587 réponses à ce sujet

[hot_heart]

Not to jump into the debate wholeheartedly, but...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Padok Wiks' statement to let the evolutionary process decide who lives and not, in spite of the fact that there would be a krogan empire of the worst sort in that case

The krogan became a threat after salarian uplifting. Their population was kept in check by their own planet before that.

It doesn't really contradict the point you're trying to make, since it supports not messing with 'the natural order', but you seem to dislike it for the wrong reasons. And even then, the krogan did stop the rachni, which means it was beneficial. It's not always about one message or theme, it carries layers, and no one character is authoritative in the matter.

[JasonShepard]

@Khevan77: Okay. I understand your grievances, all of that. I do, genuinely, understand where you're coming from. And I do sympathize.

However you're massively off-topic. This isn't a "The ending invalidates the previous games" thread. This is an "I reject Synthesis for the following, in-game, reasons" thread.

@OP: Good thread. I think I'll probably end up disagreeing with any future thread about Control, based on your brief comment, but I do agree with most of your points here. The only issue I will raise is the classic 'if you're not going to trust it about Synthesis, why are you trusting it about Destroy?" complaint.

However, to answer my own complaint, Synthesis is so far out there compared to the other options, I'd be treating it with scepticism even if it came from a source I trusted. And the moral issue is my main reason for not picking Synthesis - I'll let the galaxy get there on it's own.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 12 février 2013 - 05:57 .

[ATiBotka]

"Synthesis is a trick"

Of course. The Catalyst lies about Control and Synthesis, but not about Destroy.

My ending is better than yours, deal with IT.

[Khevan77]

@ Jason Shepard

OP gave his opinion on all of the endings. As did I. Step off your high horse, my post is just as valid as yours.

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...
That's the beauty of ambiguity and interpretation. There's a difference between what is the "right" or "wrong" interpretation, and what is a reasonable and unreasonable inference to be made from the material presented to you.

Note that I didn't say your interpretation was "wrong". I do, however, see the "technological dark" age as reasonable inference to be made from the material in ME3's original endings, especially considering the evocative Normandy crash scene and the destruction of the relays, combined. As I see it, the question is not whether or not there will be a dark age, since the relay destruction will fragment civilization at least until they can up with a solution to long-range star travel, but rather exactly how dark this age will be? Will non-relay FTL still work, or is it rather "all eezo-based tech" that will be destroyed along with the relays?

You could say the same when I made an Hegelian interpretation of the ending

Yes, that parallel can be seen easily. I'd say it was wrongly applying Hegelian dialectics to things other than ideas.

...or months ago when I argued the ending taken as a whole could be construed as an environmentalist statement about conservatorship opposed to preservation.

That's decidedly odd... Do you have a link to that thread?

...for many people, the images presented to us are heavily suggestive of a technological dark age, and the writers didn't intend them to suggest that, then the failing is at least in part a failing of the writers. They failed to communicate their intent to the players.

Fair, but people need to take into consideration that is their interpretation of the ending, not "fact", and that there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Arguing as if it is somehow objective truth is destructive and closes the door to productive conversation on the topic.

I thought that went without saying. There is actually very little fact in the endings, and quite a lot of heavy suggestion. However, the heavy suggestion works like indoctrination, drawing your mind towards certain kinds of interpretation. I find that instrinsically problematic since too many people are unaware of how this works, and the mechanism works like propaganda. To be precise, if you're not aware of the mechanisms, you are in danger of taking the suggestions as fact. I think it would not be wrong to say that ME3 subtly indoctrinates you towards a Romantic and traditionalist mindset. I am aware that storytelling has done that since it exists, but I find it extremely problematic when used in science fiction. 

A work of art must stand on its own. It must be comprehensible without additional input from its creators, or it isn't finished as it is...

The irony here is the person to whom I initially responded along this train of thought is interpreting these endings framed by pre-release statements by the developers -- something that is, in every way, "additional input" as you put it, outside the immediate context of the ending as presented. I trust that same admonishment is to be levied against them?

I was actually attempting to ask a question with this statement: should we consider ME3 only as originally released, or should we consider it unfinished? The fact is that ME3 was suggestive of a dark age, probably for a majority of players. If the developer intent did not run towards that, then I'd say ME3 with the original ending is unfinished. A work of art should not need additional input to be understood. If it
needs it, if only confusion - unintentional confusion - results from the original, then it can be
considered unfinished. As you are probably aware, the original ending
resulted in quite a lot of confusion, and some well-reasoned claims that
ME3 was unfinished have indeed been made. 

I recall when I made my thread "Out of the dark age" - it was about two weeks after release, I think - detailing three different scenarios of recovery of civilization based on the three main choices, I knew that the millennia-long dark age wasn't a necessary inference but only suggested, but nonetheless I felt very much like I was fighting the writers when I pointed out ways out of it. I was so convinced that this was the writers' intent that I feared that the EC would invalidate my scenario by telling us, in excrutiating detail, just how thoroughly the galaxy was f*cked after the ending. To this day, I am convinced that this was the intent of the two people who wrote the original ending, and that the EC had to be pushed through against their resistance by other writers. That doesn't change the fact that I like the EC, almost all of it.

[Ieldra]

Argolas wrote...
I once again want to stress the point that not everyone choosing Destroy represents a philosophical standpoint, I know I chose it without any second thoughts the first time I got to the ending. My reason was simple: I know the Reapers are powerful starships, but their most dangerous weapon was always manipulation, so I always figured that they would say ANYTHING to stop me from destroying them if I ever get the chance to.

And once again, I want to stress that the fact that not all players are aware of the more philosophical themes or not all players make them the cornerstone of their decision, does not mean they don't exist and don't influence the mind of the players. That's the beauty - and the danger - of art that draws its themes from cultural memes. 

@hot_heart:
Point taken. I mentally mixed up "the krogan destroyed their own civilization" with "the krogan became a threat to the galaxy".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 06:15 .

[Argolas]

 

Ieldra2 wrote...

Argolas wrote...
I once again want to stress the point that not everyone choosing Destroy represents a philosophical standpoint, I know I chose it without any second thoughts the first time I got to the ending. My reason was simple: I know the Reapers are powerful starships, but their most dangerous weapon was always manipulation, so I always figured that they would say ANYTHING to stop me from destroying them if I ever get the chance to.

And once again, I want to stress that the fact that not all players are aware of the more philosophical themes or not all players make them the cornerstone of their decision, does not mean they don't exist and don't influence the mind of the players. That's the beauty - and the danger - of art that draws its themes from cultural memes. 

I think that any philosophy beyond the decisions is completely open to interpretation and does not even exist if you don't want it to. I know this is a dangerous move now, but let me quote Tolkien here.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one residesin the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

I believe that this also applies (hehe) to Mass Effect. There only is a deeper, phylosophical meaning behind it if you want to see one. So yes, I disagree with you on that point. If players do not take phylosophical themes into account, then they do not exist, for their playthrough at least. And I can assure that in my first-time ending decision, I didn't even think about whether or not I want Control and Synthesis. I just saw the option to destroy the Reapers which was what I wanted all along and did it. It is that simply.

[Ieldra]

@Argolas:
It's ultimately futile to debate this further, because I won't be able to prove anything, but just one question: are you aware of all the factors that went into your desire to destroy the Reapers? Am I aware of all the factors that went into my desire to avoid having to destroy them, which I've had since ME1? Tolkien's point was different: he didn't want the author to force an allegory on the reader, but nonetheless, the interpretations the readers come up with are influenced by the cultural memes the story draws on. Sometimes, whether they like it or not. Sometimes, whether they are aware of it or not.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 06:37 .

[Mathias]

I think Transhumanism is good. The Deus Ex series is one of my absolute favs. But the way it's presented with Synthesis in this game, is amatuer writing at best. It's like a REALLY bad fan fiction. But I can easily say that the vast majority of Destroyers aren't luddites, as a few Pro-Synthesis fans would like to believe. We just know how not to get tricked.

[humes spork]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I do, however, see the "technological dark" age as reasonable inference to be made from the material in ME3's original endings, especially considering the evocative Normandy crash scene and the destruction of the relays, combined...

I see it differently, personally. I only saw the endings as a symbolic destruction of the technological paradigm imposed by the Reapers, paired by the introduction of a new age free from that paradigm. If the technology of the MEU incorporated only that imposed by the Reapers, I'd surely agree there's a strong implication towards a technological dark age. However, the trilogy demonstrates facially organics are already growing beyond the paradigm imposed by the Reapers: the Conduit and ability to override the Citadel's functionality and Keepers' response to the signal demonstrates the Protheans were beginning to master the Reapers' imposed paradigm, and in ME2 and 3 internal emissions sinks and quantum entanglement communication (not to mention Cerberus' ability to coopt indoctrination and the Reaper signal, and the development of technology reverse-engineered from Sovereign's hulk) demonstrates the organics of "this" cycle were growing beyond it even as they had not yet mastered it. That was Legion's entire point in its relevant conversation in ME2.

If there were no alternative to the Reapers' imposed paradigm, most certainly there would be a "dark age". We're shown alternatives in the context of the narrative as presented, and for that I'm quite less amenable to the "technological dark age" interpretation than others.

I thought that went without saying.

I agree that it ought to, but you can see for yourself based upon this forum alone it doesn't.

The fact is that ME3 was suggestive of a dark age, probably for a majority of players.

Argumentum ad populum. Just sayin'.

Modifié par humes spork, 12 février 2013 - 06:59 .

[Mathias]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Argolas:
It's ultimately futile to debate this further, because I won't be able to prove anything, but just one question: are you aware of all the factors that went into your desire to destroy the Reapers? Am I aware of all the factors that went into my desire to avoid having to destroy them, which I've had since ME1? Tolkien's point was different: he didn't want the author to force an allegory on the reader, but nonetheless, the interpretations the readers come up with are influenced by the cultural memes the story draws on. Sometimes, whether they like it or not. Sometimes, whether they are aware of it or not.

Well for me personally, i know a HELLUVA lot more factors that go into Destroy than Synthesis. In fact by choosing Destroy, the only lingering question it creates, as opposed to the countless questions Synthesis creates, is whether or not conflict between Man and Machine is truly inevitable?

From the way I see it, no it's not inevitable. We see the Quarians and Geth make peace with each other, and we even see a man and an AI form a bond of love between one another, without some green wave of energy having to hit them to do it. Even without Synthesis, EDI tells you near the end of the game that she feels alive thanks to Shepard. 

The only thing that sucks about Destroy is losing Edi and the Geth. I guess Bioware had to try and come up with a way to get the majority to not pick Destroy, even though it failed. Miserably. 

[Argolas]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Argolas:
It's ultimately futile to debate this further, because I won't be able to prove anything, but just one question: are you aware of all the factors that went into your desire to destroy the Reapers? Am I aware of all the factors that went into my desire to avoid having to destroy them, which I've had since ME1?

About your first question: I only needed one reason in my first decision: I was dead set to destroy the Reapers and not willing to even listen to an alternative. I do realize that this is not rational thinking and I do know that this kind of thinking pattern may often lead to wrong decisions, but my point is that I did not take any philosophical background of the three ending choices into account. I never reflected Control because it was a Reaper trap for TIM, so no way, no matter what it means. I did not walk astray for Synthesis because I did not take the time to reflect and understand what it would mean. I can assure you that topics like supporting progress or not were not part of my decision, not even subconsciously.

About your second question: I don't know about you.

About Tolkien: As I said, using that quote was dangerous because it isn't 100% what this is about, I just made that connection in my mind, and I believe that Bioware would agree, however, I don't want to put words in their mouth.

[Xamufam]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

then, there was no new dna created.

there are several established methods, to alter the dna but all use retroviral treatment.


the
binary helix salesman (rafael vargas) on noveria, tells us how genetic
alteration works. the retrovirus you get, alters your cells, the
alteration takes effect, after cell division happens. the old cell stays
the was it was - only the stored dna is altered. the new cell will be
something new - not the old. this process can take up to 10 years.

what
we see is not a simple dna-alteration (like the starchild makes us want
to believe). it is a complete transformation on the cellular
level.

Dr_Extrem wrote...
for an immidiate change, you would have to alter the existing cell.
the cell is made off proteins and sugars. to alter the cell, you would
have to rearrange every atom in every molecule of every cell. subatomic
parts, the charge and state would have to be altered as well. within a
4-dimensional system.

18g of water, contain roughly 6.022 x 10²³
oxygen atoms and 2 x 6.022 x 10²³ atoms of hydrogen. all of them would
need to be treated equally and rearranged without any mistake.

good luck with that .. the friction caused by the molecular movement alone would vapourize the cell.

this ending jumps the shark. there is no scientific principle in the
meu, that supports this method. altering the mass of somehing is one
thing - molecular and cellular rearrangement are alien to this universe.

[clennon8]

ED:  Original text is below, but a more refined version of this argument may be found in the OP.

clennon8 wrote...

Why Destroy is NOT a trick

1. Association:  Destroy has not been negatively associated with any major villains in the game series.  Control was promoted by the Illusive Man.  Synthesis was promoted by Saren.  They were both shown to be indoctrinated.  Control and Synthesis are ideas encouraged by the Reapers, to confuse, distract, and sow discord among organics.  It's a trick, designed to ensure the survival of the Reapers and the successful continuation of the Harvest.  When the Catalyst offers you those choices once again, it is more of the same.  

Note that this is not an "association fallacy," as sometimes claimed.  The Catalyst can rightly be placed in the same category as indoctrinated Saren and indoctrinated TIM for the purposes of this logical connection.  If a Control- or Synthesis-like solution were independently arrived at by a non-indoctrinated ally, and summarily discarded on the basis of being "What TIM wanted" or "What Saren wanted," then one could claim that an association fallacy was being made.  That is not the case here.  Control and Synthesis are never once suggested as viable solutions within the game series, except by the Reapers or indoctrinated agents of the Reapers.

In short, I believe the association of Control and Synthesis with negative outcomes are associations we are SUPPOSED to make, and SHOULD make, if not the first time around that at least upon reflection.  Destroy is not burdened with the same connotations as Control and Synthesis.

2. The Crucible:  While nobody understands precisely how the Crucible works, Shepard is informed on more than one occasion that the Crucible is capable of incredible destructive power, sufficient to wipe out the Reapers.  Therefore, when Shepard arrives at the decision chamber, he arrives with the knowledge that he should be able to destroy the Reapers.  To be told otherwise would be a dead giveaway to an alert Shepard that something was amiss.

Note: The low-EMS "control only" scenario is a corner case where the Crucible was built to incorporate the human proto-Reaper "brain" salvaged by TIM from the intact Collector base, but is too heavily damaged to destroy the Reapers.  In the low-EMS "destroy only" scenario, the Crucible was built to incorporate the human proto-Reaper "heart," a power source which gives it sufficient power to destroy the Reapers despite the heavy damage the Crucible has sustained.

3. Meta-logic.  So, if the Catalyst is trying to trick Shepard into picking Synthesis (the Catalyst's obvious first choice) or Control, then why isn't Destroy some sort of trick to get Shepard to blow himself up or whatever?  It's a reasonable question, but not the knock-down argument some of you may think it is.  Let me explain.  First, as I mentioned above, Shepard arrives at the decision chamber with the expectation that he will be able to destroy the Reapers.  And in all cases but the low-EMS scenario where an intact Collector base was turned over to TIM at the end of ME2, he can.  To arrive there and find out there is no Destroy option at all would be... strange, to say the least.  So, the Catalyst must offer the Destroy option, if at all possible.  If the Catalyst is trying to trick Shepard, and by extension Bioware is trying to trick the player, then the illusion must be carefully maintained.  Things have to be depicted and told in a certain way.  There are constraints on what Bioware can do, if they're trying to pull off this grand trick and get players to talk about their game for the next year.  If, for example, the Catalyst said "Go shoot that tube if you want to destroy us," but then Shepard was able to explore the area and find the "real" Destroy option...  Well, that would be a dead giveaway, wouldn't it?  The illusion would be shattered, not only for Shepard, but for the player.  Again, Bioware is constrained in what they can do, both from a cinematic perspective and a story-telling perspective, in order to maintain the illusion.  Thus we see Shepard walking up to the tube, shooting it as it explodes in his face, and presto, all the Reapers fall over dead. 

Modifié par clennon8, 14 février 2013 - 04:28 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Troxa wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

then, there was no new dna created.

there are several established methods, to alter the dna but all use retroviral treatment.


the
binary helix salesman (rafael vargas) on noveria, tells us how genetic
alteration works. the retrovirus you get, alters your cells, the
alteration takes effect, after cell division happens. the old cell stays
the was it was - only the stored dna is altered. the new cell will be
something new - not the old. this process can take up to 10 years.

what
we see is not a simple dna-alteration (like the starchild makes us want
to believe). it is a complete transformation on the cellular
level.

Dr_Extrem wrote...
for an immidiate change, you would have to alter the existing cell.
the cell is made off proteins and sugars. to alter the cell, you would
have to rearrange every atom in every molecule of every cell. subatomic
parts, the charge and state would have to be altered as well. within a
4-dimensional system.

18g of water, contain roughly 6.022 x 10²³
oxygen atoms and 2 x 6.022 x 10²³ atoms of hydrogen. all of them would
need to be treated equally and rearranged without any mistake.

good luck with that .. the friction caused by the molecular movement alone would vapourize the cell.

this ending jumps the shark. there is no scientific principle in the
meu, that supports this method. altering the mass of somehing is one
thing - molecular and cellular rearrangement are alien to this universe.

**** where did you dug those posts up - they are ancient. .. i am flattered, that somebody remembers them.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I was actually attempting to ask a question with this statement: should we consider ME3 only as originally released, or should we consider it unfinished? The fact is that ME3 was suggestive of a dark age, probably for a majority of players. If the developer intent did not run towards that, then I'd say ME3 with the original ending is unfinished. A work of art should not need additional input to be understood. If it needs it, if only confusion - unintentional confusion - results from the original, then it can be considered unfinished. As you are probably aware, the original ending resulted in quite a lot of confusion, and some well-reasoned claims that ME3 was unfinished have indeed been made. 

I'm not sure there even was a developer intent; there might have been separate Mac, Casey, Patrick, etc. intents which were never actually harmonized. Some of the pre-EC tweets and interviews sound like they contradict each other.

[CronoDragoon]

The Synthesis/consent problem is complicated. On the one hand, having the change apply to only people who want it would be more ethically palatable. On the other, that's not really a fundamental change at all, is it?

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Synthesis/consent problem is complicated. On the one hand, having the change apply to only people who want it would be more ethically palatable. On the other, that's not really a fundamental change at all, is it?

being as adaptive as an ai is not a fundamental change? ..

[AlanC9]

clennon8 wrote...
2. The Crucible:  While nobody understands precisely how the Crucible works, Shepard is informed on more than one occasion that the Crucible is capable of incredible destructive power, sufficient to wipe out the Reapers.  Therefore, when Shepard arrives at the decision chamber, he arrives with the knowledge that he should be able to destroy the Reapers.  To be told otherwise would be a dead giveaway to an alert Shepard that something was amiss.

This doesn't follow. The fact that a device has sufficient power to accomplish something doesn't mean that it has the other attributes required. Unless this is another metagaming argument. I have trouble telling when your arguments are in-universe and when they're meta. Or are they all meta?

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 février 2013 - 09:28 .

[CronoDragoon]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Synthesis/consent problem is complicated. On the one hand, having the change apply to only people who want it would be more ethically palatable. On the other, that's not really a fundamental change at all, is it?

being as adaptive as an ai is not a fundamental change? ..

It's a fundamental change for the people who choose it. But you'll still have pure organics running around everywhere if consent was really an issue.

My point is that changing Synthesis to only affect organics who want it makes it a completely different ending, in my book, regardless of whether it makes it better or worse.

[Dr_Extrem]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Synthesis/consent problem is complicated. On the one hand, having the change apply to only people who want it would be more ethically palatable. On the other, that's not really a fundamental change at all, is it?

being as adaptive as an ai is not a fundamental change? ..

It's a fundamental change for the people who choose it. But you'll still have pure organics running around everywhere if consent was really an issue.

My point is that changing Synthesis to only affect organics who want it makes it a completely different ending, in my book, regardless of whether it makes it better or worse.

absolutely .. and changing the destroy ending into an ending, where shepard reunites with the crew and edi & the geth dont die a scripted death, would make it a completely different ending too.

we dont get either.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 12 février 2013 - 09:45 .

[Ieldra]

humes spork wrote...

The fact is that ME3 was suggestive of a dark age, probably for a majority of players.

Argumentum ad populum. Just sayin'.

Maybe, but there are few non-perception-dependent ways to determine if a particular theme exists in a story. I would go so far and say that unless it's explicitly mentioned, there are no such ways at all. If a significant number of people see the suggestion of a dark age, it's worth considering that they might have a point. Or how would you determine if a theme is in a story if it's not explicitly mentioned within the story.

Also, may I mention that if it was only for the relay destruction, then I'd agree with you that this was mainly about the technological paradigm of the Reapers. However, the relay destruction together with Garden Eden scene where our iconic starship crashes and there is no technology anywhere in sight, that paints a rather different - and rather more sinister - picture.

[Ieldra]

@clennon8:
Your point (1) is still an association fallacy. There is no rule saying that an antagonist must only suggest bad things. Your inference is carried by nothing but association, the reasoning "X is bad, therefore option A which X suggests is also bad" is *always* fallacious, independently from anyone else's statement on the matter. It - as you claim - we are supposed to draw that "conclusion", I will reject it as a matter of principle.

(Oh, and I think we were not supposed to see the Catalyst as evil, just as an entity with nonhuman priorities)

As for the Crucible, yes, we come to the scene knowing that Destroy is a likely option. But indoctrination makes you think the Reapers will realize your fondest dreams.... You see, I can turn that around quite as easily, for those who came to the scene with the pre-existing desire to destroy the Reapers. Not that it's any more valid than if applied to Control and Synthesis.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 10:03 .

[clennon8]

We'll have to disagree once again, Ieldra. As I tried to make clear, I'm not saying the concepts of Control or Synthesis, as suggested or commented on by anybody, are automatically bad just because a couple of villains endorsed them. I'm saying NOBODY BUT VILLAINS has suggested them within the game series, including the final iteration of them being offered to you. We even find out through Javik that the same exact sh*t went on during his own cycle. You call it an "association fallacy." I call it a syllogism. It's an association that we're supposed to make, within this particular context.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 février 2013 - 10:05 .

[Ieldra]

It is most emphatically NOT a syllogism, clennon. A syllogism is logically compelling. If you agree with the premises, the conclusion is unavoidable. Nothing carried only by association can ever be logically inescapable. A thousand antagonists and no others could suggest X, and it still wouldn't follow that X is bad. The quality of X lies in what it is or does, not in who suggests it.

So, are we supposed to draw that "conclusion", because stories often use association as a mechanism, or are we supposed to see through the fallacy and make our decision - which may or may not be different than the suggested one - from a different perspective? I do not know, the game sends conflicting messages. I tend to think there was no preference intended, and since there are various tweets from Bioware people who said they like Destroy, Control or Synthesis, you'd have to assume that was a part of a conspiracy. I am, however, convinced that we were not supposed to see the Catalyst as evil, just as an entity with nonhuman priorities. As for why that didn't work so well, in a corollary of Hanlon's Razor, I have an easier time believing in incompetence than in conspiracy, especially given some other examples of writing and presentation in ME3.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 10:23 .