639 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

Steelcan wrote...

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.

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. 

In that case, Synthesis really is inevitable.

[fr33stylez]

Eterna5 wrote...

The Shepalyst doesn't rule over the Galaxy. Your entire premise is flawed. It doesn't stop Freedom, it stops conflict.

lol, so did the Catalyst.

[CosmicGnosis]

spotlessvoid wrote...

^ great sig

The implication being, of course, that non-Destroyers are fools.

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

Exactly.  Yet it is truly amazing how few people seem to get this...

But even if the Catalyst is wrong, do I really want to obliterate all synthetics to prove it? I affirm their freedom by killing them...

[fr33stylez]

Catalyst mandate: Protect all life, stop conflict -- ends in Reapers

RoboShep mandate: Protect all life, stop conflict -- ends in sunshine and bunnies, because it's RoboShep! It's different this time!

[Shaigunjoe]

drayfish wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

drayfish wrote...

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.

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.  

'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.

I'm not sure where that question is coming from.

I was speaking ideologically, and talking about the way this ending undermines the series' journey toward validating the autonomous rights of others. 

Instead of races respecting different forms of life and growing together naturally, Synthesis imposes a blending upon everyone.  Synthetic and organic do not learn to see each other as equal and work together, they are mutated into something new against their will.  You can't celebrate diversity by wiping away distinction.  That nullifies the whole journey.

Hmm, well for starters it isn't a mutation, and in addition disctinction is not wiped away, we are just as distinct (probably more so) than what we are under our current life paradigm.

It is tough to say how people would function idealogically after synthesis, but I do not know why you would think everyone would just think the same thing.  Creativity and creaction would probably become tantamount, as knowledge would become and easily obtained resource, but even that is pure speculation.

I am not to good at this stuff, I am also unsure why you think the mass effect journey is about validating the autonomous rights of others?  It really seemed like it was all about Shep making whatever choice s/he wanted that s/he thought was the best for everyone.  In me1 you bascally pick the representative for humanity without consulting anyone, you can decide to unleash a former galactic horror on the galaxy without consulting the galaxy,etc  Me2 was lighter in this scene, but you did get a choice to nuke a civilian town or a miltary town, left entirely up to you. Do you get to ask the civies in both locations how they feel? Nope.  Me3 is all about shep interferring and deciding the out comes of the geth/quarian, krogan/everyone else disputes.  You could say that those conflict involve the autonmous rights of the geth and krogan, but that takes a back sit to shep just doing what s/he thinks is best.

[Bourne Endeavor]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Again: if we look at even the most Paragon of Shepards and then decide that because they became synthetic the risk of them deciding to kill everyone is unacceptably high then the best possible solution is to just let the Reapers do their job because clearly either synthetics are that murderous or organics are that paranoid.

Sigh, yet another strawman.

AIs are bond by binary code, no matter their sophistication. Therefore, they have no direct morality, instead approaching problems with logic derived from their established code. The Catalyst is such an example. It is not inherently evil because software does not possess morals. It merely concluded the most efficient solution was the one it devised based on data from its creators.

I find it oddly perplexing you can even cite this as paranoia when the game goes to ridiculous lengths to display how dangerous attempting to control AIs is.

Even setting that aside, the core argument remains whether we trust the unknown verse the known. The former requires us to accept the Catalyst's logic, despite it providing no evidence to support any of its claims, while the latter assures the very real threat of the Reapers is eliminated.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

AIs are bond by binary code, no matter their sophistication. Therefore, they have no direct morality, instead approaching problems with logic derived from their established code. The Catalyst is such an example. It is not inherently evil because software does not possess morals. It merely concluded the most efficient solution was the one it devised based on data from its creators.

So AIs are fundamentally broken instead of being fundamentally evil. Big difference. If we accept this reasoning for the Shepard AI then why shouldn't we accept it for the geth or EDI or any potential life synthetic life form?

Bourne Endeavor wrote...I find it oddly perplexing you can even cite this as paranoia when the game goes to ridiculous lengths to display how dangerous attempting to control AIs is.

There is a difference between controlling AIs externally and turning your own personality into an AI.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Even setting that aside, the core argument remains whether we trust the unknown verse the known. The former requires us to accept the Catalyst's logic, despite it providing no evidence to support any of its claims, while the latter assures the very real threat of the Reapers is eliminated.

I reject the Catalyst's logic. I accept his offer to become a synthetic. I choose the unkown verse where synthetics are alive over the known verse where they're dead. While the consequences of either cannot be known down the road (beyond the Stargazer scene) I trust the universe where the AI born of Shepard's morals and his friends the geth exist to be safer and better than the one where they don't exist and neither do the Reapers.

[Bourne Endeavor]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

But even if the Catalyst is wrong, do I really want to obliterate all synthetics to prove it? I affirm their freedom by killing them...

You would rather gamble becoming it instead? Look how well that turned out for Saren and TIM. The issue is the Catalyst is inherently untrustworthy because it is our enemy. They tend not to have our best interests at heart. Control and Synthesis base their entire plausibility upon trusting logic obtained from the Reapers.

Answer me this, why is it any more believable than Sovereign or Harbinger? One offered intimidating superiority, the other never shut up about it, yet Shepard was quick to assure defiance. So what, third time's the charm for team Reaper? Shepard doesn't have one more "****** off" in her?

No, Refusal does not count. That is BioWare being passive aggressive.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 13 novembre 2012 - 05:09 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

So AIs are fundamentally broken instead of being fundamentally evil. Big difference. If we accept this reasoning for the Shepard AI then why shouldn't we accept it for the geth or EDI or any potential life synthetic life form?

No, they simply lack morality; an organic devised concept. AIs determine a solution to an individual problem based purely on logic. That, in and of itself, is not broken. Why we do not assume this for the Geth is likely because they are not an omnipotent, pseudo god, in command of the most destructive force the galaxy has ever witnessed, which Shepard acquired by taking the advice of her enemy.

There is a difference between controlling AIs externally and turning your own personality into an AI.

AIs are still subjected to binary code. Once established, the new Shepard-AI is universal and cannot be changed. I previously outlined how "Protect all organic life" can easily devolve into wanton destruction. The Catalyst itself is an example of this. The Leviathans did not intend to commit suicide when they programmed it, yet the Catalyst concluded they were a risk due to its binary coding. Who is to say Shepard-AI will not eventually reach a similar conclusion?

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
I reject the Catalyst's logic. I accept his offer to become a synthetic. I choose the unkown verse where synthetics are alive over the known verse where they're dead. While the consequences of either cannot be known down the road (beyond the Stargazer scene) I trust the universe where the AI born of Shepard's morals and his friends the geth exist to be safer and better than the one where they don't exist and neither do the Reapers.

That is contradictory. You cannot reject its logic, then abruptly agree with it. By accepting its offer, you have to accept its logic, as they go hand-in-hand. You trust an assumption, despite the game suggesting evidence to the contrary. We have no assurance what the Catalyst claims is fact, nor do we know Shepard-AI will not become a new Catalyst.

As I stated above, why do you so readily assume Shepard-AI paves the way for a utopia? I imagine the Leviathans had similar aspirations. That did not work out so well for them.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

No, they simply lack morality; an organic devised concept. AIs determine a solution to an individual problem based purely on logic. That, in and of itself, is not broken. Why we do not assume this for the Geth is likely because they are not an omnipotent, pseudo god, in command of the most destructive force the galaxy has ever witnessed, which Shepard acquired by taking the advice of her enemy.

It's actually a lot more complicated than that. Suffice to say binary code isn't any worse at morality than the equivalent we use and machines are the whole point of uploading Shepard to the Reapers was to give them moral guidance.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

AIs are still subjected to binary code. Once established, the new Shepard-AI is universal and cannot be changed.

Manifestly untrue. We see EDI change her code several times. It's easy and it takes maybe a second.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
I previously outlined how "Protect all organic life" can easily devolve into wanton destruction. The Catalyst itself is an example of this. The Leviathans did not intend to commit suicide when they programmed it, yet the Catalyst concluded they were a risk due to its binary coding. Who is to say Shepard-AI will not eventually reach a similar conclusion?

Well, the Catalyst is sort of crazy. Shepard isn't. If I thought that being converted from organic to synthetic was enough to make Shepard into the sort of person who made these kinds of leaps I wouldn't pick Control - but I would pretty much have to support the Reapers' agenda.

In the situation you described the Shepard AI would likely choose selective enagement with the Krogan combined with a diplomatic push to try to break up their coalition and prop up any pro-peace leaders. 'Protect all organic life' is a mission statement, not an Asimov law.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

That is contradictory. You cannot reject its logic, then abruptly agree with it. By accepting its offer, you have to accept its logic, as they go hand-in-hand. You trust an assumption, despite the game suggesting evidence to the contrary.

I reject the idea that synthetics and organics are destined to go to war.

I accept the idea that by taking control of the Reapers I can end this conflict without commiting genocide on my own side and also the idea that immortality via brain upload is awesome.

I use the Catalyst's method, but I ignore what he perceives to be the problem and use it to solve what I consider to be the problem instead.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
We have no assurance what the Catalyst claims is fact, nor do we know Shepard-AI will not become a new Catalyst.

Do you mean before or after we watch the ending?

If it's before then I don't know shooting the tube will do anything either. I trust the Catalyst to tell me which thing does what because I might as well pick at random.

If you mean after then while the scene is open to interpretation I'm going to go ahead and not interpret it in the worst possible way.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
As I stated above, why do you so readily assume Shepard-AI paves the way for a utopia? I imagine the Leviathans had similar aspirations. That did not work out so well for them.

I see no reason not to. Shepard was a pretty good guy while he was an organic. I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

[CosmicGnosis]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

This statement made me laugh. And you make a good point.

Thank goodness none of this is real...

[KingZayd]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

^ great sig

The implication being, of course, that non-Destroyers are fools.

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

Exactly.  Yet it is truly amazing how few people seem to get this...

But even if the Catalyst is wrong, do I really want to obliterate all synthetics to prove it? I affirm their freedom by killing them...

It's the only way to get rid of the Reapers.

[KingZayd]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I see no reason not to. Shepard was a pretty good guy while he was an organic. I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

How about eternity with absolute power?

[CosmicGnosis]

KingZayd wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

^ great sig

The implication being, of course, that non-Destroyers are fools.

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

Exactly.  Yet it is truly amazing how few people seem to get this...

But even if the Catalyst is wrong, do I really want to obliterate all synthetics to prove it? I affirm their freedom by killing them...

It's the only way to get rid of the Reapers.

The Catalyst is the "bad guy", not the Reapers. And it isn't even "evil". It's an ancient synthetic being that is more interested in the big picture than all the little details. Thus, we oppose it.

[SeptimusMagistos]

KingZayd wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I see no reason not to. Shepard was a pretty good guy while he was an organic. I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

How about eternity with absolute power?

Eh, I imagine he can hold out long enough for technology to catch up to his level. Once you have more Reaper-class ships floating around Shepard starts to seem less like a god and more like a powerful member of the galactic community. Give it a hundred thousand years and he'll be able to blend into the crowd.

[Nightwriter]

Eterna5 wrote...

Yeah look how deprived and unhappy people are under the Shepalysts tyrannical rule:








The horror! The Tyranny! Make it stop!

Holy crap, are those the slides for Control? Words fail.

Got a bit desperate, didn't they?

[KingZayd]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I see no reason not to. Shepard was a pretty good guy while he was an organic. I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

How about eternity with absolute power?

Eh, I imagine he can hold out long enough for technology to catch up to his level. Once you have more Reaper-class ships floating around Shepard starts to seem less like a god and more like a powerful member of the galactic community. Give it a hundred thousand years and he'll be able to blend into the crowd.

100 thousand years with absolute power,  is still a really long time.

[JPN17]

My argument is we shouldn't have had to headcanon things.

[SeptimusMagistos]

KingZayd wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I see no reason not to. Shepard was a pretty good guy while he was an organic. I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

How about eternity with absolute power?

Eh, I imagine he can hold out long enough for technology to catch up to his level. Once you have more Reaper-class ships floating around Shepard starts to seem less like a god and more like a powerful member of the galactic community. Give it a hundred thousand years and he'll be able to blend into the crowd.

100 thousand years with absolute power,  is still a really long time.

100 thousand years with a gradually decreasing proportion of power over one particular galaxy. My Shepard was already an incredibly powerful biotic with enough power to wipe out an entire army. He didn't abuse that. He was kind to people who lost thing, engaged annoying reporters in intellectual discourse, was polite to representatives of jingoistic political parties. He'll do fine.

[KingZayd]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I see no reason not to. Shepard was a pretty good guy while he was an organic. I just don't think becoming synthetic is enough to change him into an unhinged madman.

How about eternity with absolute power?

Eh, I imagine he can hold out long enough for technology to catch up to his level. Once you have more Reaper-class ships floating around Shepard starts to seem less like a god and more like a powerful member of the galactic community. Give it a hundred thousand years and he'll be able to blend into the crowd.

100 thousand years with absolute power,  is still a really long time.

100 thousand years with a gradually decreasing proportion of power over one particular galaxy. My Shepard was already an incredibly powerful biotic with enough power to wipe out an entire army. He didn't abuse that. He was kind to people who lost thing, engaged annoying reporters in intellectual discourse, was polite to representatives of jingoistic political parties. He'll do fine.

He didn't have the power to wipe out an entire army, unless they're only coming at him a few at a time. If he tried to abuse that, he'd be dead.  Now , he's truly unstoppable.

Has he not appointed himself Galactic Sherrif? To what extent is he going to intervene in the galaxy, and will others necessarily appreciate his intervention? What happens when they don't? Either conflict, or Shepard ends up as galactic dictator. I don't think it's as easy having absolute power as you seem to believe.

Modifié par KingZayd, 13 novembre 2012 - 06:53 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KingZayd wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


How about a non-ending?

Still better than what we got.

... no. Just, no.

[KingZayd]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


How about a non-ending?

Still better than what we got.

... no. Just, no.

yes. the ending we got was that bad.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KingZayd wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...


How about a non-ending?

Still better than what we got.

... no. Just, no.

yes. the ending we got was that bad.

Nah, the ending is good now.

[CosmicGnosis]

Guys, I think I'm gonna have to side with Ieldra and choose Synthesis for thematic reasons. It's probably more wise to choose Control, but Synthesis is clearly intended to be the "equality" choice. Control gives Shepard too much power. Synthesis, as I've argued in this thread, gives power to everybody. I can headcanon that those who don't want such power can devise a way to remove the nanites from their bodies.

I find this choice to be more appealing in the grand scheme of things than Control and Destroy. Created and Creator are equal. Individuals have more control over their personal development. A single entity doesn't guide the evolution of the galaxy, and an entire form of existence isn't obliterated to ensure the freedom of another.

The removal of the Reapers' Lovecraftian mystique is also important to me, and I think Synthesis accomplishes this the most.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 13 novembre 2012 - 07:17 .