458 réponses à ce sujet

[GethPrimeMKII]

Indy_S wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Auld Wulf is quickly becoming the new Sieval.

Seival isn't insulting.

You're right, he's even better. He's more obnxious and in your face.

[Wayning_Star]

when I got to that decision chamber I didn't know quite WTF was going on, destroy wasn't a priority any more. This is just too f'n weird to be a search'n destroy thing. Nothing 'cosmic' ever is.

[Wayning_Star]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Auld Wulf is quickly becoming the new Sieval.

Seival isn't insulting.

You're right, he's even better. He's more obnxious and in your face.

you guys think Auld is that other guy/poster lurking you?

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 21 février 2013 - 04:50 .

[Wayning_Star]

the header for this thread is the epitome of irony, imho

[Indy_S]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I want more, but some people want too much. It's like they want the Catalyst to present every piece of evidence that it has. I really believe that BioWare intended for us to take the singularity problem seriously. It's not just some delusion of the Catalyst. In real life, the Catalyst's argument would be a joke. In the context of a story, however, I suspend my disbelief.

All of the examples we are given of its argument undercut it. Not perfectly, but they make it very questionable, encourage scrutiny. That's a very serious problem.

[clennon8]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Goodness, sorry. I meant that I don't expect a character in any medium to present to me an impeccable defense of their plan. If they did, it would take a lot of time. This applies to video games, movies, books, etc. You might be able to get away with it in a book, however.

You're worried about pacing? An impeccable defense isn't required. A sensical defense consistent with the narrative is required.

I want more, but some people want too much. It's like they want the Catalyst to present every piece of evidence that it has. I really believe that BioWare intended for us to take the singularity problem seriously. It's not just some delusion of the Catalyst. In real life, the Catalyst's argument would be a joke. In the context of a story, however, I suspend my disbelief.

I can't suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that the Head Honcho of the Indoctrinating Death Machines showed up at the climactic moment just to obligingly offer me 3 flavors of victory.  Two of which uncannily resemble the doctrines espoused by two major villains that have already been vanquished.

If that's true - if that's really true - then it is an effing calamity of writing.  A falling down square on Bioware's face, far beyond any of their previous failures.

[BleedingUranium]

KBomb wrote...

For me it wasn't about whether or not I believed him. Bioware didn't really give you an outlet for non-belief. It was a "Here are your choices of kool-aid, choose one."

I listened to the options and chose what I thought would best represent the choice my Shep would have made. Control seemed too unstable and faulty and Synthesis seemed a horror. Well, all of them seemed a horror, Destroy just seemed a little less so, imo and even that was a hard decision to make. I made it, though and I don't think it was the wrong one. I stand by it.

Destroy is the outlet for non-belief. By choosing that you're showing that you don't believe that his problem even exists, and the galaxy can make it's own way forward, and that we can all get along, all without the threat of the Reapers looming over everything.

[CosmicGnosis]

clennon8 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Goodness, sorry. I meant that I don't expect a character in any medium to present to me an impeccable defense of their plan. If they did, it would take a lot of time. This applies to video games, movies, books, etc. You might be able to get away with it in a book, however.

You're worried about pacing? An impeccable defense isn't required. A sensical defense consistent with the narrative is required.

I want more, but some people want too much. It's like they want the Catalyst to present every piece of evidence that it has. I really believe that BioWare intended for us to take the singularity problem seriously. It's not just some delusion of the Catalyst. In real life, the Catalyst's argument would be a joke. In the context of a story, however, I suspend my disbelief.

I can't suspend my disbelief long enough to accept that the Head Honcho of the Indoctrinating Death Machines showed up at the climactic moment just to obligingly offer me 3 flavors of victory.  Two of which uncannily resemble the doctrines espoused by two major villains that have already been vanquished.

If that's true - if that's really true - then it is an effing calamity of writing.  A falling down square on Bioware's face, far beyond any of their previous failures.

Perhaps it is a massive failure. Synthesis is Gamble's preferred ending.

[Eterna]

clennon8 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...


I don't care that the villian supports them. Hitler supported guns, cleary by using guns in the war we are just as bad?

Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid. 

"The villain supports them" is an appeal to address the source. If you believe you can trust the source's word on what will happen, Control and even Synthesis do make more sense than if you don't believe the source. That's obviously the first thing that needs to be addressed.

Not saying you are indoctrinated or not, your opinion is as valid as mine. But not believing the source does not mean that I support genocide, it means I feel lik the Reapers are trying to scare me away from making the choice they know I need to make to win.

I think there are significant ethical problems with synthesis, even if you believe the catalyst, but someone recently got me to understand controllers a little better: ASSUMING you trust the source. And that's key, I think.

All three choices require a leap of faith. You trust the Catalyst when he tells you how to Destroy him, I trust the Catalyst when he tells me how to control him. The only choice that does not require some degree of faith and trust is refusal. 

clennon8 wrote...

Why Destroy is NOT a trick

1. Association: Control (TIM) and Synthesis (Saren) are negatively associated with indoctrinated villains, while Destroy is repeatedly endorsed by Shepard's friends and allies.  It is also worth noting that Javik mentions an indoctrinated pro-Control faction that existed during his own Cycle.  This faction caused dissent, which ultimately led to the demise of the Prothean empire.  Furthermore, Javik describes the Zha'til, a fine example of Synthesis helped along by the Reapers.  The implications are clear.  Control and Synthesis are dangerous ideas, particularly when they involve the Reapers.  Destroy is not so burdened by negative connotations. 

Am I guilty of committing an association fallacy in the preceding paragraph?  Perhaps.  But "story logic" and "real world logic" don't perfectly overlap.  Reality doesn't have a narrative; it is an unpurposed stream of moments, governed by cause and effect, unable to be condensed into a digestible amount of words or frames.  Stories, on the other hand, have jobs to do, and a certain amount of time to do them in.  In short, I believe these associations are ones the story intended us to make.  They have a purpose within the Mass Effect narrative. 

Ask yourself this question.  If the most successful mass murderer and brainwasher in galactic history keeps propagating the same perverted "solutions" through indoctrinated agents, Cycle after Cycle, why should we believe those same solutions, suggested by the same entity, will work in our favor now?  Is it because we're talking directly to the brainwashing mass murderer instead of one of his minions?  Is it simple faith that this time will somehow be different?

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 Starchild is trying to trick Shepard into picking Synthesis or Control, then why isn't Destroy a booby-trap? It's a reasonable question, but not the knock-down argument some of you may think it is. Let me explain. In the previous point, I established that Shepard arrives at the decision chamber with the expectation that he will be able to destroy the Reapers. Therefore, Destroy must be available as an option, and Starchild must reveal it, even as he tries to once again spin his age-old illusion involving Control and/or Synthesis. Now, if Starchild wants to trick Shepard (and by extension Bioware wants to trick the player) then the illusion must be carefully maintained. Things have to be depicted in a way that works both on a narrative level and a meta level. There are constraints on what Bioware can do when trying to pull off this grand trick that will keep players talking about their game for a full year or more after its release. If, for example, Starchild 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. 

Your headcannon doesn't disprove my assertion. 

[KBomb]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Destroy is the outlet for non-belief. By choosing that you're showing that you don't believe that his problem even exists, and the galaxy can make it's own way forward, and that we can all get along, all without the threat of the Reapers looming over everything.

That is one way to look at it. One that I can accept, but it still didn't factor into why I chose it. I see your point, though.

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Eh... I understand that Shepard fears that TIM will build a Reaper, but there is also that utterly asinine "this place is an abomination" argument.

And what's wrong with that argument?

As a sci-fi story, a place can't be spiritually tainted. It makes no sense. Legion states it best:

"This facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others."

Sure, okay. Now go listen to Legion's line after you blow the base to hell.

[Argolas]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Auld Wulf is quickly becoming the new Sieval.

Seival isn't insulting.

You're right, he's even better. He's more obnxious and in your face.

Seival is either a brilliant troll or just represents his opinion. Auld Wulf is either a terrible troll or an arrogant and insulting [blank].

[BleedingUranium]

Again:

Synthesis's purpose is to solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics.

How does it do this if no one is organic anymore?

What's stopping Synthepeople from creating pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

What happens when pure organic life forms on an undiscovered garden planet in the distant future?

Why do people stop fighting the Reapers if it doesn't alter people's minds?

[Indy_S]

Eterna5 wrote...

Your headcannon doesn't disprove my assertion. 

It does however change the odds involved. Less of a leap of faith might help maintain the suspension of disbelief.

[CosmicGnosis]

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Eh... I understand that Shepard fears that TIM will build a Reaper, but there is also that utterly asinine "this place is an abomination" argument.

And what's wrong with that argument?

As a sci-fi story, a place can't be spiritually tainted. It makes no sense. Legion states it best:

"This facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others."

Sure, okay. Now go listen to Legion's line after you blow the base to hell.

Yeah, I kind of hate the post-ending conversations because every single party member opposes the decision to keep the base, no matter what they said while you were there.

[Argolas]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Again:

Synthesis's purpose is to solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics.

How does it do this if no one is organic anymore?

This is actually a point I never thought about. The Catalyst logic always was explained by that ruthless machine calculus, the fact that it does kill countless lifes, but spares underdeveloped organic civilizations who can then rise, thus the goal of "preserving organic life" is arguably fulfilled. In Synthesis, there is no organic life anymore. It doesn't fit even it that twisted Catalyst logic.

[Indy_S]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Again:

Synthesis's purpose is to solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics.

How does it do this if no one is organic anymore?

I guess if there are no organics, they can't be killed. That makes sense, right?

What's stopping Synthepeople from creating pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

Empathy? I have no idea.

What happens when pure organic life forms on an undiscovered garden planet in the distant future?

Conflict, I guess.

Why do people stop fighting the Reapers if it doesn't alter people's minds?

Utter confusion. Or laziness. Understanding would be a poor answer if you understand that they see you as inferior beings.

[Indy_S]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Yeah, I kind of hate the post-ending conversations because every single party member opposes the decision to keep the base, no matter what they said while you were there.

Yeah, that's a little strange. I imagine the idea was that they're supposed to support your decision. And then that was changed for some reason.

[clennon8]

Eterna5 wrote...

Your headcannon doesn't disprove my assertion. 

I wish I really did have this headcannon that you keep mentioning.  Man.  I would be so awesome.  I would be blasting assertions left and right.

Modifié par clennon8, 21 février 2013 - 06:34 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Indy_S wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Yeah, I kind of hate the post-ending conversations because every single party member opposes the decision to keep the base, no matter what they said while you were there.

Yeah, that's a little strange. I imagine the idea was that they're supposed to support your decision. And then that was changed for some reason.

I don't think this is so. I think that Destroyers may have a point about the theme here. The Reaper technology is the way that they have controlled galactic civilization so far. This is merely an extension of that and something we do not need. If you do not trust the Catalyst, it makes sense that those who saved the base with low EMS only get control, because that is the Reaper preference and their technology (being more intact) guides you to that goal.

Could be wrong, but it fits the current Destroy thought process I have.

[KevShep]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Again:

Synthesis's purpose is to solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics.

How does it do this if no one is organic anymore?

What's stopping Synthepeople from creating pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

What happens when pure organic life forms on an undiscovered garden planet in the distant future?

Why do people stop fighting the Reapers if it doesn't alter people's minds?

This^ what if there are some synthesis people that want to be full synthetic or want to be organic again?

Modifié par KevShep, 21 février 2013 - 07:44 .

[CosmicGnosis]

It would be very nice for my Shepard to survive, though...

[M Hedonist]

We're not up against Geth, though. Not anymore we ain't.

[ElSuperGecko]

Wayning_Star wrote...
when I got to that decision chamber I didn't know quite WTF was going on, destroy wasn't a priority any more. This is just too f'n weird to be a search'n destroy thing. Nothing 'cosmic' ever is.

...and that's exactly the point of this thread.

The Reapers throw options and choices in our face, distract us with vaguely unsettling talk of a bigger picture, and suddenly we forget why we're there in the first place.

I guarantee you, the very first time ANYONE played Mass Effect 3 (without reading any spoilers first, of course), as they sprinted down the hill towards the beam, dodging Harbinger's blasts, 99% of people were thinking "I'm gonna find a way to destroy Harbinger and the Reapers, and end this for good!"

Two deliberately ambiguous and confusing conversations later, and some of us are suddenly doing exactly what the Reapers want us to do.

Go figure!

[TheRealJayDee]

Auld Wulf wrote...

irony

Player = 1 / Bad Guy = 0 
Auld Wulf = 1 / Destroy supporters = 0

Sometimes I really kinda wish to meet the people who post things that enrage me or just make me shake my head in disbelief in real life, so we could, idk, have some beers and talk about stuff other than ME3.