's best attempt to explain wtf they meant in each ending and tried to just roll with it.  

The immersion was forever ruined, so instead I focused on trying to understand their intent.  That's why I find all this talk on BSN of synthesis to be "rape", "molestation", "slavery", "domination", and "conformity" to be crazy talk.  When you sit down and try to understand the writers' intent, it is clearly a "happy ending".  It takes space magic to get there (and thus losing the interest of you and people like you), but once you get there, it's clear they wanted to craft an ending where Shepard could sacrifice him/herself to create a utopian peace, thus saving everyone including the reapers.  It's almost like Synthesis was intended to be the Christ-figure ending.  Almost.

So still, I don't know which ending I "prefer".  Maybe after another full playthrough I'll be able to get back into the shoes of Shepard and find something that I can say represents what I would have done.  Or not.  Who knows.

I can undertand that position, but that makes talking to you very tiresome. I had a conversation in another thread and the same happened. Space magic here and there, end justifies the means, and what a beautiful world. Then I don't have much to say anymore. You know what I mean? The same goes in trying to make it work like BW intended. If they really want to know what is wrong then it doesn't help if synthesis fans stay quiet about it and are unwilling to discuss it.

I also noted that when you talk to a synthesis fan about free will and the inevitable threat then suddenly you talk to a brick wall. Same goes for ethics. They want to stay untouchable.

still, it doesn't justify infering that synthesis would or even could be taylored as an intergalactic threat, no more than blaming organics for inventing the wheel over'n over again. There is no solid plus side to any decision in the end game cause the reaperkid holds all the cards. There is no free will or ethics involved only the best case scenerio based on limited facts in the space of a few minutes. Technically, all the choices are limited by the reaperkid, other than walking away and hope the following generation foil it's evil programming error. In that vein we lose more than gain, if you consider those billions of entities harvested are lost. I doubt Sheppard would of left it to the next guy/gal and his bio is infused with the others, so that's a potential as well.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Wayning_Star wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

zambot wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I was just wondering. It feels like you didn't really care about synthesis. So I thought that maybe you preferred something else. After all, if it can be answered by space magic then you are fine with it. And frankly, I am not interested in space magic at all. Same goes for the end justifies the means.

One of the (several) reasons I hated the ending of ME3 was that it broke my immersion as soon as starkid picked me up.  I stopped living in the shoes of Shepard and immediately started metagaming because I did not understand wtf was going on.  It stopped being "what would I do as Shepard" and started being "what are the writers trying to get me to do here."  After EC, I accepted this was Bioware's best attempt to explain wtf they meant in each ending and tried to just roll with it.  

The immersion was forever ruined, so instead I focused on trying to understand their intent.  That's why I find all this talk on BSN of synthesis to be "rape", "molestation", "slavery", "domination", and "conformity" to be crazy talk.  When you sit down and try to understand the writers' intent, it is clearly a "happy ending".  It takes space magic to get there (and thus losing the interest of you and people like you), but once you get there, it's clear they wanted to craft an ending where Shepard could sacrifice him/herself to create a utopian peace, thus saving everyone including the reapers.  It's almost like Synthesis was intended to be the Christ-figure ending.  Almost.

So still, I don't know which ending I "prefer".  Maybe after another full playthrough I'll be able to get back into the shoes of Shepard and find something that I can say represents what I would have done.  Or not.  Who knows.

I can undertand that position, but that makes talking to you very tiresome. I had a conversation in another thread and the same happened. Space magic here and there, end justifies the means, and what a beautiful world. Then I don't have much to say anymore. You know what I mean? The same goes in trying to make it work like BW intended. If they really want to know what is wrong then it doesn't help if synthesis fans stay quiet about it and are unwilling to discuss it.

I also noted that when you talk to a synthesis fan about free will and the inevitable threat then suddenly you talk to a brick wall. Same goes for ethics. They want to stay untouchable.

still, it doesn't justify infering that synthesis would or even could be taylored as an intergalactic threat, no more than blaming organics for inventing the wheel over'n over again. There is no solid plus side to any decision in the end game cause the reaperkid holds all the cards. There is no free will or ethics involved only the best case scenerio based on limited facts in the space of a few minutes. Technically, all the choices are limited by the reaperkid, other than walking away and hope the following generation foil it's evil programming error. In that vein we lose more than gain, if you consider those billions of entities harvested are lost. I doubt Sheppard would of left it to the next guy/gal and his bio is infused with the others, so that's a potential as well.

Thanks for your contribution.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:14 .

[Sarevok Synder]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Thanks for your contribution.

 


Here's my 2 cents...
The Reapers are a threat, their actions prove this. As long as they exist, they will always be a threat. If they come across an organic race or synthetic race from another galaxy, they will attempt go back to their old ways. I say attempt because there is no evidence the Reapers have advanced since the first one. The only reason they're more advanced than any species in the Milkyway, is they harvest every 50,000 years. The Proteans gave the Reapers a bloody nose, in this cycle they have had their nose bloodied and broken. A race of synthetics from outside will likely have been advancing for millions of years and will kick the Reapers ass when they meet. Starbrats "solution" was unworkable from the beginning, it didn't take into account the rest of the universe, even if it had, Reaping the entire universe would be logistically impossible, any logical being, even ignoring the moral implications, would have abandoned it. In not doing so, Starbrat has demonstrated that it is a deeply flawed AI. This alone means it must end, especially when taking into account its mass murdering actions.


Starbrats metaphorical back is against the wall . They managing to dock the crucible when it thought it had destroyed that idea, finally made the stupid thing realise that it could get things wrong. Hey, it only took it a billion years! The available actions (poorly presented by Bioware) require physical actions to perform, Srartbrat is just an AI, it's like EDI before she had a body, it can't make the change itself. It also seems to doubt itself for the first time, it has its preference with the options, but it doesn't seem sure.

Now we have the options:

Control: which it's already doing, isn't working. The Reapers having an increasingly hard time subduing organics with every cycle, and now the crucible docked, have shown Starbrat that it is fallible. So maybe Shepard can do the control thing better than it could? Let's just hope Shepard doesn't someday decide that harvesting was a great idea, let's do that!

Synthesis: Starbart despite being shown that it can get it wrong is still wrapped up in "saving" organics from the nasty machines. So it's not convinced by control any more, it requires a body for Synthesis, Shepard is the only one there. So it thinks that everything will be hunky dory if organics and synthetics "merge," still ignoring the fact that synthetics that haven't undergone synthesis, can charge in from outside the galaxy and hand the Reapers and everyone else their collective asses. It still can't grasp that its original plan was unworkable, and this variance of it still won't address the problem. All of this is obviously ignoring the moral implications, of Synthesis.

Destroy: Starbrat doesn't want you to pick it. It's the end of it and it's so called solution. Despite being shown that it is fallible, it's still wrapped up in its BS. So why did it tell Shepard what it did? It had little choice in the matter, the crucible created the "choices, " they were poorly presented by Bioware, but they were there. There were clearly three options in front of them, if Starbrat had said nothing about it, Shepard would have asked: "well, what's that do?" It had no choice but to tell him and make it sound unattractive.

Reject: The Reapers eventually overcome the current cycles species. But Starbrat was right about one thing, the game was up, which was why it wanted Shepard to make the decision. This following cycles species beat them, we're not told how, but they beat them. The Stargazer scene makes no hint of either Control or Synthesis or even the crucible being used. It simply states they were defeated. Given the losses the Reapers were taking in the final stages of ME3 and the possibility the following cycle found Liaras message a lot earlier than ours found the Protheans, not to mention, Liaras message contained EVERYTHING, not the just the ambiguous flashbacks the Protheans provided. In this case, it's likely they simply prepared a lot earlier and due to the complex information given, a lot better. So when the Reapers, already down on numbers from the previous cycle arrived, they found their would be victims ready and waiting, and were simply beaten in a straight up fight.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:07 .

[zambot]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I can undertand that position, but that makes talking to you very tiresome. I had a conversation in another thread and the same happened. Space magic here and there, end justifies the means, and what a beautiful world. Then I don't have much to say anymore. You know what I mean? The same goes in trying to make it work like BW intended. If they really want to know what is wrong then it doesn't help if synthesis fans stay quiet about it and are unwilling to discuss it.

I also noted that when you talk to a synthesis fan about free will and the inevitable threat then suddenly you talk to a brick wall. Same goes for ethics. They want to stay untouchable.

Well, you are attempting to use logic on something that is completely illogical.  Synthesis uses space magic, and space magic is vacuous.  It's no different than Calvin Ball.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Here's my 2 cents...
The Reapers are a threat, their actions prove this. As long as they exist, they will always be a threat. If they come across an organic race or synthetic race from another galaxy, they will attempt go back to their old ways. I say attempt because there is no evidence the Reapers have advanced since the first one. The only reason they're more advanced than any species in the Milkyway, is they harvest every 50,000 years. The Proteans gave the Reapers a bloody nose, in this cycle they have had their nose bloodied and broken. A race of synthetics from outside will likely have been advancing for millions of years and will kick the Reapers ass when they meet. Starbrats "solution" was unworkable from the beginning, it didn't take into account the rest of the universe, even if it had, Reaping the entire universe would be logistically impossible, any logical being, even ignoring the moral implications, would have abandoned it. In not doing so, Starbrat has demonstrated that it is a deeply flawed AI. This alone means it must end, especially when taking into account its mass murdering actions.

Starbrats metaphorical back is against the wall . They managing to dock the crucible when it thought it had destroyed that idea, finally made the stupid thing realise that it could get things wrong. Hey, it only took it a billion years! The available actions (poorly presented by Bioware) require physical actions to perform, Srartbrat is just an AI, it's like EDI before she had a body, it can't make the change itself. It also seems to doubt itself for the first time, it has its preference with the options, but it doesn't seem sure.

Now we have the options:

Control: which it's already doing, isn't working. The Reapers having an increasingly hard time subduing organics with every cycle, and now the crucible docked, have shown Starbrat that it is fallible. So maybe Shepard can do the control thing better than it could? Let's just hope Shepard doesn't someday decide that harvesting was a great idea, let's do that!

Synthesis: Starbart despite being shown that it can get it wrong is still wrapped up in "saving" organics from the nasty machines. So it's not convinced by control any more, it requires a body for Synthesis, Shepard is the only one there. So it thinks that everything will be hunky dory if organics and synthetics "merge," still ignoring the fact that synthetics that haven't undergone synthesis, can charge in from outside the galaxy and hand the Reapers and everyone else their collective asses. It still can't grasp that its original plan was unworkable, and this variance of it still won't address the problem. All of this is obviously ignoring the moral implications, of Synthesis.

Destroy: Starbrat doesn't want you to pick it. It's the end of it and it's so called solution. Despite being shown that it is fallible, it's still wrapped up in its BS. So why did it tell Shepard what it did? It had little choice in the matter, the crucible created the "choices, " they were poorly presented by Bioware, but they were there. There were clearly three options in front of them, if Starbrat had said nothing about it, Shepard would have asked: "well, what's that do?" It had no choice but to tell him and make it sound unattractive.

Reject: The Reapers eventually overcome the current cycles species. But Starbrat was right about one thing, the game was up, which was why it wanted Shepard to make the decision. This following cycles species beat them, we're not told how, but they beat them. The Stargazer scene makes no hint of either Control or Synthesis or even the crucible being used. It simply states they were defeated. Given the losses the Reapers were taking in the final stages of ME3 and the possibility the following cycle found Liaras message a lot earlier than ours found the Protheans, not to mention, Liaras message contained EVERYTHING, not the just the ambiguous flashbacks the Protheans provided. In this case, it's likely they simply prepared a lot earlier and due to the complex information given, a lot better. So when the Reapers, already down on numbers from the previous cycle arrived, they found their would be victims ready and waiting, and were simply beaten in a straight up fight.

You make some excellent points there. I completely forgot about the implications of not having reapers elsewhere. Yup. That could have weakened the reapers here compared to the (likely) stronger force out there.

There is another possiblity. The reapers came from elsewhere themselves. But that makes things only more complex. Let's skip that.

Even if there is no real threat, say the brat made an error, then even then they could go to war.

All in all, a very good post.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Thinking about the cycles some more, that also means that each cycle will have a diminished return. That has to do with that their harvesting method limits all civilizations to evolve along roughly the same lines and 50,000 years later they end. There is only so much that can evolve or be developed in that time. Does that make sense?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:03 .

[Sarevok Synder]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Thinking about the cycles some more, that also means that each cycle will have a diminished return. That has to do with that their harvesting method limits all civilizations to evolve along roughly the same lines and 50,000 years later they end. There is only so much that can evolve or be developed in that time. Does that make sense?

There is no indication the Reapers advance at all, they've never had to. The 50,000 year cycle and engineering how organics advanced meant they always had the advantage. Even then, they were losing their grip on the Milkyway. Organics and Synthetics from other Galaxies won't have this Reaper interference in their advancement, there is no question that they will advance far beyond the Reapers, it's a certainty. This is why Sratbrats plan was unworkable, even if it tried to harvest other Galaxies, there are simply too many of them and the distances too great. It is trying to achieve the unachievable. Like I said, a logical being would have realised this in the beginning and abandoned this "solution." This is why Starbrat needs to be destroyed, there in nothing more dangerous than an idiot with too much power.

The plot is very similar to Tron Legacy. Clu was trying to acheive perfection, but perfection is unachievable. Rather than just live their lives and improve, they were trying to achieve something that is unknowable, after all, who is to say what perfection is? In Starbrats case, it was trying to prevent something that it said was inevitable, Synthetics will wipe out all life. Never mind the fact that this simply isn't true, peace between the Quarians and Geth prove this, it can't police the entire universe, so those nasty Synthetics who just hate everything which isn't them will be arriving some day, one way or another.

So its solution was an exercise in futility. After all, if it's correct and Synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, nothing it does will prevent it, if its actions can prevent it, then it's not inevitable in the first place. It failed at basic logic.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:58 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Thinking about the cycles some more, that also means that each cycle will have a diminished return. That has to do with that their harvesting method limits all civilizations to evolve along roughly the same lines and 50,000 years later they end. There is only so much that can evolve or be developed in that time. Does that make sense?

There is no indication the Reapers advance at all, they've never had to. The 50,000 year cycle and engineering how organics advanced meant they always had the advantage. Even then, they were losing their grip on the Milkyway. Organics and Synthetics from other Galaxies won't have this Reaper interference in their advancement, there is no question that they will advance far beyond the Reapers, it's a certainty. This is why Sratbrats plan was unworkable, even if it tried to harvest other Galaxies, there are simply too many of them and the distances too great. It is trying to achieve the unachievable. Like I said, a logical being would have realised this in the beginning and abandoned this "solution." This is why Starbrat needs to be destroyed, there in nothing more dangerous than an idiot with too much power.

The plot is very similar to Tron Legacy. Clu was trying to acheive perfection, but perfection is unachievable. Rather than just live their lives and improve, they were trying to achieve something that is unknowable, after all, who is to say what perfection is? In Starbrats case, it was trying to prevent something that it said was inevitable, Synthetics will wipe out all life. Never mind the fact that this simply isn't true, peace between the Quarians and Geth prove this, it can't police the entire universe.

So its solution was an exercise in futility. After all, if it's correct and Synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, nothing it does will prevent it, if its actions can prevent it, then it's not inevitable in the first place. It failed at Basic logic.

Yes, I understood the logic error. That also goes for the tech singularity. It is more than likely tech will not approach a singularity when it has no reason to advance. There has to be a need. Even Gordon Moore believes that. You can try to approach the Omega Point but that one is controlled, because it is purpose built. There must be a bump in the road in that one too, because so far we don't observe one starting elsewhere.

[Sarevok Synder]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Yes, I understood the logic error. That also goes for the tech singularity. It is more than likely tech will not approach a singularity when it has no reason to advance. There has to be a need. Even Gordon Moore believes that. You can try to approach the Omega Point but that one is controlled, because it is purpose built. There must be a bump in the road in that one too, because so far we don't observe one starting elsewhere.

Exactly, if something is truly inevitable, nothing anyone or anything does will prevent it. Starbrat and its creators were acting out of fear, not logic or necessity.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Yes, I understood the logic error. That also goes for the tech singularity. It is more than likely tech will not approach a singularity when it has no reason to advance. There has to be a need. Even Gordon Moore believes that. You can try to approach the Omega Point but that one is controlled, because it is purpose built. There must be a bump in the road in that one too, because so far we don't observe one starting elsewhere.

Exactly, if something is truly inevitable, nothing anyone or anything does will prevent it. Starbrat and its creators were acting out of fear, not logic or necessity.

And thus, like I've always stated, the reapers are not the solution. They are the problem.

[Sarevok Synder]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


And thus, like I've always stated, the reapers are not the solution. They are the problem.

I have to say, even though I'm not completely comfortable, (nor do I like any) with any of the endings, I have to say I took pleasure in sending it and the Reapers to the void.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

And thus, like I've always stated, the reapers are not the solution. They are the problem.

I have to say, even though I'm not completely comfortable, (nor do I like any) with any of the endings, I have to say I took pleasure in sending it and the Reapers to the void.

I am OK with the theme, but it annoys me that you need to commit war crimes to end a game for fun. But I too select destroy, because it is the only way to get rid of the problem.

[Wayning_Star]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Thinking about the cycles some more, that also means that each cycle will have a diminished return. That has to do with that their harvesting method limits all civilizations to evolve along roughly the same lines and 50,000 years later they end. There is only so much that can evolve or be developed in that time. Does that make sense?

There you have it, synthesis in a nuts shell program..lol A brilliant broken machine in a endless logic loop. How end it seems to be a prothiean organic upgrade.

(slightly off topic, but relative I think)

In the cut scene, we see different charactors working each choice,

Ilusive man: control
 
Anderson: Destroy

Sheppard: All four (if we so choose, heck, some human like memory might even BE the reaperkid

Over and over again through time different people try different choices as the head charactor. It' like a room with mirrors on two walls, seen to go on for ever. So who knows how long this loop had gone on, Even Javick said their were others who attempted to undermine during his 'time' in the cycle. Now you take that info, consider how many organic civilizations the reapers absorbed. That would be quite the cache, heck it may even include some more "actual" space magic. Nobody liked that cyborg until Edi gave it better, er, humane priorities. With synthesis, apparently she can now stop and smell the flowers as well as do a thurough biomechanical analysis.

[Sarevok Synder]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am OK with the theme, but it annoys me that you need to commit war crimes to end a game for fun. But I too select destroy, because it is the only way to get rid of the problem.

If the Geth and EDI survived destroy, nobody would pick Hudsons favourite ending. Unless there was something seriously wrong with their heads of course.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Wayning_Star wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Thinking about the cycles some more, that also means that each cycle will have a diminished return. That has to do with that their harvesting method limits all civilizations to evolve along roughly the same lines and 50,000 years later they end. There is only so much that can evolve or be developed in that time. Does that make sense?

There you have it, synthesis in a nuts shell program..lol A brilliant broken machine in a endless logic loop. How end it seems to be a prothiean organic upgrade.

(slightly off topic, but relative I think)

In the cut scene, we see different charactors working each choice,

Ilusive man: control
 
Anderson: Destroy

Sheppard: All four (if we so choose, heck, some human like memory might even BE the reaperkid

Over and over again through time different people try different choices as the head charactor. It' like a room with mirrors on two walls, seen to go on for ever. So who knows how long this loop had gone on, Even Javick said their were others who attempted to undermine during his 'time' in the cycle. Now you take that info, consider how many organic civilizations the reapers absorbed. That would be quite the cache, heck it may even include some more "actual" space magic. Nobody liked that cyborg until Edi gave it better, er, humane priorities. With synthesis, apparently she can now stop and smell the flowers as well as do a thurough biomechanical analysis.

Saren for synthesis:

http://social.biowar...990043#12994205



Ah, yes. Synthesis has to mess with people's mind, otherwise synthesis cannot do what it is supposed to do.

Peace-wise, I mean. Because it cannot be the end of a threat that doesn't exist. Unless the reapers' logic is still faulty, but synthesis also messes with their mind to disable the error.

It's getting complicated now.