CosmicGnosis wrote...
If you can headcanon good things about Destroy, then I can headcanon good things about Control and Synthesis. Especially Synthesis because its short-term and long-term consequences are the most ambiguous.
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.What would ShepAI do if it became apparent that NO-ONE wanted to live under the shadow of an immortal, AI-God?
Xilizhra wrote...
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.
Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 12 novembre 2012 - 10:22 .
Well, the number of wars fought against gods is zero.How many wars have been fought in the name of Gods in Earth's history alone?
This is rather like asking President Obama what he would do if the American people suddenly all became unfailingly generous and cooperative and would make Communism work perfectly; the premise is incompatible with basic psychology and the question is without value. The circumstances leading to such an event would be so bizarre that I don't know what I would do; I'd have to assess the situation as it came.You know, your Shepard really would make a superb replacement for the Catalyst, because just like the Catalyst, you haven't answered the question. You've ducked it. What would your Shepard do if it became apparent that the civilisations of the galaxy didn't want to be ruled and watched over by an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal cyberdeity with an unstoppable Reaper army? If they fought for their freedom, what would your ShepAI do?
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.
That's an impossibly naive viewpoint.
Shepard would effectively be a God.
How many wars have been fought in the name of Gods in Earth's history?
You know, your Shepard really would make a superb replacement for the Catalyst, because just like the Catalyst, you haven't answered the question. You've ducked it. What would your Shepard do if it became apparent that the civilisations of the galaxy didn't want to be ruled and watched over by an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal cyberdeity with an unstoppable Reaper army? If they fought for their freedom, what would your ShepAI do?
Modifié par Eterna5, 12 novembre 2012 - 10:26 .
Xilizhra wrote...
Well, the number of wars fought against gods is zero.
This is rather like asking President Obama what he would do if the American people suddenly all became unfailingly generous and cooperative and would make Communism work perfectly; the premise is incompatible with basic psychology and the question is without value. The circumstances leading to such an event would be so bizarre that I don't know what I would do; I'd have to assess the situation as it came.
Eterna5 wrote...
The Shepalyst doesn't rule over the Galaxy. Your entire premise is flawed. It doesn't stop Freedom, it stops conflict.
Eterna5 wrote...
Control haters are so silly.
I'm no more headcanoning it than you are. And it's not that they'd necessarily appreciate it, it's that they won't find a reason to rebel. There's a huge line.OK, so not only do you want to headcanon everything that Shepard is/becomes in the Control ending, you know want to headcanon the entire galaxy's response to it as well?
Shepard was human. Shepard ascends to become a supreme being. Do you think every other race in the galaxy will appreciate having a human as a supreme being?
It's one thing to believe in a God, it's another entirely to know for an absolute fact that it's there, watching...
KingZayd wrote...
Equally flawed? Nowhere near. The literal endings are the worst I've ever seen, and it would be difficult to come up with worse without trying to do so.
drayfish wrote...
I agree completely that Destroy seems a total betrayal of the galaxy's ideological growth - we spend three games coming to legitimise the validity of synthetic life, treasuring their right to live, only to lay them on a sacrificial altar to some sick, intolerant god.CosmicGnosis wrote...
I really don't think Destroy works for me. As I've replayed the series, I've seen many examples of how the galaxy fears and hates synthetics. Destroy is an acceptable choice for the majority of galactic citizens. It's not acceptable to me. It doesn't challenge people to rethink their beliefs in any way. They will be glad that the geth are dead. They will not "learn their lesson".
Unless... Destroy is supposed to be an ironic tragedy for synthetics. The beings who worked so hard to attain freedom are sacrificed for the freedom of a galaxy that hates them.
'Sure, sure, fellas - you've got the right to live... Just not as much as our guys.'
It's a pitiful message that forces us to reject everything we learned along the way.
And sadly I think all of the endings operate just like that. No one seems to learn anything in any of them.
We spend three games watching the horrors of what happens when people are dominated and controlled (even with the best of intentions), only to have finally Shepard decide that, nah... things will be different if it's him who is in charge. And that's even before mentioning the flashing red warning signs about being arrogant enough to think he can trust/control the Reapers when no one else ever has...
And if embraced naturally, I'm sure synthesis could be a bold new evolution for all life - an inevitable and revolutionary integration of synthetic and organic in which the better parts of each are welcomed... But all of that growth gets entirely undone by having it forced on everyone against their will. Want to learn to celebrate diversity? Well too bad, there is none anymore. You don't need to bother respecting other forms of life, because there are no more differences; we cured racism by getting rid of race. An entire galaxy of life learns nothing, merely compelled to accept a change they have no context for whether they want to or not.
For a series that purported to be about decisions that matter, I am surprised that they made the very last choices undo the majority of what the texts have been advancing, and to force the player to show absolutely no growth at all.
I'm not sure where that question is coming from.Shaigunjoe wrote...
drayfish wrote...
I agree completely that Destroy seems a total betrayal of the galaxy's ideological growth - we spend three games coming to legitimise the validity of synthetic life, treasuring their right to live, only to lay them on a sacrificial altar to some sick, intolerant god.CosmicGnosis wrote...
I really don't think Destroy works for me. As I've replayed the series, I've seen many examples of how the galaxy fears and hates synthetics. Destroy is an acceptable choice for the majority of galactic citizens. It's not acceptable to me. It doesn't challenge people to rethink their beliefs in any way. They will be glad that the geth are dead. They will not "learn their lesson".
Unless... Destroy is supposed to be an ironic tragedy for synthetics. The beings who worked so hard to attain freedom are sacrificed for the freedom of a galaxy that hates them.
'Sure, sure, fellas - you've got the right to live... Just not as much as our guys.'
It's a pitiful message that forces us to reject everything we learned along the way.
And sadly I think all of the endings operate just like that. No one seems to learn anything in any of them.
We spend three games watching the horrors of what happens when people are dominated and controlled (even with the best of intentions), only to have finally Shepard decide that, nah... things will be different if it's him who is in charge. And that's even before mentioning the flashing red warning signs about being arrogant enough to think he can trust/control the Reapers when no one else ever has...
And if embraced naturally, I'm sure synthesis could be a bold new evolution for all life - an inevitable and revolutionary integration of synthetic and organic in which the better parts of each are welcomed... But all of that growth gets entirely undone by having it forced on everyone against their will. Want to learn to celebrate diversity? Well too bad, there is none anymore. You don't need to bother respecting other forms of life, because there are no more differences; we cured racism by getting rid of race. An entire galaxy of life learns nothing, merely compelled to accept a change they have no context for whether they want to or not.
For a series that purported to be about decisions that matter, I am surprised that they made the very last choices undo the majority of what the texts have been advancing, and to force the player to show absolutely no growth at all.
What makes you think that synthesis homogenizes life into a constant? It seems to me the entire taxonomic scale would need to be rewritten, with extremely diverse ramifications.
Xilizhra wrote...
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.What would ShepAI do if it became apparent that NO-ONE wanted to live under the shadow of an immortal, AI-God?
Eterna5 wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.
That's an impossibly naive viewpoint.
Shepard would effectively be a God.
How many wars have been fought in the name of Gods in Earth's history?
You know, your Shepard really would make a superb replacement for the Catalyst, because just like the Catalyst, you haven't answered the question. You've ducked it. What would your Shepard do if it became apparent that the civilisations of the galaxy didn't want to be ruled and watched over by an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal cyberdeity with an unstoppable Reaper army? If they fought for their freedom, what would your ShepAI do?
The Shepalyst doesn't rule over the Galaxy. Your entire premise is flawed. It doesn't stop Freedom, it stops conflict.
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.
That's an impossibly naive viewpoint.
Shepard would effectively be a God.
How many wars have been fought in the name of Gods in Earth's history?
You know, your Shepard really would make a superb replacement for the Catalyst, because just like the Catalyst, you haven't answered the question. You've ducked it. What would your Shepard do if it became apparent that the civilisations of the galaxy didn't want to be ruled and watched over by an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal cyberdeity with an unstoppable Reaper army? If they fought for their freedom, what would your ShepAI do?
The Shepalyst doesn't rule over the Galaxy. Your entire premise is flawed. It doesn't stop Freedom, it stops conflict.
Shall I list the innumerable amount of historical figures who belived a cease of conflict came through overwhelming force? Cao Cao, one of the most influential men in Chinese history concluded the best way to prevent starvation of his army, due to overpopulation, was to execute over 100,000 innocent people. And in that context, his decision was entirely logical.
Pragmatism can be downright terrifying, and now the galaxy is upon the mercy of an omnipotent AI-human hybrid who may reach very similar conclusions. Is it wrong to assume some might take an issue or two with this?
Modifié par Eterna5, 13 novembre 2012 - 01:01 .
Eterna5 wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Be surprised about having moved to another universe. The entire galaxy will never move to rebel against a power that only intervenes to deter conflict; some malcontents may try it, but Shepard's role will be so far removed from that of the common citizen that popular outrage won't ever go that far.
That's an impossibly naive viewpoint.
Shepard would effectively be a God.
How many wars have been fought in the name of Gods in Earth's history?
You know, your Shepard really would make a superb replacement for the Catalyst, because just like the Catalyst, you haven't answered the question. You've ducked it. What would your Shepard do if it became apparent that the civilisations of the galaxy didn't want to be ruled and watched over by an omnipotent, omniscient, immortal cyberdeity with an unstoppable Reaper army? If they fought for their freedom, what would your ShepAI do?
The Shepalyst doesn't rule over the Galaxy. Your entire premise is flawed. It doesn't stop Freedom, it stops conflict.
Shall I list the innumerable amount of historical figures who belived a cease of conflict came through overwhelming force? Cao Cao, one of the most influential men in Chinese history concluded the best way to prevent starvation of his army, due to overpopulation, was to execute over 100,000 innocent people. And in that context, his decision was entirely logical.
Pragmatism can be downright terrifying, and now the galaxy is upon the mercy of an omnipotent AI-human hybrid who may reach very similar conclusions. Is it wrong to assume some might take an issue or two with this?
Yeah look how deprived and unhappy people are under the Shepalysts tyrannical rule:
pics
The horror! The Tyranny! Make it stop!
drayfish wrote...
And if embraced naturally, I'm sure synthesis could be a bold new evolution for all life - an inevitable and revolutionary integration of synthetic and organic in which the better parts of each are welcomed... But all of that growth gets entirely undone by having it forced on everyone against their will. Want to learn to celebrate diversity? Well too bad, there is none anymore. You don't need to bother respecting other forms of life, because there are no more differences; we cured racism by getting rid of race. An entire galaxy of life learns nothing, merely compelled to accept a change they have no context for whether they want to or not.
CosmicGnosis wrote...
drayfish wrote...
And if embraced naturally, I'm sure synthesis could be a bold new evolution for all life - an inevitable and revolutionary integration of synthetic and organic in which the better parts of each are welcomed... But all of that growth gets entirely undone by having it forced on everyone against their will. Want to learn to celebrate diversity? Well too bad, there is none anymore. You don't need to bother respecting other forms of life, because there are no more differences; we cured racism by getting rid of race. An entire galaxy of life learns nothing, merely compelled to accept a change they have no context for whether they want to or not.
To be fair, however, the leaves are still leaves. Although their biochemistry now has a synthetic aspect added to it, their fundamental nature has not changed.
HYR 2.0 wrote...
KingZayd wrote...
Equally flawed? Nowhere near. The literal endings are the worst I've ever seen, and it would be difficult to come up with worse without trying to do so.
How about a non-ending?
Eterna5 wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
The conundrum here is how Shepard AI would perceive the most efficient solution in preventing conflict. In a previous thread, I illustrated just how a single misinterpretation can have compounding aftereffect upon the whole galaxy. To reiterate, allow us to use the Krogan Rebellion as an example, while establishing the core component of Shepard AI's coding is, "Protect all organic life."
When war broke out, what would be the most efficient, guaranteed solution to the aforementioned problem, whilst adhering to those binary instructions? Obliterate all involved. Sound a tad extreme? Perhaps, but here is why:
"Protect all organic life" restricts Shepard AI from deciphering right from wrong and merely attacking the latter. It cannot destroy the Krogan, as they are a part of "organic life." Even if it were to diminish their numbers, this would effectively provide an unfair advantage to the opposition alliance.
Therefore, under these parameters, destroying both side's entire fleets would accomplish the intended task. Neither could wage war nor would they be damaged to the extent "protecting organic life" is not preserved.
Do you see how easily software can be misinterpreted? In Control he essentially becomes that: software. Even if we do not gravitate to that particular negative. ElSuperGecko offers an excellent perspective, in that Shepard has only his/hers to go on. We have plentiful examples of Control (TIM) and Synthesis (Saren), each having a less than pleasant result. Setting aside the arbitrary sacrifice tacked on, Destroy is only one that lacks prior negative implications, regardless of however subtle.
What this amounts to is an argument of the known verse the unknown. We know what will happen in Destroy, while it remains unknown what will happen in Control or Synthesis. The narrative does a further disservice by requiring we accept the Catalyst's word at face value, especially as it frequently engages in circular logic.
CosmicGnosis wrote...
You know, it's fitting that Destroy leaves open the possibility that synthetics will surpass organics because it continues the "created vs. creator" theme, with the created successfully overthrowing their creators. Whether you like to admit it or not, the Catalyst is our "creator", in that it has created the circumstances that have allowed us to develop and evolve. Destroy kills the Catalyst, the creator, in the same way that synthetics kill their organic creators. Destroy upholds this cycle.
I'm not really sure about Control and how it relates to the created vs. creator theme. I suppose you could argue that it favors the creator side.
Synthesis is the one that challenges the theme. Synthesis unites created and creator in a single existence. It no longer matters where you came from, what your origin is. Created and Creator are equal.
Exactly. Yet it is truly amazing how few people seem to get this...Steelcan wrote...
Actually I pick Destroy because I reject the Catalyst's "logic" wholly. I do not believe that organics and synthetics are doomed to constantly fight. I reject his assertions and the "necessity" of the reaper cycles to keep the balance.
Retour en haut