582 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyingSquirrel]

3DandBeyond wrote...
So, why would he keep using it if Shepard refuses?  Perhaps because all along he has known it is not a solution at all, nor is any choice.  In each case, synthetics do exist or will exist, so the idea that the problem or the conflict if it is true will not return does not fit in with his inevitability scenario.  Something that can have a solution, even if one is not yet in existence, is not inevitable.

Maybe it just doesn't see any alternative and the cycles are the only "stopgap" measure it can think of until someone else comes up with one? In any case, I'm not arguing that the Catalyst's logic makes sense.

And you believe synthesis does not change the individual, what then does it do adn why is it needed?

I don't think it is needed. But I don't see the ending as Shepard choosing his or her ideal solution. It's essentially a negotiation process. Shepard's negotiation partner may be deluded or insane, but it also controls thousands of Reapers that are about to kill everybody if Shepard doesn't do *something*, and its conditions for standing down are that Shepard pick one of its three proposed solutions. Shepard doesn't have to believe in its logic to make an assessment of which of the choices is the most tolerable in the short term and the most likely to be beneficial to the galaxy in the long term.

It's a bit like a bank robber who takes a bunch of people hostage because he believes a magic talking toaster told him to do it. Assuming that you can't convince him that the magic talking toaster isn't real, then you still have a bunch of hostages and a dangerous criminal to deal with somehow.

  If we have tech fully integrated at the DNA level then it must be to control and to stop change-the kid wants order because order is perfection and chaos is conflict.  So, today the Krogan will still be the Krogan, but who is to say what they will become in ten generations.  And if they become immortal, what then?  How many Krogan or Rachni babies can the galaxy handle?  Conflict surely will ensue.

Evolution, longer lifespans, and resource shortages could happen with or without Synthesis, though. And again, this is really more of a problem with how the Catalyst explains it than with what actually happens - EDI's narration suggests that evolution and change do *not* immediately stop if Synthesis takes place.

Now, if you want to argue that Bioware should have made this clearer, so that we don't feel like Shepard has to draw so many unspoken inferences about the eventual outcomes, I would agree with that. If it were up to me, I'd have one additional option for the ending where Shepard can argue more forcefully that the cycles have just been a terrible mistake, though I'd probably have the argument fail if you haven't achieved most of the ideal outcomes to the more politically-tinged quests (Feros saved, genophage cured, geth/quarian peace etc.). I'm just saying that it's possible to interpret the endings without assuming that Shepard accepts the Catalyst's logic, or that Bioware does.

[clennon8]

And if the ending is INDOCTRINATION THEORY OH MY GOD I SAID IT then what does that say about Bioware's stance on anti-diversity?

[Jackal13th]

lol

[Wayning_Star]

clennon8 wrote...

And if the ending is INDOCTRINATION THEORY OH MY GOD I SAID IT then what does that say about Bioware's stance on anti-diversity?

Schizophrenia

sorry, just 'slipped out'...

[Wayning_Star]

3d seems to miss the point that rent is high in the MEU..

[Code_R]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the message sucks.

[3DandBeyond]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
snipped

Evolution, longer lifespans, and resource shortages could happen with or without Synthesis, though. And again, this is really more of a problem with how the Catalyst explains it than with what actually happens - EDI's narration suggests that evolution and change do *not* immediately stop if Synthesis takes place.

Now, if you want to argue that Bioware should have made this clearer, so that we don't feel like Shepard has to draw so many unspoken inferences about the eventual outcomes, I would agree with that. If it were up to me, I'd have one additional option for the ending where Shepard can argue more forcefully that the cycles have just been a terrible mistake, though I'd probably have the argument fail if you haven't achieved most of the ideal outcomes to the more politically-tinged quests (Feros saved, genophage cured, geth/quarian peace etc.). I'm just saying that it's possible to interpret the endings without assuming that Shepard accepts the Catalyst's logic, or that Bioware does.

But see the thing is, all that-evolution, longer lifespans, and shortages happen over time and that gives people some ability to mentally adjust and even allows nature to adjust for it.  Having it happen rapidly is another thing altogether.  The problem is we have what we have and in light of that, it's all just totally flawed.  That's what this whole argument has been about.  You can't infer things and then say that someone else is not right to infer something completely different - not saying you are doing that, but many believe their head canon is the only official version of allowable head canon. 

Sure evolution does not immediately stop.  But it's the way it is shown.  People think this all is so great because now they're happy.  And I say BS.  This is such a sugar-coated way to show all of it and yet, before making such a choice there should be a real understanding of what this means.  If one person can say it would lead to something good, it is just as valid to say it would not.  But furthermore, it goes completely against most of what a certain Shepard would be working to accomplish-all the choices do.  And the OP has it right-without further exploration of this need to make a choice there is no other conclusion then that the goal is to make organics and synthetics more alike so that understanding can be achieved and conflict avoided.  It's assuming that the kid (and thus Leviathan as his creators) were prophetic and knew that one day two different species would fight it all out and that synthetics would be the ones left standing.  Neither of them knew this to be true.

And I stand by something that is a timeless truth-we see it happening in the world today.  There are some things, some fates worse than death.  I think Synthesis would be one of those things.

The other problem is that the kid sees Synthesis as the pinnacle of evolution-that means it would end evolution.  Without that, no people are no longer individuals, tech controls everything.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 février 2013 - 07:00 .

[Wayning_Star]

stupid Apex races.. they're mean and they bite...

[Wayning_Star]

now 3d is an expert on what is worse than death, amazing what can be learned in a video game,eh?

simply amazing..

[JShepppp]

steinvegard wrote...

 I`m sorry if this has been covered before, but I only recently played and finished the game(What I heard from people about the ending, made me wait until I had both a lot of spare time and absolutly nothing else of interest to play)

I was most surprised by the politial messaging in the endings: Diversity just doesn`t work over time. The only way to avoid conflict is either to destroy those who are different or to make everyone the same.

Since the game shows us synthetics and organics being able to get along just fine in the short term, but assures us that in the end it will end in conflict. (Listening to the star child was like listening to one of the vile representatives of the English defence league and similar modern nationalist movements who emphasise that despite things seeimg peaceful right now, diversity will eventually lead to war)

This would be reading to much into it if the game had stayed a heroic science-fantasy yarn all the way through, but since they chose to get all philosphical in the end, we have to ask what they are actually saying. And the only reasonable moral I can see is the same one that modern nationalistic movements stand for. Diversity, or multiculturalism, can seem like it is working right now, but ultimately it must end with only a monoculture surviving. I am surprised and dissapointed that Bioware would choose to spout such Samuel Huntington-Clash of civiliazitons like nonsene and even make it the ultimate message in their story.

It leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth for having supported them financially.

The idea of synthetic/organic peaceful coexistence being impossible is behind the villain, the Catalyst. The veracity of that statement is a separate topic. But the point is that it is the CATALYST who says it, and the CATALYST who acts on it. As the Catalyst holds the power (e.g. Reapers), we are forced to acknowledge its beliefs.

But in the endings we can speak differently to how we believe about it. One could argue that Destroy rejects the Catalyst's premise, Control is unsure, and Synthesis embraces it.

At a superficial level it's like playing a WWII game and at the end finding out Hitler hated Jews. It's an M-rated game and you just learned the villain's ideas. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them. 

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 Grow up, children.

To say that THE CATALYST'S point of view is BIOWARE'S point of view is nothing short of ignorance--and if not that, then stupidity.

It's called writing a villian, folks.

In addition, do you even know what they choice "Destroy" means? It means you reject that premise.

The game supports you being able to reject that premise.


It is not Bioware's mesage. You are wrong.

^This. Added, you make it sould like destory and synthesis is your only choice. The ending is about doing something horrible to save people.

[Wayning_Star]

JShepppp wrote...

steinvegard wrote...

 I`m sorry if this has been covered before, but I only recently played and finished the game(What I heard from people about the ending, made me wait until I had both a lot of spare time and absolutly nothing else of interest to play)

I was most surprised by the politial messaging in the endings: Diversity just doesn`t work over time. The only way to avoid conflict is either to destroy those who are different or to make everyone the same.

Since the game shows us synthetics and organics being able to get along just fine in the short term, but assures us that in the end it will end in conflict. (Listening to the star child was like listening to one of the vile representatives of the English defence league and similar modern nationalist movements who emphasise that despite things seeimg peaceful right now, diversity will eventually lead to war)

This would be reading to much into it if the game had stayed a heroic science-fantasy yarn all the way through, but since they chose to get all philosphical in the end, we have to ask what they are actually saying. And the only reasonable moral I can see is the same one that modern nationalistic movements stand for. Diversity, or multiculturalism, can seem like it is working right now, but ultimately it must end with only a monoculture surviving. I am surprised and dissapointed that Bioware would choose to spout such Samuel Huntington-Clash of civiliazitons like nonsene and even make it the ultimate message in their story.

It leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth for having supported them financially.

The idea of synthetic/organic peaceful coexistence being impossible is behind the villain, the Catalyst. The veracity of that statement is a separate topic. But the point is that it is the CATALYST who says it, and the CATALYST who acts on it. As the Catalyst holds the power (e.g. Reapers), we are forced to acknowledge its beliefs.

But in the endings we can speak differently to how we believe about it. One could argue that Destroy rejects the Catalyst's premise, Control is unsure, and Synthesis embraces it.

At a superficial level it's like playing a WWII game and at the end finding out Hitler hated Jews. It's an M-rated game and you just learned the villain's ideas. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them. 

I kind of took it as the catalyst needs Shep to reach it's 'pinnicle of evolution' not the other way around. It's a you help me I'll help you situation, like the Geth and the Quarians after peace between them is on trial...

but the real mystery yet to be exposed is who authored the choices. Bioware is loath to provide that data...for some reason.

[Cainhurst Crow]

The more I think about it, the more I say this thread deserves a stan lock.

[Nerevar-as]

JShepppp wrote...

The idea of synthetic/organic peaceful coexistence being impossible is behind the villain, the Catalyst. The veracity of that statement is a separate topic. But the point is that it is the CATALYST who says it, and the CATALYST who acts on it. As the Catalyst holds the power (e.g. Reapers), we are forced to acknowledge its beliefs.

But in the endings we can speak differently to how we believe about it. One could argue that Destroy rejects the Catalyst's premise, Control is unsure, and Synthesis embraces it.

At a superficial level it's like playing a WWII game and at the end finding out Hitler hated Jews. It's an M-rated game and you just learned the villain's ideas. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them. 

I have to disagree. I´m afraid from the quality of the rest of the writing it´s likely we had to listen seriously to SB and agree that one of its solutions was the right one. Especially the green one. Its encounter just looks like a mortal taken before a god, and be told to choose the future on its terms. Or "So be it".

OP, I think you are reading too much into the ending. Don´t look for malice where simple stupidity is enough of an explanation.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 21 février 2013 - 07:18 .

[Wayning_Star]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I say this thread deserves a stan lock.

yeah, it's turned into another boooo synthesis thread..got plenty of those on board..

[dreman9999]

Nerevar-as wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

The idea of synthetic/organic peaceful coexistence being impossible is behind the villain, the Catalyst. The veracity of that statement is a separate topic. But the point is that it is the CATALYST who says it, and the CATALYST who acts on it. As the Catalyst holds the power (e.g. Reapers), we are forced to acknowledge its beliefs.

But in the endings we can speak differently to how we believe about it. One could argue that Destroy rejects the Catalyst's premise, Control is unsure, and Synthesis embraces it.

At a superficial level it's like playing a WWII game and at the end finding out Hitler hated Jews. It's an M-rated game and you just learned the villain's ideas. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them. 

I have to disagree. I´m afraid from the quality of the rest of the writing it´s likely we had to listen seriously to SB and agree that one of its solutions was the right one. Especially the green one. Its encounter just looks like a mortal taken before a god, and be told to choose the future on its terms. Or "So be it".

OP, I think you are reading too much into the ending. Don´t look for malice where simple stupidity is enough of an explanation.

We were never forced to agree. We were only forced to choose or have the galexy die. If you don't agree with what there,pick refuse, rage quit and write your own ending.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...
]We were never forced to agree. We were only forced to choose or have the galexy die. If you don't agree with what there,pick refuse, rage quit and write your own ending.

Not a good long-term business strategy fro Biwoare to take...

[Cainhurst Crow]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I say this thread deserves a stan lock.

yeah, it's turned into another boooo synthesis thread..got plenty of those on board..

That, and saying that the villians mindset is the same as bioware's mindset.

That's like saying bioware promotes genocide because the darkspawn in dragon age want to wipe out life on thedas.

It's just stupid, as was pointed out above.

[Reorte]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I say this thread deserves a stan lock.

yeah, it's turned into another boooo synthesis thread..got plenty of those on board..

That, and saying that the villians mindset is the same as bioware's mindset.

That's like saying bioware promotes genocide because the darkspawn in dragon age want to wipe out life on thedas.

It's just stupid, as was pointed out above.

The lack of any ability to really question it, combined with what appears to result in the best option, appears to support the OP. Another example is the geth - everything about changing their completely unique yet valid method of working to be much more like us is portrayed as entirely positive for them, at least once you've kicked out the direct Reaper controlling them part.

[Nerevar-as]

dreman9999 wrote...

We were never forced to agree. We were only forced to choose or have the galexy die. If you don't agree with what there,pick refuse, rage quit and write your own ending.

"...and when Walters and Hudson presented what they thought was their brilliant and artisitic vision of how ME should end, even the higher-ups from EA saw it was horrible and told the rest of the team to write a proper one."

END.




The bad guy dictates the terms of every ending. Think about that and think about what you felt the previous hundred hours of ME. It´s called Diabolus Ex Machina. About as good as it´s Deus brother.

[Kabooooom]

Mass Effect - story includes interacting with a variety of individuals, including homosexuals, aliens of all shapes and sizes, political groups with messages stemming from racism to equal representation for biotics, a main character that can be custom made into any race or sexual preference...

...and OP makes a post about how Bioware has an anti-diversity message. Rohkay.

You are reading too much into the endings OP, they didn't think that in depth about them and there was certainly no hidden message involving diversity.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 21 février 2013 - 07:31 .

[dreman9999]

Nerevar-as wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

We were never forced to agree. We were only forced to choose or have the galexy die. If you don't agree with what there,pick refuse, rage quit and write your own ending.

"...and when Walters and Hudson presented what they thought was their brilliant and artisitic vision of how ME should end, even the higher-ups from EA saw it was horrible and told the rest of the team to write a proper one."

END.




The bad guy dictates the terms of every ending. Think about that and think about what you felt the previous hundred hours of ME. It´s called Diabolus Ex Machina. About as good as it´s Deus brother.

As long as you understand they are not forcing you to agree with the catalyst. Call the ending what you want, it will make no difference.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Reorte wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I say this thread deserves a stan lock.

yeah, it's turned into another boooo synthesis thread..got plenty of those on board..

That, and saying that the villians mindset is the same as bioware's mindset.

That's like saying bioware promotes genocide because the darkspawn in dragon age want to wipe out life on thedas.

It's just stupid, as was pointed out above.

The lack of any ability to really question it, combined with what appears to result in the best option, appears to support the OP. Another example is the geth - everything about changing their completely unique yet valid method of working to be much more like us is portrayed as entirely positive for them, at least once you've kicked out the direct Reaper controlling them part.

So in your game control and refuse don't exist. Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't dowload the EC, where you can question and reject it's premises one at a time, and refuse them all together.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 21 février 2013 - 07:33 .

[Iakus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

That, and saying that the villians mindset is the same as bioware's mindset.

That's like saying bioware promotes genocide because the darkspawn in dragon age want to wipe out life on thedas.

It's just stupid, as was pointed out above.

Dragon Age doesn't make you join in on the slaughter (well, except for the Darkspawn Chronicles DLC)
 
Or turn the Warden into the next Archdemon

Or turn everyone on Thedas into Awakened darkspawn..

[dreman9999]

Reorte wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The more I think about it, the more I say this thread deserves a stan lock.

yeah, it's turned into another boooo synthesis thread..got plenty of those on board..

That, and saying that the villians mindset is the same as bioware's mindset.

That's like saying bioware promotes genocide because the darkspawn in dragon age want to wipe out life on thedas.

It's just stupid, as was pointed out above.

The lack of any ability to really question it, combined with what appears to result in the best option, appears to support the OP. Another example is the geth - everything about changing their completely unique yet valid method of working to be much more like us is portrayed as entirely positive for them, at least once you've kicked out the direct Reaper controlling them part.

You do understand that it's not a case of not questioning it, but a case of not being able to change theout come to what you want.
Destroy and sythesisis not the only choice on hand. If you want diversity you do have control to choose. Destroy is justa case of saving who you can.
Remeber, you're dealingwith a shaclked ai....A new hal from odyssey 2001.