1238 réponses à ce sujet

[ealeander]

Davik Kang wrote...

Just thought of another thing about the endings.  (I'm comparing the various endings at the moment).  With only one choice the Kid says "there is only one path ahead" but still says you must choose.  Kind of implying that the Refuse option (behind you) is a step backwards  (or giant leap etc. etc.)  Kind of a pointless observation and I've no idea how this fits pre-EC but still...

There are a couple of inconsistencies I noticed from DLC-content being included in the end sequence. The most obvious was Shepard asking "Who made you?" and, upon selecting the Leviathan dialogue option, "I met your creators."

Basically, "Ohhhh, I didn't realize you were THAT Reaper-creating AI conducting eons-spanning evolutionary experiments! You know, it just seems there would be so many Reaper-creating AIs running around that I couldn't be sure exactly which one the giant squid monster must have been referring to it, but now that I think of it, it makes perfect sense that there would just be the one."

Modifié par ealeander, 16 octobre 2012 - 01:55 .

[The Twilight God]

ealeander wrote...
 
1) The Catalyst appeared as the child at the beginning who, to me, represented the fact that Shepard can't save everyone (in fact, the child's one line of dialogue is "You can't save me").

 I believe the Kid is a projection of the Reapers. But at the same time I believe his usage serves the goal you state. In other words, the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. I believe the dreams serve as an indoctrination tool to project guilt and helplessness into Shepard. They reason I say it is indoctrination is because Shepard has seen worse; much worst. And Shepard has seen people he was close to die, and in some cases, been the one to send them to their deaths. No random little nameless boy is going to have more impact.
 
Also, if you say it's not indoctrination you are removing the players connection from their Shepard and can cause a narrative disconnect to past actions. I have six Shepard. One for each class. 2 Renegade, 1 Renegon,1 Paragade and 2 Paragon. Soldier Renegade is very mercenary. Heartless and cruel. He's insensitive, a pig... he's a dick. Infiltrator renegade is a sociopath. If does not respect the lives of others. But charming. Vanguard renegon has seen a lot of death. He's very hardened, but not heartless. Somewhat off-putting.
 
None of those 3 guys would be having nightmares about this kid. Two of them simply would not care. The other saw his colony leveled, his friends and family killed or taken as slaves. He could not protect them. He sent a lot of men to their deaths on Torfan. He executed a lot of Batarians in vengeance for Mindoir. His theme is vengeance. He does not cry. He get's pay back. He knows he can't save everybody. His entire life has taught him this. If he's having any nightmares it would be the death of his own family. Not some kid he met for 15 seconds.
 
None of my Shepards would have nightmares about that kid. Not even the most paragon of the paragon. Not because they don't care, but because they've seen worse. They are all used to much worse.
 

ealeander wrote...

2) This idea of the central moral conflict being Shepard's inability to save everyone is reinforced in three ways. First, Saren's indoctrination was based on his notion that he could save everyone by joining the Reapers, but it was made clear in the first game that this was a false choice.

Good point. Especially, in light of why people choose Synthesis or Control.
 

ealeander wrote...
 
3) Interestingly, the "I Refuse These Choices" represents the "bad" good ending, as Shepard resists indoctrination but succumbs to a final failure of nerve and leadership as she proves unable to make that final, difficult decision

Refuse is delusional as well. Refuse is a person doing something under the delusion that it is their choice. It gives the Reapers everything they want and Shepard thinks it's his idea. There is no rational excuse on any level for Refuse. There is no justification. I'd call it "betrayal indoctrination".  Shepard essentially gathered the galaxy's forces and tactlessly threw them at the Reapers in a full frontal assault for the ultimate purpose of wiping out any major resistance to the Reapers in one battle. Everything he did in the end was just a trap. The Illusive man make s comment to this effect on Thessia. It is possible that the Crucible itself is of reaper design and it was a trap. Maybe that's why the Leviathans believe Shepard will be different. Because they think he has a chance to succeed where others failed. (i.e. he is more resistant to indoctrination than most.) Notice the Protheans were too late? Or where they? Maybe the Prothean guy picked control. I'll have to look into this.

ealeander wrote...

4) Thus, "destroy" represents overcoming the last attempt at indoctrination in which Shepard recognizes that a final, ugly Kaidan/Ashley-style decision is necessary to put an end to the Reaper threat.

Although I disagree that a "Kaidan/Ashley" decision is made, I do believe people are intended to see it that way. Destroy is used as the benchmark on which the other options it introduces are to be judged by. They are presented as objectively superior choices.

ealeander wrote...

5) At the same time, the "reversal" of the paragon/renegade alignment (i.e.,the Catalyst presents the Illusive Man as the Paragon and Anderson as the Renegade) was not simply a deceptive reversal of the "true" options but a further indication that there was no easy, Paragon out just as there was no way to "Paragon" the survival of both Kaidan and Ashley. While the Catalyst was obviously trying to urge Shepard away from "destroy," "destroy" itself wasn't really a true Paragon option but an affirmation that, sometimes, there are no easy decisions.

 I don't think the ending is paragon or renegade. It's just what needs to be done. It's the only real choice, as all choices can be summed up as just two options: Stop the Reapers and Don't Stop the Reapers. And "Stop the Reapers" is Destroy.
 

ealeander wrote...
 
Your analysis of "refusal" as evidence of indoctrination was also excellent and persuasive, though in the context of an RPG, I still think there is room for it to be interpreted as mere stupidity or moral failure, not just indoctrination.

That's a level of stupidity that is 100% contrary to the character of Shepard: Any Shepard. He'd have never gotten as far as he did with the refuse mentality. The Reapers would have used the Alpha relay to attack everyone simultaneously at the end of Arrival.  It would be something a spoiled child would do. A child with no comprehension of the magnitude of the situation. The fact that it was introduced as a reaction to "spoiled crybabies" who hated all 3 original endings is also telling. The ending isn't for Shepard, it's for the player. That hate for all endings was used as another means of indoctrinating the player away from Destroy; those who picked Destroy only because they had to choose one.
 

ealeander wrote...
 
I disagree that synthesis is just a contigency plan and not what the Reapers want. Rather, I think it’s exactly what the Reapers want: mass, willing indoctrination of the sort that created the Collectors and Keepers. The main counterargument to this seems to be that Synthesis would prevent the Reapers from harvesting and creating a new Reaper, but we saw in ME2 that the Reapers do not need to harvest an entire species to create a baby Reaper. And by the end of ME3, they had already harvested billions more than they had by the end of ME2. Essentially, Synthesis seems to be the culmination of the Reapers’ plan: billions harvested to serve as the foundation of a new Reaper and the rest turned into a servant race.

It's a contingency as the Reapers don't NEED to use it. It exists as a safeguard that comes into effect if all else fails. They can win with or without it. However, that doesn't mean it lacks benefits. In other words, the Reapers rather not be in the position to use it, but if they are and they manage to pull it off the benefits outweigh the risk.
 
They can still harvest in Synthesis. Nothing is really changed. Glowing eyes and circuit skin doesn't change anything. In fact, I mention in my synthesis post that Synthesis is reaperhood. The description the Kid gives is becoming a reaper. They have been telling us what "perfection" is since ME2. Everything was altered in the EC. What Biioware did is have the Kid tell the truth. But it deceives via half-truths and lies of omission.  It gives additional (nonsensical) details about Destroy to make it sounds worst than it is. Others will be lost, technology will be effected, but repairs will be east and nothing will be lost that hasn't already been lost. Huh? It words things to imply things that it later dismisses. Essentially, they are counting on people to maintain a pre-EC mentality and ignore the blatant change in language. I think originally it was blatantly lying, but they decided to make it more subtle.
 
 But in Control and Synthesis it says nothing, but the bare minimum. You will be perfected. You will be fully integrated with synthetic technology. But it says nothing about HOW you will be perfected or HOW you will be integrated with technology. For Control it says you will lose everything you have and you will lose your connection to your kind. It never mentioned the reaperifcation prior to being disintegrated. It never says it is the Intelligence. I never says Shepard won't be indoctrinated prior to taking control. So sure, you'll control us, but you'll also be one of us which negates Shepard's intent in picking the option. Every Reaper is a former organic. They all keep their thoughts and memories too. They all fought against the Reapers too. And now they are the Reapers. None of this is precluded from happening to Shepard. The Kid is like the genie in the tales who grants wishes, but the wishes always backfire in the master's face because the master is never specific enough and the genie capitalizes on this. You want a large penis? Well, there. But it's so big it requires so much blood that the guy dies after he gets an erection. Was that the X-files or Supernatural?
 

ealeander wrote...

Beyond that, there is some indication that the Reapers DON’T seek to create a new Reaper from every harvested species. Keep in mind, we never see a Prothean Reaper nor a vast array of Reapers from other species. Of course, you could argue that not all Reapers resemble the harvested species, but then, is it possible that some of the Reapers on Earth are already human Reapers?

How would we know a Prothean reaper from an Inansunon reaper? They are all in cuttlefish dreadnaughts. The Reaper is on the inside. The outside is just a warship shaped like a Leviathan. The human reaper would have been inside the cuttlefish dreadnaught. This is in an artbook I believe and it's also whay the writers have said. I imagine maybe Harbinger is literally a giant reaper, but not the rest. I actually think Sovereign was the Keeper reaper, but that hypothesis is wishy-washy.  Obviously they are harvest all races that they can. Otherwise they'd just glass the planets and move on. There is no poin tin ground forces if you just plan to kill everyone. What is said in the codex I believe is that only the "best" become sovereign class reapers. The rest become destroyers. So the volus and elcor would probably become destroyers. Turians and humans would probably become dreadnaughts.  This is off topic and out of the blue,  but we really needed a huskified thresher maw battle.
 
I think Reapers take a long time to grow into adulthood. The Citadel turned out to be the womb. They grow them within the closed Citadel and they erupt like an egg hatching. So none on Earth would be human.
 

ealeander wrote...

There is a possible symbolic indication of this as well hinted at in the structure and coloration of the final "decision device." Namely, the "contraption" (as you call it) is clearly intended to resemble the dialogue decision wheel, but whereas Control/Destroy are presented as Paragon/Renegade options, Synthesis falls outside this framework.

I consider Synthesis to be "Rally the Crowd".
 
Refuse is "investigate". You investigate what happens if you don't use the Crucible.  
 

ealeander wrote...

It is, in other words, something alien to the framework that Shepard has operated within up to that point and the mechanisms of her will as we’ve known it. But if this is not the (misguided/false) “Paragon” option or the “Renegade” option, which option is it? To me, the clear suggestion is that the Starchild's "ideal solution" is the Reaper option, an alien intrusion upon the framework of Shepard’s will and a complete turnaround from the paths Shepard had been following up to that point. While Control is dually meant to appeal to the Paragon (it's blue and everyone lives) and the Renegade (sure, it's blue, but you get absolute power) while leading Shepard to believe she is still "defeating" the Reapers, Synthesis blatantly represents a betrayal of every prior decision Shepard has made and a willing acceptance of the Reaper's doctrine (i.e., true indoctrination).

Synthesis is new to new players. But having played ME1 I recognized it for what it was. That's why you don;t see Saren jumping into the shasm. People who didn;t play ME1 wouldn;t understand it. Nobody championed synthesis in ME 3. It's in there with Sanctuary and the Cerberus soliders, but not as direct as TIM's support for Control.
 

[The Twilight God]

Davik Kang wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
Why is Destroy horrible? Do you have a soft spot for the Reapers?

Didn't see this reply before.  No soft spot, just that if you accept that catalyst's logic, you're gonna kill a whole bunch of people, including effectively eradicating synthetic life, which could be considered genocide.  

Show me where it says anything about synthetic life.
 



EDI is made of pieces of Soveriegn. So she dies with the Reapers.

[Fedi.St]

man you know what is pissing me off? after the destroy con ends shepard responds on its own without the approval of the player that there must be another way!

This is the main reason I believe bioware is trying to push down our throats synthesis.

[Davik Kang]

Shepard also says "So the Illusive Man was right after all" during the Control convo, w/o input. Shepard's mind is not her own at this point. Also "there must be another way" is mirroring a conversation with Garrus earlier on the Normandy. They are talking about letting n trillion die to save 2n trillion. Similar stuff is mirrored elsewhere.

I am pretty sure Bioware are not trying to force anything down our throats, and if they are, it's not Synthesis. [ @trolls "no! it's BS!!" yes yes very clever move along ]

[Davik Kang]

The Twilight God wrote...

Show me where it says anything about synthetic life.
 



EDI is made of pieces of Soveriegn. So she dies with the Reapers.

In low EMS, not only are husks vaporized, but humans too, and by implication, other organics.  The Kid says as much.

With High EMS, he says "all synthetics will be targeted."  The implication is that the Catalyst won't distinguish between Reapers and other synthetics.  

He says the "effects of the blast will not be constrained to the Reapers".  He doesn't actually say that the Reapers will be destroyed any more than he says synthetics will.  But he did say earlier "it is within your power to Destroy us".  So going on the logic that you can't cherry-pick these effects, there's no obvious reason why these "effects" would be different for Reapers and other synthetics.  By synthetics I assume he means synthetic life forms, and I think this is a reasonable assumption, as he distinguishes between those and others with vocabulary - e.g. Sheaprd is '"partly synthetic", while other constructions are referred to as "technology".

He also says "your children will build synthetics and then the chaos will come back".  Again the implication being that there won't be any synthetics to start the agression again otherwise.  This is open for debate (as he could be referring to the more advanced synthetics) but the wording ("build new synthetics" as opposed to "continue building synthetics") suggests the former.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 16 octobre 2012 - 10:23 .

[Fedi.St]

Davik Kang wrote...

Shepard also says "So the Illusive Man was right after all" during the Control convo, w/o input. Shepard's mind is not her own at this point. Also "there must be another way" is mirroring a conversation with Garrus earlier on the Normandy. They are talking about letting n trillion die to save 2n trillion. Similar stuff is mirrored elsewhere.

I am pretty sure Bioware are not trying to force anything down our throats, and if they are, it's not Synthesis. [ @trolls "no! it's BS!!" yes yes very clever move along ]

I hope so

[Davik Kang]

Factor P wrote...
Simply put:

A Catalyst is something that sets off a reaction, but is unchanged by the reaction.
When the Crucible docks to the Citadel, nothing happens.
Shepard ends up in an area with three panels. A "Child AI" says Shepard has to make a choice.
Without Shepard, the Crucible will not activate. Nothing will happen.
You/Shepard must set off the Reaction in order for the Crucible to activate.
Destroing the "CSD" as the OP calls it sets off a reaction.

I wonder if this means... that the ReaperKid WAS the Catalyst...

...but because the Crucible "changed" him... he is no longer a catalyst...

...so Shepard is the new Catalyst... but only in the Destroy sense... because otherwise he is changed too...

This would beg the question... the catalyst for what?

Just passing thoughts.  Apologies if this has been covered already.

[The Twilight God]

Fedi.St wrote...

man you know what is pissing me off? after the destroy con ends shepard responds on its own without the approval of the player that there must be another way!

This is the main reason I believe bioware is trying to push down our throats synthesis.

I think it's because he is suffering an indoctrination attempt. Those undergoing indoctrination are highly susceptable to reaper suggestion. The description of Destroy is supposed to have that effect. It is the only option in which no matter what you choose Shepard unltimately responds negatively. The narrative doesn't work if Shepard is simply immune to indoctrination and shrugs it off like nothing. The player is immune to reaper indoctrination, but not Shepard.

No one is forcing Synthesis down anyone's throats. I do not know what it is that gives you that impression.

The are set up to appear as follows:

Ending - Shepard - Reapers
Destroy - You dislike it - We hate it.
Control - You may like it - We dislike it.
Synthesis - You may like it - We love it.

If you still hate Reapers, pick Control. It's better than Destroy
If I've convinced you to be impartial toward the reapers and not hate them, pick synthesis. It's better than Destroy.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:03 .

[The Twilight God]

Davik Kang wrote...
 
In low EMS, not only are husks vaporized, but humans too, and by implication, other organics. The Kid says as much.

With High EMS, he says "all synthetics will be targeted." The implication is that the Catalyst won't distinguish between Reapers and other synthetics.

 
Either ALL synthetics are disintegrated or none are, right? Are ALL synthetics disintegrated? No.  Therefore the disintegration of husks isn't a synthetic thing. The destruction of the Reapers is not because they are synthetic. It's because they are synthesized. It is the only distinctive quality they have.
 

Davik Kang wrote...

He says the "effects of the blast will not be constrained to the Reapers". He doesn't actually say that the Reapers will be destroyed any more than he says synthetics will.

 
Actually, it does.
 
"But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
"Yes."
 
There is a HUGE difference between low and high EMS. Reapers and husks are made out of parts. Metals, plastics, glass, cells, bones, soylent green, etc. Reapers and husks are not strictly synthetic. "Reapers are sapient constructs. A hybrid of organic and inorganic material. The exact construction methods are unclear, but it seems probable the Reaper absorbs the essence of a species." I say the Crucible targets synthesized material as it is the only distinctly reaper thing it could target. Ships are just as synthetic as geth. The Reaper dreadnaughts are just as synthetic as alliance cruisers. If you want to go the memory wipe route your problems don't disappear. Memory is memory. If the Geth memory is wiped then so is ALL memory everywhere.
 
"If Geth memory, which can exist on any medium, is scrapped, that means ALL memory is scrapped. All software, all stored knowledge, everything stored in any medium is toast. All the navigational charts, FTL calculating software, VIs, computer systems, medical data... the collective cultural data of every species is gone other than what is in the remaining books and what the survivors can recall off the top of their head. The fact that the ships can still navigate post destroy shows that this did not happen. Trust me. I don't go arguing positions until I've thoroughly tried to debunk it myself. You cannot have a situation in which only the Geth perish, while everyone else is fine. It's ALL OR NOTHING. The reason only the husks, EDI and Reapers die is because they are made from synthesized materials. There is no other distinctive characteristic to allow the Crucible to pinpoint them and spare everyone else in high EMS Destroy. It further explains why the cuttlefish dreadnaughts do no disintegrate like the husk. The ship is not synthesized. The "terminator" inside is."
 
In low EMS Destroy everything is actually hit and packs a lot of kinetic force too. Everything gets hit. Hackett and some humans somehow survive this. Hackett's ship is dead in the water. He's going to run out of air and suffocate. THAT's what happens when ALL synthetics are targeted. The Kid is indirectly implying certain things in high EMS, but he never explicitly states anything to support your conclusion.
 

Davik Kang wrote...
 
But he did say earlier "it is within your power to Destroy us". So going on the logic that you can't cherry-pick these effects, there's no obvious reason why these "effects" would be different for Reapers and other synthetics. By synthetics I assume he means synthetic life forms, and I think this is a reasonable assumption, as he distinguishes between those and others with vocabulary - e.g. Sheaprd is '"partly synthetic", while other constructions are referred to as "technology".

 
Don't take this the wrong way, but your reading comprehension is flawed. Like a lot of people it hasn't sunk in that the dialog has drastically been altered by Bioware in the EC. People are clinging to pre-EC mentality in their interpretation of this conversation. 
 
The Kid states, "It is now in your power to destroy us. But be warned: others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic."
 
It never specifies who these "others" are. However, it states that all synthetics will be "targeted" in relation to the warning. Thus, it can be inferred that the others will be destroyed due to the fact that all synthetics are targeted.
 
 But the most telling bit of all is that it says, in that same paragraph, that Shepard is party synthetic. This is intended to imply that Shepard's cybernetics will be "targeted". Right there it affirms that the term "synthetic" is being used to signify technology, not "synthetic life". Your assumption that the term "synthetic" equates to "synthetic life" is pure conjecture on your part. Within the context of the entire paragraph that cannot be the case. You are expected to make an erroneous connection between "synthetic" and "synthetic life". That is the intent. 
 
Shepard inquires, "What exactly will happen?"
 
Here Shepard wants details concerning the above comments by the Kid. The following dialog is the Kid's attempts to elaborate on what it has already said. 
 
The Kid answers, "Your Crucible device appears to be largely intact. However, the effects of the blast will not be constrained to the Reapers."
 
This is a repetition of what it has already said. Basically, "The Crucible will not discriminate."
 
It continues, "Technology you rely on will be affected, but those who survive should have little difficulty repairing the damage. 
 
This is the explanation of its prior statements of, "others will be destroyed as well" and "All synthetics will be targeted"; per Shepard's request. Therefore, it is once again affirmed that "synthetics" equate to "technology you rely on", which is a lengthy way of saying "technology".  All technology is relied on by someone. That is the purpose of technology.
 
It states "those who survive should have little difficulty repairing the damage". When you consider its comment about Shepard's cybernetics, the only logical conclusion is that the "affect" on technology will harm those who rely on it more than others. The Crucible will indirectly harm or destroy (i.e. kill) those who have synthetic organs like artificial hearts, artificial lungs and gray boxes. Also those in ships will be indirectly killed due to the loss of power, life support, mass effect fields, engines and navigational capabilities. If we conjecture this "affect" to be destruction we must also conclude severe harm or death to those with biotic implants, the explosion of weapons and armor while in use, the utter destruction of the Citadel (before its relay fires the beam), the utter destruction of the Normandy, the Quarians' extensive cybernetics incinerating from within their flesh and the utter destruction of every ship, car, submarine, mech, etc. in the galaxy.
 
You cannot pick and choose. No distinction is made between "synthetics" and "synthetic intelligence" It's ALL or nothing.  
 
It ends with, "There will still be losses, but no more than what has already been lost."
 
This single line completely negates the implied seriousness of its prior assertions. An entire species being wiped out is definitely more than has already been lost. There is no way to reconcile this with the outright destruction of anything; much less the Geth.
 
If Shepard, Tali, Kasumi, Kaidan, Liara, Garrus, Javik, the fleet, the Normandy, weapons, armor and  the Qurians are fine then so to must be the Geth.
 

Davik Kang wrote...

He also says "your children will build synthetics and then the chaos will come back". Again the implication being that there won't be any synthetics to start the agression again otherwise. This is open for debate (as he could be referring to the more advanced synthetics) but the wording ("build new synthetics" as opposed to "continue building synthetics") suggests the former.

 
There is no aggression at this time. There is no "chaos" and there are no signs of any chaos instigated by the Geth. The only reasonable return to any asserted chaos would be in the creation of new and different synthetic intelligences. The current synthetic intelligences are not aggressive. The Kid knows this as well as Shepard does.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 17 octobre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Davik Kang]

Right well I am struggling with information overlaod at the moment because I have been looking at so much ME stuff the last two days and thinking about so many thread conversation that my head feels like it will explode.  But I will try to answer this stuff as best I can before I have some kind of unpleasant fit.

The Twilight God wrote...
Either ALL synthetics are disintegrated or none are, right? Are ALL synthetics disintegrated? No.  Therefore the disintegration of husks isn't a synthetic thing. The destruction of the Reapers is not because they are synthetic. It's because they are synthesized. It is the only distinctive quality they have.

True.  I think the improved Crucible improves the targeting so that it can better distinguish between different kinds of tech adn organic tissue.  The different EMS beams show it is capable of targeting stuff differently, depending on damage.

The Twilight God wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...
He doesn't actually say that the Reapers will be destroyed any more than he says synthetics will.

Actually, it does.
 
"But the Reapers will be destroyed?"
"Yes."

Whoops.  Forgot that.


 

The Twilight God wrote...
There is a HUGE difference between low and high EMS. Reapers and husks are made out of parts. Metals, plastics, glass, cells, bones, soylent green, etc. Reapers and husks are not strictly synthetic. "Reapers are sapient constructs. A hybrid of organic and inorganic material. The exact construction methods are unclear, but it seems probable the Reaper absorbs the essence of a species." I say the Crucible targets synthesized material as it is the only distinctly reaper thing it could target. Ships are just as synthetic as geth. The Reaper dreadnaughts are just as synthetic as alliance cruisers. If you want to go the memory wipe route your problems don't disappear. Memory is memory. If the Geth memory is wiped then so is ALL memory everywhere.

 This seems to be the main part where we disagree.  Kid says the device targets all 'synthetics'.  It is hard to define synthetic in the ME universe as I don't think it's defined in the codex.  The RL sense is something manufactured but that resembles a natural organic thing.  So for example, the Geth are not described as 'synthetics' in the codex, only that they have synthetic parts.  However, we know 'synthetic' applies to them in-game from various dialgue and information, including e.g. the descriptions of Disruptor Ammo or Sabotage.

The codex descirbes the challenge of building the Crucible as being able to "tune" the weapon so that it can transfer energy across the galaxy "to kill [Reapers]... without inflicting [massive] collateral damage".  So clearly a damaged (low-EMS) Crucible succeeds in accomplishing part A (kill Reapers) but fails regarding part B (collateral damage).  
 
The different EMS levels shows it can have a wildly different effect on those it touches.  Worst case scenrio, it disintegrates organic tissue.  For high EMS, we see Reapers fall, crackling with what looks like red electricity.  Husks appear to be vaporized.

I want to higjlight the codex entry on husks, because it essentially says that water and minerals are extracted and replaced with cybernetics.  In this sense the cybernetics are 'synthetic' as defined above.  It seems that these cybernetics hold the otherwise lifeless body together.  So what I would suggest is that the failure of the synthetic parts leaves the rest of the body unsupported, and as it is now essentially decaying lifeless matter, the rest of the body falls apart, like dust.  (We see somehting similar in the Mission Failure scene at the end of Arrival).

Now, he says tech will be affected but can be repaired.  I think it's clear that tech will be seriously affected.  In lower EMS endings, the Normandy is unable to escape the blast completely, and is found scorched in the ending.  In higher EMS, the Normandy unfortunately does escape, so we can't see exactly what the effect would have been.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that the Normandy could have been seriously affected.  Which is why I think much tech will be affected and in need of repair as the Kid suggests.

How does this apply to the Geth?  Well, clearly the blast was pretty unkind to the Reapers.  Maybe you're right and it specifically singles out Reaper tech.  But I'm not convinced that there is irrefutable proof of this.  What I imagine is that Geth and other synthetics will suffer just as the Reapers did.  Perhaps they can be rebuilt, but I imagine that, though the porgrams can be rebooted or rewritten, the core of their personality (their 'soul') will be lost.  That's what I think the implications of Destroy are.  I can't prove it, but I don't think it has been disproved either.  It seems to me entirely consistent with everything we are told and everything we see.  

In particular, we see no evidence in the EC slides that any AI or synthetic survived the blast.  All we see is EDI's name on the memorial wall.  I know you say that's because she incorporates Reaper tech.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm just saying that I'm not necessarily wrong either.


  

The Twilight God wrote...
Don't take this the wrong way, but your reading comprehension is flawed. Like a lot of people it hasn't sunk in that the dialog has drastically been altered by Bioware in the EC. People are clinging to pre-EC mentality in their interpretation of this conversation.

I don't really see the point in this statement.  I don't want to make an issue of it because I've had far worse insults aimed at me since I joined these boards, and tbh I'm not bothered by those either, because they are usually slung around by idiots, who I can then ignore.  But you;re not an idiot.  We are disagreeing on what the text and dialogue mean.  I could just as easily say your comprehension is flawed too, before every point I make relating to the text and dialogue.  But it wouldn't do anything other than annoy you.  So I don't see the point.

I don't have any pre-EC mentality because I finished the game less than 3 weeks ago.  I had already downloaded the EC.  My opinions on the Geth issue are based on my own experiences, and have nothing to do with pre-EC content or the claims of players on these forums.



  

The Twilight God wrote...
 But the most telling bit of all is that it says, in that same paragraph, that Shepard is party synthetic. This is intended to imply that Shepard's cybernetics will be "targeted". Right there it affirms that the term "synthetic" is being used to signify technology, not "synthetic life". Your assumption that the term "synthetic" equates to "synthetic life" is pure conjecture on your part. Within the context of the entire paragraph that cannot be the case. You are expected to make an erroneous connection between "synthetic" and "synthetic life". That is the intent.

I think that all tech will be affected, but that the device targets synthetics.  As I explained above, synthetic does not equate to all technology.  But the device clearly affects all tech in some way.  "Targeting" synthetics means that it is meant to have a greater effect on synthetics than other technology.  Damage to it results in the wave having a disastrous effect on everything, but an intact crucible clearly distributes energy in a way which has a more precise effect on different types of tech.

We can see from the end that the Reapers aren't vaporised; neither are the guns in the soldiers' hands.  So we know tech isn't vaporized.  I would argue that nothing is vaporized, as I explained my opinion on the Husks falling apart rather than being destroyed.

There's another way to look at it.  The husks are tech-based and resemble a living construct.  This also applies to the Geth and to the Reapers.  This may be a criterion for how the effects are manifested.  It may be that Reapers are not vaporized simply because they are huge.

Note that these are just ideas.  I am not claiming to have solved the problem.  But the Crucible is basically a space magic problem.  I've tried my best to look at it from an analytical, in-universe POV, but that may be unhelpful in the end.  We know the creators aren't perfect and they may have made holes for themsleves when trying to come up with a consistent explanation for the effects of the device.

 

The Twilight God wrote...
It ends with, "There will still be losses, but no more than what has already been lost."
 
This single line completely negates the implied seriousness of its prior assertions. An entire species being wiped out is definitely more than has already been lost. There is no way to reconcile this with the outright destruction of anything; much less the Geth.
 
If Shepard, Tali, Kasumi, Kaidan, Liara, Garrus, Javik, the fleet, the Normandy, weapons, armor and  the Qurians are fine then so to must be the Geth.

I agree.  The line is puzzling because it nearly undoes all the efforts of the Kid to undermine your desire to Destroy.  Something that further undermines my assertion is Shepard.  I earlier said that Geth may remain intact but their souls would be gone.  But Shepard died in ME2, yet appears to have all memories and soul intact following the Cerberus reconstruction.  She wasn't hit by a Crucible Death Ray but still the implications are conflicting.

I agree this lends weight to your point.  I still don't think anythning is proven though.  Maybe I'm wrong. 

I think I already made my point about Kasumi.  We can see from the Shepard ending that synthetic material is not destroyed, or else we'd just have a (literally) bloody mess in the rubble.  So instead, such material is presumably damaged (unless the Kid is flat out lying).  Now in Kasumi's case, we know she'd have a damaged grey box, but I already pointed out in another discussion that even the removal of a grey box doesn't necessarily lead to brain damage or death.  So a failed grey box likely won't lead to death at all.  Might have implications, might not.  We don't know.


 

The Twilight God wrote...
There is no aggression at this time. There is no "chaos" and there are no signs of any chaos instigated by the Geth. The only reasonable return to any asserted chaos would be in the creation of new and different synthetic intelligences. The current synthetic intelligences are not aggressive. The Kid knows this as well as Shepard does.

There is chaos as far as the Kid is concerned.  While organics are running around making synthetic-based AIs, the galaxy is in chaos because they'll eventually kill each other.  The fact that the hostility has stopped at the end of ME3 is irrelevant.  The Kid believes that the hostility will inevitably return, and once the synthetics are sufficiently advanced, organics won't be able to compete and will be destroyed.

If he had said "your children will build more advanced synthetics, and those more advanced still, until conflict ends organic life" I'd agree with your point, because it is those that will eventually end organic life (according to his logic).  But he just said "synthetics" and "the chaos will come back".  If there are still synthetics, then the chaos hasn't gone anywhere.  And if by chaos he means conflict, well then why is he mentioning children building synthetics?  There are already synthetics to begin a new conflict with.  He said, "soon, your children will build synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."  So chaos begins anew as soon as there are more synthetics.  Note that he doesn't say "more advanced synthetics".  Or "new forms of synthetics".  Just synthetics.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 19 octobre 2012 - 01:25 .

[The Twilight God]

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

This seems to be the main part where we disagree.  Kid says the device targets all 'synthetics'.  It is hard to define synthetic in the ME universe as I don't think it's defined in the codex.  The RL sense is something manufactured but that resembles a natural organic thing.  So for example, the Geth are not described as 'synthetics' in the codex, only that they have synthetic parts.  However, we know 'synthetic' applies to them in-game from various dialgue and information, including e.g. the descriptions of Disruptor Ammo or Sabotage.[/quote]

Yes, those abilities are intended to negatively effect electrical devices. Mechs, weapons, shield generators (armor), geth platforms, etc. Geth are synthetic intelligences.  Physiologically, they do not correspond to any organic analogue. They don't have lungs, hearts, bladders or even faces. But even that is merely a platform. A Geth has no body. The Geth can be any piece of hardware, assuming that hardware has he storage capability and processing power to hold the geth programs.
 
The point of this explanation is to convey that, in reality, geth are not even synthetic in the sense of a ship or EDI. When I say the geth are like ships or omni-tools, I'm talking about the platforms, not the actual geth. An Alliance cruiser can be geth. Geth cruisers are geth. Geth servers are geth. Some quarian envirosuits are geth. If the effects of the Crucible wipe a geth platform's memory or melt it or disintegrate it or whatever, that same effect must wipe the memory of, melt or disintegrate a quarian envirosuit, an alliance cruiser, an ATLAS mech, etc. It must be ALL or nothing. Saying the Crucible will only effect one particular machine is reaching. It demands the Crucible is designed with an explicite intent to destroy geth platforms or that the orange energy is sentient and polyvoyant as to literally detect the essence of synthetic inteligences and target them on a case by case basis. In both cases, such assertions demonstrate deliberate attempt to inaccurately force their demise into a narrative that does not support the conclusion.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

The different EMS levels shows it can have a wildly different effect on those it touches.  Worst case scenrio, it disintegrates organic tissue.  For high EMS, we see Reapers fall, crackling with what looks like red electricity.  Husks appear to be vaporized.

I want to higjlight the codex entry on husks, because it essentially says that water and minerals are extracted and replaced with cybernetics.  In this sense the cybernetics are 'synthetic' as defined above.  It seems that these cybernetics hold the otherwise lifeless body together.  So what I would suggest is that the failure of the synthetic parts leaves the rest of the body unsupported, and as it is now essentially decaying lifeless matter, the rest of the body falls apart, like dust.  (We see somehting similar in the Mission Failure scene at the end of Arrival).[/quote]

Husks are a product of Synthesis. Reaper nanites are used to combine living and synthetic tissue. If these nanites are attached to organic tissue at the DNA, or even just the cellular level, the corresponding destruction of one will destroy the other by proximity alone. Going on the images we're shown in the Synthesis ending, a synthesized creature has organic tissue that is coated with synthetic nanites at the the genetic level. These synthetic nanites must act as "genetic bonds". Otherwise, the DNA would fall apart or otherwise be impaired due to the barrier between individual organic DNA strands made by the inclusion of the nanites. Control sends information to the Reapers. It's possible high EMS destroy also sends information in the form of a refined signal that disables these nanite's bonding software or introduces something designed to chemically react to reaper nanotechnology causing internal chain reactions resulting in disintegration. The lower the EMS the more sporadic and uncontrolled the effects are. For instance, the energy is more and more kinetic and heat based, like pure uncontrolled energy.  Low EMS looks like the heat of the blast incinerates everything.  You'll notice that in addition to big Ben being obliterated; the oranage wave has visual diferences and knocks a mako around in the background. Also there is burning debris falling from the sky and it leaves a cloud a black smoke in the air. 

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

Now, he says tech will be affected but can be repaired.  I think it's clear that tech will be seriously affected.  In lower EMS endings, the Normandy is unable to escape the blast completely, and is found scorched in the ending.  In higher EMS, the Normandy unfortunately does escape, so we can't see exactly what the effect would have been.[/quote]

The high EMS blast is a completely different thing than low EMS. You can't compare them. Low EMS knocks down buildings, flings tanks through the air and scorches the earth like it was a dynamite fuse. High EMS does not effect anything, but the reaper forces. Also I'm pretty sure it's impossible for the Normandy to avoid the blast. It must catch up to it as the blast travels faster than FTL. It is shown gaining on them. And it ultimately covers the entire galaxy. There is nowhere to avoid it. We know it hits them because in synthesis the crew is synthesized and in destroy EDI is killed. But nothign else is shown to be effected. Not even so much as flickering lights in the Normandy. The very fact that it even ends up on that planet s a pointless leftover from pre-EC.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

How does this apply to the Geth?  Well, clearly the blast was pretty unkind to the Reapers.  Maybe you're right and it specifically singles out Reaper tech.  But I'm not convinced that there is irrefutable proof of this.  What I imagine is that Geth and other synthetics will suffer just as the Reapers did. [/quote]

Based on what? 

...

Exactly. You believe it "just because". You say their is no irrefutable proof that it just targets the Reapers. Fine. I disagree, but fine. However, there is no proof whatsoever that it targeted anything else. We only see it destroy reapers forces. The thing is, I don't need proof that it didn't do something I have no reason to believe it would do. You DO need proof that it did something that their is no reason to believe occurred. I don't have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is yours. So where is your evidence? It would be like me saying the Crucible in synthesis makes it where EDI and Geth can become preganant. Well there is no proof that they can't have babbies now so I guess both opinions are valid. No, they aren't.

IF you have no proof you must relent. Either way, there is no point in discussing it any further if you simply plan to hold on to refuted claims, with absolutely zero evidence, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

Perhaps they can be rebuilt, but I imagine that, though the porgrams can be rebooted or rewritten, the core of their personality (their 'soul') will be lost.  That's what I think the implications of Destroy are.  I can't prove it, but I don't think it has been disproved either.  It seems to me entirely consistent with everything we are told and everything we see. [/quote]

Everything we see?

We see the Crucible disintegrate a synthetic-organic husk. He see a purely synthetic ship fall over. The fate of the synthetic-organic Reaper inside is not shown. Based on what happened to the other synthesized material we can guess what happens to the Reapers inside the ships. You can't make up effects out of thin air. You have it disintegrating this guy, wipe only the memory of geth platforms (whatever they may be at the time) and do nothing (noticable) to any other synthetics. You're being hypocritical. The blast would have to disintegrate the husk, the solider's armor, pistol, the mako, the metal in the building beams, all the ships, the Normandy's hull, wiring, etc.

I'm done repeating this.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

In particular, we see no evidence in the EC slides that any AI or synthetic survived the blast.  All we see is EDI's name on the memorial wall.  I know you say that's because she incorporates Reaper tech.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm just saying that I'm not necessarily wrong either.[/quote]

Yes, you ARE necessarily wrong. You are cherry picking the Crucible's effects to conform to your predetermined conclusion.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

  We are disagreeing on what the text and dialogue mean.  I could just as easily say your comprehension is flawed too, before every point I make relating to the text and dialogue.  But it wouldn't do anything other than annoy you.  So I don't see the point.[/quote]

Actually you couldn't. This is another thing. Just because you choose to believe something does not make said belief valid. The issue we're covering here is basic reading comprehension. You can confer with any english professor. You are ignoring syntax. I'm not saying this to insult you. But it has to be said. I have to point this out. Otherwise, I'm facilitating your belief that syntax can be ignored. "I am a bear" can then then become, "I am. A Bear." 

"All synthetics will be targeted"
"Even you are partly synthetic."
What parts of Shepard are synthetic?
Shepard's cybernetics.
Are Shepard's cybernetics synthetic intelligences?
No.
What are Shepard's cybernetics?
Technology
Ergo, synthetics = technology.

^^Debunk this.

"It is now in your power to destroy us. But be warned: others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate. All technology will be targeted. Even you are partly technological"

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

I don't have any pre-EC mentality because I finished the game less than 3 weeks ago.  I had already downloaded the EC.  My opinions on the Geth issue are based on my own experiences, and have nothing to do with pre-EC content or the claims of players on these forums.[/quote]

Well, your opinion isn't based on anything in the game either. Don't underestimate the influence of society. Don't get me wrong, I believe Bioware wants to get into people's heads and make them think the Geth could die. This vague, indirect implication is their only tool to get anyone to pick Control or Synthesis without explicitly having it claim the geth will perish like it did in the pre-EC.

I didn't start ME3 until the day after the EC was released. I still had a pre-EC mentality because after beating the game and coming to the forum I am flooded with people stating the Geth are dead despite their beoing no evidence. Other people's opinions crystalized into a pseudo-fact that started as just just a possibility (considering I gave it no serious thought).  It wasn't until I investigated the evidence myself that realized people were full of it. When I first beat the game I didn't know what to think. Like you I considered it might destroy the geth, but I also considered it might destroy alot of other stuff too. I thought it would lead to a technological apocalyspe. Some time went by until I realize how nonsensical it was to think that just AI are destroyed but all other technology is OK. Husks aren't even AI. Just because you've only played EC doesn't mean you are exempt from a pre-EC mentality.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

I think that all tech will be affected, but that the device targets synthetics.  As I explained above, synthetic does not equate to all technology.  But the device clearly affects all tech in some way.  "Targeting" synthetics means that it is meant to have a greater effect on synthetics than other technology.  Damage to it results in the wave having a disastrous effect on everything, but an intact crucible clearly distributes energy in a way which has a more precise effect on different types of tech.[/quote]

It doesn't clearly distributes energy in a way which has a more precise effect on different types of tech. Because it is only shown to effect a single type of tech. You have no basis to claim the oranage wave does anything at all to anything other than Reaper forces.

Do you believe the orange energy wave is sentient being that can pick out which machines are running ones and zeroes that constitutre intelligence and which machines are just running ones and zeroes that just perform complex tasks?

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

We can see from the end that the Reapers aren't vaporised; neither are the guns in the soldiers' hands.  So we know tech isn't vaporized.  I would argue that nothing is vaporized, as I explained my opinion on the Husks falling apart rather than being destroyed.[/quote]

Of course tech is vaporized. Husks are full of tech. Those tubes running through them? The glowing parts? The metalic section at the navel? That's all tech. A fusion of technology and organic matter. And it is all vaporized. We cannot see the Reapers. As I have said on more than one occasion the Reapers are the "terminators" inside the Leviathan shaped dreadnaughts. You aren't shown what happens to the actual reaper inside the ships. But just in case you forgot, those "terminators" are synthesized like the husks.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

There's another way to look at it.  The husks are tech-based and resemble a living construct.  This also applies to the Geth and to the Reapers.[/quote]

The Geth are software. That's it. Some of them were in quarian envirosuits. Some of them are the geth fleet itself. Some of them are in prime platforms. None of their platforms are constructed of synthesized material. Furthermore, nothing about a geth platform is constructed to resemble any organic (i.e. no robo heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.) Their standard platforms are technically mechanical tools, not androids.  

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

Note that these are just ideas.  I am not claiming to have solved the problem.  But the Crucible is basically a space magic problem.  I've tried my best to look at it from an analytical, in-universe POV, but that may be unhelpful in the end.  We know the creators aren't perfect and they may have made holes for themsleves when trying to come up with a consistent explanation for the effects of the device.[/quote]

There is nothing magical about the Crucible. Nothing it does is without precedent or hasn't already been seen before in the MEU.  It's only magic when you deliberately ignore the lore in order to leave no room for a logical explanation. Essentially what Bad Writing "theorist" do.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

I think I already made my point about Kasumi.  We can see from the Shepard ending that synthetic material is not destroyed, or else we'd just have a (literally) bloody mess in the rubble.  So instead, such material is presumably damaged (unless the Kid is falt out lying).  Now in Kasumi's case, we know she'd have a damaged grey box, but I already pointed out in another discussion that even the removal of a grey box doesn't necessarily lead to brain damage or death.  So a failed grey box likely won't lead to death at all.  Might have implications, might not.  We don't know.[/quote]

It leads to brain damage per the codex.

"However, because the implant procedure of a graybox requires the brain to irreversibly shift its workload over to the machine, software bugs or attempted removal of the graybox for maintenance purposes could lead to incapacitating brain damage." The fact that a graybox makes irreversible changes to brain functions, brain damage to the amygdalae is inevitable, even if not totally incapacitating. Best case scenario would probably be severe alzhiemers and worst case scenarios being permenant coma. This assuming it simply shuts down and doesn't burn up inside the person's head.
 
[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

There is chaos as far as the Kid is concerned.  While organics are running around making synthetic-based AIs, the galaxy is in chaos because they'll eventually kill each other.  The fact that the hostility has stopped at the end of ME3 is irrelevant.  The Kid believes that the hostility will inevitably return, and once the synthetics are sufficiently advanced, organics won't be able to compete and will be destroyed.[/quote]

The Kid defines what chaos is.

"Chaos. The created will always rebel against their creators. But we've found a way to stop that from happening, a way to restore order."

The solution is to prevent chaos. To prevent "conflict, destruction, chaos". Chaos does not exist outside of organic-sysnthetic conflict. It is "inevitable", but it isn't an inherent state of a non-reaper galaxy or the cooexistence of any give synthetic and organic culture. It's a situation that occurs. Kind of like leaves falling in autumn. It's going to happy, but the leaves are still green in the summer. Note in his final attempt to sour Destroy it states "the chaos will come back". This implies there will be no state of chaos until these new synthetic intelligences revolt. This implication exist regardless of the presense of any current synthetic intelligence.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

And if by chaos he means conflict, well then why is he mentioning children building synthetics?  There are already synthetics to begin a new conflict with.[/quote]  

Apparently there aren't. The Geth are not interested in war. They could have wiped their creators out. They did not. This entity does not operate or think in short term. It's not stupid nor is it objectively irrational. It simply operates from a "long view". The Geth are not interested in starting wars. Much less eradicating all organic life from the galaxy. It knows this.

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

He said, "soon, your children will build synthetics, and then the chaos will come back."  So chaos begins anew as soon as there are more synthetics.  Note that he doesn't say "more advanced synthetics".  Or "new forms of synthetics".  Just synthetics.
[/quote]

Yeah, "just synthetics". So what? You are essentially stating that the Kid is not being specific enough. So how do you justify jumping to one conclusion over another given this admitted vagueness. Vagueness seems to be the point. Vagueness seems to be its method. The rule, not the exception. That's how Biowared wanted it. The question is: Why?.

I'm going to use that same line of thinking  against you. He says your children will create synthetics, as opposed to you will create synthetics. If the Geth are dead, why do our children need to be the ones to make them. Do you see what's wrong with that statment? 

[Davik Kang]

The Twilight God wrote...
...

Dude.  Before you posted your response, I had already mulled over the things you said and come to understand your reasoning much better.  Your point about the Geth surviving is an excellent point and one that can be inferred from the game.  I read through your post hoping to learn more about the whole thing, and try to reach a new conclusion about how likely the various consequences are based on the implications of the in-game evidence.

Then I read stuff like this...

The Twilight God wrote...
Based on what? ... Exactly. You believe it "just because".
...
IF you have no proof you must relent. 
...
you simply plan to hold on to refuted claims, with absolutely zero evidence, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
...
You're being hypocritical. 
...
Yes, you ARE necessarily wrong.
...
Do you believe the orange energy wave is sentient being

How do you expect me to respond to this type of stuff?  I can't express how disappointed I am.  That's not supposed to convey a moral judgment coming from a relative or teacher.  I just mean that I am stunned by your mentality.  I really hoped that I could come to a better understanding of the game by talking about these things with you.  You've put a phenominal amount of effort into building your interpretation, and into presenting it as neatly and as logically as you have.  There are some things we disagree on.  Many times I have made concessions to your opinions.  When I read stuff like "you ARE necessarily wrong" I don't know what to think any more.  This is a waste of time.

You don't know how much I want to talk about this stuff.  How much I want to learn about the Mass Effect universe, and understand the various interpretations posited by different players.  But when I see repsones like the above, to be honest, it just shows that this is a massive waste of time.  

We disagree on stuff.  Some of it is speculation.  Some of it is interpretation.  And some of it is analysis of in-game evidence and facts.  I have things I want to say in counter to several of your above points.  But if you're resorting to the kinds of argument you used in the quoted segments above, what's the point?  You want to be the preacher and have no interest in what anyone else has to say?  You have already decided that you're right and that's that?

It's obvious from your reply that you don't care, but nonetheless I'll still just say that I am deeply disappointed and I don't really see the point in discussing this stuff further.  On lots of things, we agree. On others, I think I'm right, you think you're right.  But the text I highlighted above indicates nothing more than that you aren't taking part in a conversation, you're taking control of a lecture.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 19 octobre 2012 - 02:52 .

[clennon8]

You really have put together a masterpiece of a thesis, TTG. 

Modifié par clennon8, 07 janvier 2013 - 04:02 .

[Fedi.St]

more and more valid.

[The Twilight God]

Davik Kang wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
...

Dude.  Before you posted your response, I had already mulled over the things you said and come to understand your reasoning much better.  Your point about the Geth surviving is an excellent point and one that can be inferred from the game.  I read through your post hoping to learn more about the whole thing, and try to reach a new conclusion about how likely the various consequences are based on the implications of the in-game evidence.

Then I read stuff like this...

The Twilight God wrote...
Based on what? ... Exactly. You believe it "just because".
...
IF you have no proof you must relent. 
...
you simply plan to hold on to refuted claims, with absolutely zero evidence, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
...
You're being hypocritical. 
...
Yes, you ARE necessarily wrong.
...
Do you believe the orange energy wave is sentient being

How do you expect me to respond to this type of stuff?  I can't express how disappointed I am.  That's not supposed to convey a moral judgment coming from a relative or teacher.  I just mean that I am stunned by your mentality.  I really hoped that I could come to a better understanding of the game by talking about these things with you.  You've put a phenominal amount of effort into building your interpretation, and into presenting it as neatly and as logically as you have.  There are some things we disagree on.  Many times I have made concessions to your opinions.  When I read stuff like "you ARE necessarily wrong" I don't know what to think any more.  This is a waste of time.

You don't know how much I want to talk about this stuff.  How much I want to learn about the Mass Effect universe, and understand the various interpretations posited by different players.  But when I see repsones like the above, to be honest, it just shows that this is a massive waste of time.  

We disagree on stuff.  Some of it is speculation.  Some of it is interpretation.  And some of it is analysis of in-game evidence and facts.  I have things I want to say in counter to several of your above points.  But if you're resorting to the kinds of argument you used in the quoted segments above, what's the point?  You want to be the preacher and have no interest in what anyone else has to say?  You have already decided that you're right and that's that?

It's obvious from your reply that you don't care, but nonetheless I'll still just say that I am deeply disappointed and I don't really see the point in discussing this stuff further.  On lots of things, we agree. On others, I think I'm right, you think you're right.  But the text I highlighted above indicates nothing more than that you aren't taking part in a conversation, you're taking control of a lecture.

I've been away for awhile so forgive me if I've overlooked some detail and misunderstood some facet of your comments.

Sorry you felt that way, but as I recall saying on multiple occasions, not every viewpoint is valid. A sheer desire for something to be a certain away despite all evidence to the contrary does not validate a viewpoint. An genuine interpretation requires ambiguity, both in what we see occur and what is verbally expressed. If events directly contradict a viewpoint, then it isn't an interpretation per say. It's wishful thinking. So I guess you are right. It wasn't a conversation. It was a lecture because my stance is based on the game itself; Not an opinion. If anyone disagreed they were welcome to demonstrate where I went wrong. Nobody, not a single person, could do that. Sure, people disagreed for the sake of disagreement because they wanted things to be a certain way, but none of their wishful thinking stood up to scrutiny. In light of this fact, how can I take any opposing view seriously?

[Wayning_Star]

The Twilight God wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
...

Dude.  Before you posted your response, I had already mulled over the things you said and come to understand your reasoning much better.  Your point about the Geth surviving is an excellent point and one that can be inferred from the game.  I read through your post hoping to learn more about the whole thing, and try to reach a new conclusion about how likely the various consequences are based on the implications of the in-game evidence.

Then I read stuff like this...

The Twilight God wrote...
Based on what? ... Exactly. You believe it "just because".
...
IF you have no proof you must relent. 
...
you simply plan to hold on to refuted claims, with absolutely zero evidence, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
...
You're being hypocritical. 
...
Yes, you ARE necessarily wrong.
...
Do you believe the orange energy wave is sentient being

How do you expect me to respond to this type of stuff?  I can't express how disappointed I am.  That's not supposed to convey a moral judgment coming from a relative or teacher.  I just mean that I am stunned by your mentality.  I really hoped that I could come to a better understanding of the game by talking about these things with you.  You've put a phenominal amount of effort into building your interpretation, and into presenting it as neatly and as logically as you have.  There are some things we disagree on.  Many times I have made concessions to your opinions.  When I read stuff like "you ARE necessarily wrong" I don't know what to think any more.  This is a waste of time.

You don't know how much I want to talk about this stuff.  How much I want to learn about the Mass Effect universe, and understand the various interpretations posited by different players.  But when I see repsones like the above, to be honest, it just shows that this is a massive waste of time.  

We disagree on stuff.  Some of it is speculation.  Some of it is interpretation.  And some of it is analysis of in-game evidence and facts.  I have things I want to say in counter to several of your above points.  But if you're resorting to the kinds of argument you used in the quoted segments above, what's the point?  You want to be the preacher and have no interest in what anyone else has to say?  You have already decided that you're right and that's that?

It's obvious from your reply that you don't care, but nonetheless I'll still just say that I am deeply disappointed and I don't really see the point in discussing this stuff further.  On lots of things, we agree. On others, I think I'm right, you think you're right.  But the text I highlighted above indicates nothing more than that you aren't taking part in a conversation, you're taking control of a lecture.

I've been away for awhile so forgive me if I've overlooked some detail and misunderstood some facet of your comments.

Sorry you felt that way, but as I recall saying on multiple occasions, not every viewpoint is valid. A sheer desire for something to be a certain away despite all evidence to the contrary does not validate a viewpoint. An genuine interpretation requires ambiguity, both in what we see occur and what is verbally expressed. If events directly contradict a viewpoint, then it isn't an interpretation per say. It's wishful thinking. So I guess you are right. It wasn't a conversation. It was a lecture because my stance is based on the game itself; Not an opinion. If anyone disagreed they were welcome to demonstrate where I went wrong. Nobody, not a single person, could do that. Sure, people disagreed for the sake of disagreement because they wanted things to be a certain way, but none of their wishful thinking stood up to scrutiny. In light of this fact, how can I take any opposing view seriously?

gotta admit, TTG, you're pretty stubborn as well, wanting things a certain way, like anyone on the forums. This post caught my eye, as it related directly with indoctrination. The art of believing so strongly, that it rubs off on others. We must just figure IT as that, a theory. Leviathan, I think, was the bioware way of upending the theory, as to direct the game more towards communication than controlling the issues for an end, in real time. I've always believed that Shep never made it up to see the catalyst directly, it was all 'mental'. Shep is ground based in the rubble. The cut scenes reinforces that belief. But the ONLY way to know this for sure is to ask the writers, and that's pretty much moot. But they did provide an out, through Leviathan, tacitly providing the 'idea' of alternate forms of communication, as that is the way their intelligence gone catalyst communicates.

Picking destroy as a canon for the IT was probably the last straw, as well. A game stopper right there.

[Davik Kang]

A remarkable coincidence that I would return to this forum after a month's exodus and see your reply to a 6-month old question made less than 30 minutes beforehand. But stranger things have happened.

The points I was raising included instances where you were assuming or inferring things from things said and shown in the game, and then claiming them to be logically deduced. So when you say things like "YOU ARE NECESSARILY WRONG" you're demonstrating your inability to understand the points I made, and further, to exhibit amusing levels of overconfidence in your own intellectual abilities. Have fun with your small but loyal band of followers, I'll leave you to them.

[Vigilant111]

Davik Kang wrote...

A remarkable coincidence that I would return to this forum after a month's exodus and see your reply to a 6-month old question made less than 30 minutes beforehand. But stranger things have happened.

The points I was raising included instances where you were assuming or inferring things from things said and shown in the game, and then claiming them to be logically deduced. So when you say things like "YOU ARE NECESSARILY WRONG" you're demonstrating your inability to understand the points I made, and further, to exhibit amusing levels of overconfidence in your own intellectual abilities. Have fun with your small but loyal band of followers, I'll leave you to them.

This is a little harsh, I agree with the OP on many points, but I wouldn't say I am a follower of some cult, and neither do I support IT

Or maybe u are trying to pull off "Ooh, I give up, I donno what I am talking about any more" in the nicest way? "You are necessarily wrong" is already quite generous, people had said worse to me

[The Twilight God]

Wayning_Star wrote...

gotta admit, TTG, you're pretty stubborn as well,

Stubborn: Unreasonably and obstructively determined to persevere or prevail.

Am I unreasonable? How so?

Wayning_Star wrote...

wanting things a certain way, like anyone on the forums.

What way do I want things? I definitely wouldn't want a sole non-indoctrinated ending based solely on EMS lacking any concrete resolution.  Pointing out what is presented in-game has nothing to do with what I want. I have not played any ME since completing ME3 and cannot. Trust me, nothing in this thread is based on how I want things to be. I recently found out about  that MEHEM. Maybe I can bring myself to play the games again.

Davik Kang wrote...

So when you say things like "YOU ARE NECESSARILY WRONG" you're demonstrating your inability to understand the points I made, and further, to exhibit amusing levels of overconfidence in your own intellectual abilities. Have fun with your small but loyal band of followers, I'll leave you to them.

Short of throwing up our hands and declaring bad writing, and assuming the story has narrative coherence, your views were objectively incorrect.  I understood your views fully. You presented your case and I debunked it. As can be seen in our discourse you had no counter argument. So I don't quite understand your anger.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I have a theory of my own... which, I believe, is more/less a response to your theory.

http://social.biowar.../index/15148476

Cheers!

[Steelcan]

Just a heads up, this thread could potentially be locked as IT related.

Modifié par Steelcan, 10 avril 2013 - 10:56 .

[The Twilight God]

Steelcan wrote...

Just a heads up, this thread could potentially be locked as IT related.

Hehe. IT threads are illegal on the forums now? Did it get that bad while I was gone?

Well, it's not IT. As this isn't about some dream sequence happening in Shepard's head. This is a lore-based literalist approach which insists everything seen in the endings takes place. It is the nature of what is seen and transpires that is focused upon. The truth behind the nature of control and synthesis is a very general debate.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 10 avril 2013 - 11:22 .

[Steelcan]

The Twilight God wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Just a heads up, this thread could potentially be locked as IT related.

Hehe. IT threads are illegal on the forums now? Did it get that bad while I was gone?

Well, it's not IT. As this isn't about some dream sequence happening in Shepard's head. This is a lore-based literalist approach which insists everything seen in the endings takes place. It is the nature of what is seen and transpires that is alluded upon.

. Yes things did get that bad..... Most of the ITers were banned and they set up their own forum.  Not the point, the point is it could be close enough for it to be locked.