935 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

fizzypop wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Okay, but you still have to accept that there can be possible negative consequences to that action. Perfect options don't exist if they did everyone would choose them we'd have no war, no crime, no conflicts, no cheating, no stealing, etc etc. Life isn't perfect...it's choatic at best and everything has it's consequences. All I'm doing is simply trying to open your mind to other possiblities.

There are possible negative consequences to everything, but with my current information, I judge that the risk isn't sufficient to kill all synthetics instead.

I don't disparage that. I just wish all of the choices would've been a bit better about showing the pros and cons. I think it'd have been much more interesting. The choices should've been hard because we got that feeling all through out mass effect that the ending wasn't going to be peachy. Mass effect 3 hammered that in with scripted deaths, but then failed to deliver. Those hard choices is what makes a story great. I really hated playing arrival because I felt awful about what I was doing, but I also didn't have a choice. Regardless of how awful I felt I still enjoyed it as part of the story it forced me to look at things from another perspective. It took me out of my comfort zone and that's IMO good storytelling.

I don't think there's much of a risk from the lack of consequences, given that so many people still go for Destroy. I sort of enjoy that, as it lets me have happiness that I'd miss out on by Shepard's death.

[fizzypop]

Xilizhra wrote...

fizzypop wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Okay, but you still have to accept that there can be possible negative consequences to that action. Perfect options don't exist if they did everyone would choose them we'd have no war, no crime, no conflicts, no cheating, no stealing, etc etc. Life isn't perfect...it's choatic at best and everything has it's consequences. All I'm doing is simply trying to open your mind to other possiblities.

There are possible negative consequences to everything, but with my current information, I judge that the risk isn't sufficient to kill all synthetics instead.

I don't disparage that. I just wish all of the choices would've been a bit better about showing the pros and cons. I think it'd have been much more interesting. The choices should've been hard because we got that feeling all through out mass effect that the ending wasn't going to be peachy. Mass effect 3 hammered that in with scripted deaths, but then failed to deliver. Those hard choices is what makes a story great. I really hated playing arrival because I felt awful about what I was doing, but I also didn't have a choice. Regardless of how awful I felt I still enjoyed it as part of the story it forced me to look at things from another perspective. It took me out of my comfort zone and that's IMO good storytelling.

I don't think there's much of a risk from the lack of consequences, given that so many people still go for Destroy. I sort of enjoy that, as it lets me have happiness that I'd miss out on by Shepard's death.

I'm not really concerned with how many people choose what ending, but how those endings feel. That's important for the player experience. Destroy does that to an extent by telling you what you had to sacrifice in order to stop the reapers, but the others don't even try. Like I said they missed out on some great storytelling. :/

[remydat]

fizzypop wrote...

Everyone get's an opinion and a vote, but the majority is who votes them in and has control over policies. It wouldn't be mob rule it'd mean just what I said the majority votes in their elected reps and those reps vote in policies. Those policies should be about benefitting the most people because let's face it, it's unrealistic we will help everyone. Sometimes you do have to make hard choices in order to make sure everything runs smoothly. Not that I don't disagree there are problems with the system and we've seen them, but I still think that system is better than the alternative. As far as protecting the minorities that's a laugh and I am a minority.

Of course that part is off topic let's go back to the game. Where did I say you should kill those you don't like? Choosing destroy means you kill the geth not because you don't like them, but because you need to kill the reapers who refuse to stop harvesting. You make a choice it has a consequence. Does that consequence suck? Sure, but that's life. Your balancing the needs of the many races over the needs of one race.

That's okay if you wouldn't do it. I don't really care what you decide in your game, but what I am saying is it should have consequences that are realistic. We both know that everyone being all peachy with it isn't realistic. That's my problem. It makes the choice hollow. It's just another "let's all be friends ending" which is a cop out.

I have the same problem with the control ending. It's simply a cop out. Ignoring any real depth and making it again another hollow choice.

I'm not even arguing one choice is more vaild than another, but I do think you need to open up your mind to the possible consequences of said actions. Acting as if they are perfect in every single way cannot possibly have ramifcations that are negative is short-sighted and boring. All of the endings could've been better, but destroy felt real because it had consequences. Heck I might have even chosen control if there were consequences that felt real.

No sorry, allowing someone for example to be lynched because the majority is ok with it is not the role of government.  The constitution guarantees everyone a right to life.  EVERYONE.  You just don't get to take that right away when there are other alternatives.

If you made a decision to kill all blacks to save the rest of humanity the majority of which were part of the KKK, how do you think that will be viewed by them?  The majority hate/fear the Geth simply because they exist.  Killing them is validating not only them but the Reapers who thought this hate/fear was inevitable and so decided to harvest ie kill.

And sorry, you must not have been reading my other posts because I have argued from the start control and synthesis are not perfect.  Hell I even had a humorus example of how I had to end a playthrough because my earthborn ruthless shep would because use Control to dominate or eliminate the Council Races.

[remydat]

fizzypop wrote...

Only if they want or agree with that future.

No that future is theres to make.  I don't choose my genes.  My parents gave them to me.  Do I sit here and cry about the the sh*tty genes they gave me or do I man up and deal with it?  If nature or my parent's gave me Volik's do you think I am upset Shep chose to give me genes that may allow me to hug someone without breaking a bone?  If nature gave me terminal cancer and I am dying, do you think I care if Shep gave me genes that might cure that cancer?  Maybe I don't and maybe I do but I am alive to deal with the consequences no matter what.

Shep has no right to make that decision.  No right at all.  He has no right to exterminate a race.  No right at all.  At the end of the day when faced with decisions he has no right to make, I choose the decisions that allows people to live and deal with the consequences just like I live and deal with the hand that nature and my parents gave me that I have no control over.

Modifié par remydat, 16 avril 2013 - 03:33 .

[fizzypop]

remydat wrote...

fizzypop wrote...

Everyone get's an opinion and a vote, but the majority is who votes them in and has control over policies. It wouldn't be mob rule it'd mean just what I said the majority votes in their elected reps and those reps vote in policies. Those policies should be about benefitting the most people because let's face it, it's unrealistic we will help everyone. Sometimes you do have to make hard choices in order to make sure everything runs smoothly. Not that I don't disagree there are problems with the system and we've seen them, but I still think that system is better than the alternative. As far as protecting the minorities that's a laugh and I am a minority.

Of course that part is off topic let's go back to the game. Where did I say you should kill those you don't like? Choosing destroy means you kill the geth not because you don't like them, but because you need to kill the reapers who refuse to stop harvesting. You make a choice it has a consequence. Does that consequence suck? Sure, but that's life. Your balancing the needs of the many races over the needs of one race.

That's okay if you wouldn't do it. I don't really care what you decide in your game, but what I am saying is it should have consequences that are realistic. We both know that everyone being all peachy with it isn't realistic. That's my problem. It makes the choice hollow. It's just another "let's all be friends ending" which is a cop out.

I have the same problem with the control ending. It's simply a cop out. Ignoring any real depth and making it again another hollow choice.

I'm not even arguing one choice is more vaild than another, but I do think you need to open up your mind to the possible consequences of said actions. Acting as if they are perfect in every single way cannot possibly have ramifcations that are negative is short-sighted and boring. All of the endings could've been better, but destroy felt real because it had consequences. Heck I might have even chosen control if there were consequences that felt real.

No sorry, allowing someone for example to be lynched because the majority is ok with it is not the role of government.  The constitution guarantees everyone a right to life.  EVERYONE.  You just don't get to take that right away when there are other alternatives.

If you made a decision to kill all blacks to save the rest of humanity the majority of which were part of the KKK, how do you think that will be viewed by them?  The majority hate/fear the Geth simply because they exist.  Killing them is validating not only them but the Reapers who thought this hate/fear was inevitable and so decided to harvest ie kill.

And sorry, you must not have been reading my other posts because I have argued from the start control and synthesis are not perfect.  Hell I even had a humorus example of how I had to end a playthrough because my earthborn ruthless shep would because use Control to dominate or eliminate the Council Races.

This is a loaded conversation so I'm opting out of it. If you want to go back to the game we can, but I'm not up for some deep conversation about these issues. Not tonight. I'm sorry for even bringing it up in passing conversation that's my fault and I'll own up to that.

Nope I didn't read your other posts because this is a seriously long thread. I'm glad we agree on that at least.

Modifié par fizzypop, 16 avril 2013 - 03:32 .

[remydat]

fizzypop wrote...

This is a loaded conversation so I'm opting out of it. If you want to go back to the game we can, but I'm not up for some deep conversation about these issues. Not tonight. I'm sorry for even bringing it up in passing conversation that's my fault and I'll own up to that.

Nope I didn't read your other posts because this is a seriously long thread. I'm glad we agree on that at least.

Fair enough.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I wish there weren't any choices, and we had a proper ending where we had one hell of a fight to fire the crucible to blow up the reapers and felt like we won afterward.

[The Twilight God]

remydat wrote...

Why wouldn't he is not a response.  You are a gamer.  Shep is a player.  I saw nothing in the game that tells me pulling the plug would activate the Crucible.

You asked why would he. I answered why wouldn't he. I.e. your initial assumption is baseless.

In terms of it being a game, you didn't have a choice either way regardless of rather you actually bothered to take in your surroundings or not. The only way to stop the Reapers threat that did not involve complete and absolute trust in an enemy who hasn't earned said trust, killing yourself and hoping for the best was shooting the power conduit.

remydat wrote...

Let's say the Catalyst lies to me by telling me Synthesis and Control result in my death.  HMMM.  Why would he admit that?  It makes no rational sense if he is trying to deceive me.

It also implies that Destroy will lead to death... IF the Crucible fires. As opposed to the other two where fire or not, Shepard is dead and isn't around to verify the results. It doesn't matter if it says you'll die in Synthesis and Control. It implies ALL choices will result in Shepard's death.

remydat wrote...

Except Leviathan confirms this story.  Sorry, I played the DLC

And you didn't pay attention just like you didn't pay any attention in the decision chamber.

Assuming the Leviathans are being completely honest, they do not confirm the entirety of it's story. They tell the tale of the Reaper's origins and the existence of an Intelligence. However, they claim to not have sanctioned the cycles and claim not to know exactly what its ultimate goal is. The origin story has no bearing of the legitimacy of the Kid's explanation for the Reaper's current actions. A lie wrapped in a truth is still a lie. Furthermore, there is no proof that the Kid is that Intelligence. It could just be Harbinger projecting itself to Shepard like at the end of Arrival.  

"There was no warning, no reason given when they turned against us. Only Slaughter"

The Leviathans are in the same boat as everyone else. Nobody KNOWS what the Reaper ultimate agenda is.

remydat wrote...

I choose Synthesis or Control because everyone lives not because I think they are fairy tales. 

Everyone all living beyond the memorial scene is debatable. And everyone lives in Destroy, save reaperized sorts. Did you pick the Reaper options just to save EDI? Putting an entire galaxy at risk to save one person seems sensible to you?

But even if we were to assume Shepard isn't reprogrammed upon upload and turns on the galaxy in Control or that the synthesized people aren't mind controlled and willingly walk into reprocessing plants, You're reasoning is metagaming. The point of this discussion is not about what ending you like the most, the point is that storywise Shepard trusting the Reapers is idiotic. And therefore, story wise, it is unbelievable and unthinkable to commit suicide based on the Reapers'  say so outside of indoctrination. It's indoctrination or its absurd. Even if everything did work out and everyone lived happily ever after, it would still have been an idiotic choice (for a non-indoctrinated). There is no basis for the absolute trust Shepard would be putting in the Reapers of all things.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 16 avril 2013 - 03:52 .

[fizzypop]

remydat wrote...

fizzypop wrote...

Only if they want or agree with that future.

No that future is theres to make.  I don't choose my genes.  My parents gave them to me.  Do I sit here and cry about the the sh*tty genes they gave me or do I man up and deal with it.  If nature or my parent's gave me Volik's do you think I am upset Shep choose to give me genes that may allow me to hug someone without breaking a bone.  If nature gave me cancer and I am dying, do you think I care if Shep gave me genes that might cure that cancer?

Shep has no right to make that decision.  No right at all.  He has no right to exterminate a race.  No right at all.  At the end of the day when faced with decisions he has no right to make, I choose the decisions that allows people to live and deal with the consequences just like I live and deal with the hand that nature and my parents gave me that I have no control over.

Yep and the galaxy may decide to try to kill the controlled reapers. Many people may decide they don't wish to live as half machine and kill themselves. Or maybe organic life sprouts anew, but the half machines decide eh we don't like pure organics so try to force convert them to their lifestyle. We both know it's nothing like your example. These people weren't born this way. If someone came up to me said "hey you are Alice now" and forced me to live alice's life I wouldn't be happy with it. So as I said only if they want or agree with that future.

As far as your examples go cancer, diseases, and viruses would still effect organic tissue especially cancer. Cancer is caused by errors in cell division so any living tissue has the ability to become cancerous. Just to add another example here many deaf people choose to not get implants that could improve their hearing simply because they believe they are part of a culture. That culture is important to them, they like who they are imperfections and all.

Either way, I'm again not disagreeing with your choice just saying what I've been saying this entire time. It isn't perfect (and I know we agree on that). Any option will likely still see conflict and even death. I wish that was shown in the game more...making the choices harder and more fulfilling. Like I said those options feel like a cop out.

Modifié par fizzypop, 16 avril 2013 - 03:51 .

[fizzypop]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I wish there weren't any choices, and we had a proper ending where we had one hell of a fight to fire the crucible to blow up the reapers and felt like we won afterward.

That would also work, but still I don't mind the choices if they were done properly. Moreso because it feels like I missed part of the story when starchild shows up...

[The Twilight God]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I wish there weren't any choices, and we had a proper ending where we had one hell of a fight to fire the crucible to blow up the reapers and felt like we won afterward.

Well, now we do

Granted, I would have loved to have to the fleets obliterate the Reapers ala the 5th fleet on Soveriegn. And cut to all the Commanders; Han'gerrel, the Geth Prime, the Primarch, etc. saying, "Fire!"

Ah, well...

[remydat]

fizzypop wrote...

Yep and the galaxy may decide to try to kill the controlled reapers. Many people may decide they don't wish to live as half machine and kill themselves. Or maybe organic life sprouts anew, but the half machines decide eh we don't like pure organics so try to force convert them to their lifestyle. We both know it's nothing like your example. These people weren't born this way. If someone came up to me said "hey you are Alice now" and forced me to live alice's life I wouldn't be happy with it. So as I said only if they want or agree with that future.

As far as your examples go cancer, dieases, and viruses would still effect organic tissue especially cancer. Cancer is caused by errors in cell division so any living tissue has the ability to become cancerous. Just to add another example here many deaf people choose to not get implants that could improve their hearing simply because they believe they are part of a culture. That culture is important to them, they like who they are imperfections and all.

Either way, I'm again not disagreeing with your choice just saying what I've been saying this entire time. It isn't perfect. Any option will likely still see conflict and even death. I wish that was shown in the game more...making the choices harder and more fulfilling.

And if that is what they decide so be it.  That is a lot better than the synthetics who are dead and can't decide anything.  Again, I don't claim it is perfect.  I claim everyone is alive to decide how they want to deal with the consequences my choice. 

And EDI hints thats synthesis may give them a chance at immortality.  Aging is the result of imperfect cell division and hence if this can result in longer life, it by extension has to correct imperfections in cell division.  So yes the logical conclusion of the ending is that it may lead to the end of disease and illness.

And lots of deaf people would be cured if they could.  Again, the point is they are alive.  There will be people that agree or disagree with any decision.  I know one thing though.  They are alive to agree or disagree.

[remydat]

The Twilight God

No, my initial assumption is based on Shep not knowing what the f**k is going on until the Catalyst tells him.  You are the one introducing something not shown explicitly in the game.  In the game, he knows how stuff works because the Catalyst tells him.  If you have dialogue of him arriving at your conclusions then provide.

And the point is if it was trying to make Synthesis seem like the best choice it would not state that you die.

Leviathan said it told it to perseve life at any cost.  When you say we have to pay for its mistake, Leviathan says it did not make a mistake, the Catalyst has done what it intended.  So you are ignoring what was said.  No reason needed to be given because it was operating within the programming Leviathan gave it.  Despite being harvested, Leviathan admits it was just doing what it was programmed to do.  It is simply still pissed that they doing so resulted in them being harvested.

Shepard is not trusting the Reapers.  He is deciding whether to believe the Catalyst and Leviathan or not.  Nothing idiotic about it.  

[fizzypop]

remydat wrote...

fizzypop wrote...

Yep and the galaxy may decide to try to kill the controlled reapers. Many people may decide they don't wish to live as half machine and kill themselves. Or maybe organic life sprouts anew, but the half machines decide eh we don't like pure organics so try to force convert them to their lifestyle. We both know it's nothing like your example. These people weren't born this way. If someone came up to me said "hey you are Alice now" and forced me to live alice's life I wouldn't be happy with it. So as I said only if they want or agree with that future.

As far as your examples go cancer, dieases, and viruses would still effect organic tissue especially cancer. Cancer is caused by errors in cell division so any living tissue has the ability to become cancerous. Just to add another example here many deaf people choose to not get implants that could improve their hearing simply because they believe they are part of a culture. That culture is important to them, they like who they are imperfections and all.

Either way, I'm again not disagreeing with your choice just saying what I've been saying this entire time. It isn't perfect. Any option will likely still see conflict and even death. I wish that was shown in the game more...making the choices harder and more fulfilling.

And if that is what they decide so be it.  That is a lot better than the synthetics who are dead and can't decide anything.  Again, I don't claim it is perfect.  I claim everyone is alive to decide how they want to deal with the consequences my choice. 

And EDI hints thats synthesis may give them a chance at immortality.  Aging is the result of imperfect cell division and hence if this can result in longer life, it by extension has to correct imperfections in cell division.  So yes the logical conclusion of the ending is that it may lead to the end of disease and illness.

And lots of deaf people would be cured if they could.  Again, the point is they are alive.  There will be people that agree or disagree with any decision.  I know one thing though.  They are alive to agree or disagree.

I did edit that to say I know we both agree it isn't perfection because I do acknowledge that. EDI can hint at immortality, but unless living tissue suddenly becomes non-organic that probably isn't possible. This is just science fiction having problems with actual science. We currently have theories on what causes aging, but we currently can't say it's one thing or another. It's more likely to be a combination of things then just one thing. Errors in cell division are carried into other cells because once your DNA in one cell is damaged it can go on to create other infected cells. That's what we see with cancer. As time goes on statistically we will see more and more of those errors. Other theories hold to DNA damage over time that's widespread probably due to things we interact with as we go through life. We already know that we carry virus and bacteria DNA in our own DNA. Newer research shows that some women who have been pregnant may carry some DNA or cells from their children. None of that is really preventable. There is even some research that suggest restricting calories (around 1500 a day) helps to slow aging. The more calories you consume the more cell division you typically see. I could see needing less food so slowly aging down, but stopping it completely? Probably not. That's not even going into the issues with the brain...I still don't quite know how they handled that in the green ending since some things would have an organic brain (then be at a disadvantage) and others like EDI wouldn't.

As far as that ending disease or illness it wouldn't...it would only mean that you couldn't die by aging or by cancer (fixing errors in cell divisions), but could by bacteria for example. Bacteria can attack any living tissue and bacteria will evolve as we are seeing more and more strains having sex to benefit their evolution. Over time they become resistent to treatments.

I know that, but i'm pointing out many don't want to be. Just giving another point of view. Yes they are alive, but that doesn't mean they are happily so. Many people have chosen to be dead than to be miserable. As I said every ending will see death and conflict. It all comes down to your beliefs that's why I don't feel one option is more vaild or invaild than another just different. I believe that everyone gets to decide what happens to their body. So I can't really get behind green ending.  Destroy and control are just more appealing.

It seems like we agree for the most part though.

Modifié par fizzypop, 16 avril 2013 - 04:43 .

[remydat]

fizzypop wrote...

I did edit that to say I know we both agree it isn't perfection because I do acknowledge that. EDI can hint at immortality, but unless living tissue suddenly becomes non-organic that probably isn't possible. This is just science fiction having problems with actual science. We currently have theories on what causes aging, but we currently can't say it's one thing or another. It's more likely to be a combination of things then just one thing. Errors in cell division are carried into other cells because once your DNA in one cell is damaged it can go on to create other infected cells. That's what we see with cancer. As time goes on statistically we will see more and more of those errors. There is even some research that suggest restricting calories (around 1500 a day) helps to slow aging. The more calories you consume the more cell division you typically see. I could see needing less food so slowly aging down, but stopping it completely? Probably not. That's not even going into the issues with the brain...I still don't quite know how they handled that in the green ending since some things would have an organic brain (then be at a disadvantage) and others like EDI wouldn't.

As far as that ending disease or illness it wouldn't...it would only mean that you couldn't die by aging or by cancer (fixing errors in cell divisions), but not by bacteria for example. Bacteria can attack any living tissue and bacteria will evolve as we are seeing more and more strains having sex to benefit their evolution. Over time they become resistent to treatments.

I know that, but i'm pointing out many don't want to be. Just giving another point of view. Yes they are alive, but that doesn't mean they are happily so. Many people have chosen to be dead than to be miserable. As I said every ending will see death and conflict. It all comes down to your beliefs that's why I don't feel one option is more vaild or invaild than another just different. I believe that everyone gets to decide what happens to their body. So I can't really get behind green ending.  Destroy and control are just more appealing.

It seems like we agree for the most part though.

We know what causes aging as far as I am aware.  Imperfect cell division.  We don't know why after around our early 30s our bodies suddenly have problems dividing cells perfectly.

And the implication is simply that the synthetic part of us helps regulate this cell division.  Just like how the Geth could go in and mimic disease to help the Quarians improve their immunity.  If we have nanites now, those nanites could simply assist our immune system in identifying and eradicating those bacteria you mention.  If you can't accept that not sure how you accept the Krogan or Asari living thousands of years or warps or singularities.

I can't get behind singling out a race for extinction rather than affecting everyone equally.  Key word being equally.  However, I have no problem with Control really.  From an in-game perspective, control is my choice.  From a metagame perspective synthesis is.

[The Twilight God]

remydat wrote...

The Twilight God

No, my initial assumption is based on Shep not knowing what the f**k is going on until the Catalyst tells him.  You are the one introducing something not shown explicitly in the game.  In the game, he knows how stuff works because the Catalyst tells him.  If you have dialogue of him arriving at your conclusions then provide.

What exactly am I introducing that is not shown explicitly in-game? Just so we are on the same page.

As it is a video game it isn't relevant what dialogue brings Shepard to any conclusion. That can be in his head. His actions are limited to what Bioware provides. However, the player, acting as Shepard, can come to a conclusion on Shepard's behalf when making choices. And that conclusion is based on what occurs and what I see. We don't see anything to account for the absolute blind trust the Reapers are given in Control and Synthesis.

remydat wrote...

And the point is if it was trying to make Synthesis seem like the best choice it would not state that you die.

It requires Shepard to jump into an energy beam. Kinda hard to lie about that seeing as he'd have to, you know, jump to his death to do it. But living or dying isn't relevant as it is implied that all 3 options lead to death.

remydat wrote...

Leviathan said it told it to perseve life at any cost.  

And says in that same sentence, "That purpose has not been fulfilled".

remydat wrote...

When you say we have to pay for its mistake, Leviathan says it did not make a mistake, the Catalyst has done what it intended.  So you are ignoring what was said. 

 

Sure, if you take that out of context ignoring EVERYTHING else they said.

It never once says that the harvest was their idea. I don't personally believe that the Leviathans are being totally honest. as I've said before. But that is another conversation entirely. What I am saying here is that the Leviathans do not know what the Reapers ultimate goal is, what exactly they seek to achieve via the Harvest because it isn't achieving the original goal. They don't know what the Intelligence is looking for or if it's looking for anything at all. Sure, they gave it a general mandate, but they don't know exactly how that mandate is being served via perpetual genocide. Or if the Intelligence even still cares about the original mandate.

You can view it as taken out of context or deception on the part of the Leviathans. But if it's not context then your argument that they somehow validate the Kid's story is flawed as the Leviathans are themselves shady.

remydat wrote...

No reason needed to be given because it was operating within the programming Leviathan gave it.  Despite being harvested, Leviathan admits it was just doing what it was programmed to do.  It is simply still pissed that they doing so resulted in them being harvested.

Nope.

"That purpose has not been fulfilled".
 
Either the lack of a mistake is referencing their initial desire for the Reapers (i.e. the Reapers current actions aren't their doing) or we have a contradiction here. If they are given a mandate and the giver is saying that mandate isn't being followed then how can you say they are following their programming. For all we know the initial robots who made the reapers gained sentience, came up with the idea and the actual Intelligence (assuming we never encountered it) had nothing to do with it. Possibilities.

remydat wrote...

Shepard is not trusting the Reapers.  He is deciding whether to believe the Catalyst and Leviathan or not.  Nothing idiotic about it.  

First, the "catalyst" is the Citadel. And it's just a code word to hide the identity of the Citadel as the final piece of the puzzle. There never was any special thing that is actually named Catalyst. It was always just a prothean code word. Nobody builds a anti-reaper device that depends on the reapers to allow it to work. nobody knew some "reaper ambassador" would be waiting for Shepard. Furthermore,  the Citadel came AFTER the Intelligence. Unless the Leviathans were lying. That Kid claims to be the Reapers. It says so itself.

"I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers."

It refers to the Reapers throughout the conversation as "we". It is just as much with them as any cuttlefish dreadnaught (assuming it isn't Harbinger). It may or may not be a ship, but it is a reaper. Just like even though Osama ibn Laden didn't strap a bomb to his chest and suicide or engage in combat operations, he was still very much a terrorist.

[Ryzaki]

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All organics?

How far are you really prepared to go? How far does the end justify the means for you?

All of any race save all organics.

Once all organics are gone there's no point.

[goose2989]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I wish there weren't any choices, and we had a proper ending where we had one hell of a fight to fire the crucible to blow up the reapers and felt like we won afterward.

Huzzah! Someone has seen the light! 

[fizzypop]

remydat wrote...

fizzypop wrote...

I did edit that to say I know we both agree it isn't perfection because I do acknowledge that. EDI can hint at immortality, but unless living tissue suddenly becomes non-organic that probably isn't possible. This is just science fiction having problems with actual science. We currently have theories on what causes aging, but we currently can't say it's one thing or another. It's more likely to be a combination of things then just one thing. Errors in cell division are carried into other cells because once your DNA in one cell is damaged it can go on to create other infected cells. That's what we see with cancer. As time goes on statistically we will see more and more of those errors. There is even some research that suggest restricting calories (around 1500 a day) helps to slow aging. The more calories you consume the more cell division you typically see. I could see needing less food so slowly aging down, but stopping it completely? Probably not. That's not even going into the issues with the brain...I still don't quite know how they handled that in the green ending since some things would have an organic brain (then be at a disadvantage) and others like EDI wouldn't.

As far as that ending disease or illness it wouldn't...it would only mean that you couldn't die by aging or by cancer (fixing errors in cell divisions), but not by bacteria for example. Bacteria can attack any living tissue and bacteria will evolve as we are seeing more and more strains having sex to benefit their evolution. Over time they become resistent to treatments.

I know that, but i'm pointing out many don't want to be. Just giving another point of view. Yes they are alive, but that doesn't mean they are happily so. Many people have chosen to be dead than to be miserable. As I said every ending will see death and conflict. It all comes down to your beliefs that's why I don't feel one option is more vaild or invaild than another just different. I believe that everyone gets to decide what happens to their body. So I can't really get behind green ending.  Destroy and control are just more appealing.

It seems like we agree for the most part though.

We know what causes aging as far as I am aware.  Imperfect cell division.  We don't know why after around our early 30s our bodies suddenly have problems dividing cells perfectly.

And the implication is simply that the synthetic part of us helps regulate this cell division.  Just like how the Geth could go in and mimic disease to help the Quarians improve their immunity.  If we have nanites now, those nanites could simply assist our immune system in identifying and eradicating those bacteria you mention.  If you can't accept that not sure how you accept the Krogan or Asari living thousands of years or warps or singularities.

I can't get behind singling out a race for extinction rather than affecting everyone equally.  Key word being equally.  However, I have no problem with Control really.  From an in-game perspective, control is my choice.  From a metagame perspective synthesis is.

Not exactly. We are definitely leaning towards genes and cell division as the main sources. That makes sense given that DNA replication errors are the main source for cell division problems . Other recent genetic findings have shown that there is an "on/off switch" for genes. However, we also know the environment does play a role in some of those "switches". Aging is like cancer, but not. It happens at different places and rates within the body that isn't typical of cancer. Definitely think cell division and genes play a role, but can't say 100% the exact roles they play nor what we can do about it. So I wouldn't consider that a resounding yes from the medical community yet. Again I fall back to math on why these errors occur. When DNA is being replicated it is at such high speeds with so much information and so often math will tell us that there is going to be a probablity that an error will occur. In repulication case it's the base pairings being incorrect. Considering how often our cells do this it's amazing we don't have more problems. Our stomach lining for example is replaced every 2-3 days.

Yes perhaps they could help cells with division, but I have a feeling recoding DNA constantly isn't going to be an easy task. It would be easier to just replace organic tissue with mech and move on. Better use of resources. I can accept tech helping, but outright curing every single possible disease and stoping aging? Nah I can't. It's a lot more complex than just a simple rewrite or to get rid of a simple strain of bacteria. If you want to get into scifi science machine viruses are possible as well. I can believe the korgan or asari easier because they are naturally occuring organic. We already know that organic species can do some amazing **** with evolution. Machine parts don't undergo evolution (at least not in the same sense) so it'd be upgrading tech to what's available eventually there is a peak there. Evolution isn't as limited. Software itself can also be fairly limiting and apative programming itself is still fairly limited compared to organic adaption. Of course there are up sides, but I personally like being a human wouldn't want to be part or full machine. I'll take the down sides. Warp and such is suppose to be due to dark matter whichmakes some sense given what we do know about dark matter, but again I suspend belief for some things .

Can you tell I love science? I actually like to try to find the real science in the make believe science it's hard sometimes, but it's fun. So not that your ideas can't be vaild, but just hard to put into real science context. I prefer more real science than make believe science. Make believe science often makes things too perfect, too ideal, too unrealistic compared to what we know about the world around us and the universe. Mass effect wasn't nearly as bad as other games kind of why I liked it, but then starchild showed up to fubar it. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the big giant machine thing that can somehow alter every single lifeform in the galaxy...haven't found a good way to explain that yet.

Modifié par fizzypop, 16 avril 2013 - 06:05 .

[Nightdragon8]

Steelcan wrote...

It depends. But really if Destroy killed organics I'd have some serious beefs with its logic.

and it would have been called a Halo clone...

one race sure I can deal... maybe if its not humans...

tho I would insist that I be allowed to record something for the other races to eat and choke on if I where to sacfice the human race.

accutly if i had to choose.... I would say vorcha... and or Batarians.

[Mangalores]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
...

No one is at war. Is fire at war when it burns? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?

There is only the harvest. The Intelligence still serves its purpose. However it now sees the galaxy as an experiment.

The reapers were created to harvest.

Which is irrelevant. We destroy fire when it tries to burn us. To claim it is not a war is just argueing semantics. It doesn't make any difference if you fight a wildfire to survive or an enemy that wants to exterminate you. Since the Reapers show a level of intelligence supposedly superior to ours their excuse for the harvest is no better than that of any extremist murderer out there.

The Geth have shown the capability to change their mind, EDI has shown the capability to change their mind. That the Reaper can't shows either they are a fanatic enemy that excuses their behaviour behind a facade of doing it for an obscure greater good. Well, where in many parts of our history have we heard that line before?

[Fade9wayz]

remydat wrote...

Fade9wayz
 
Put it like this, Frankenstein was still organic.  He was created from organic material.  The Reapers are created from organic material.  That is made perfectly clear in the game.  They don't just store data and memories.  They are literally made from turning organics into mash potatoes.  Without organic material from Leviathan, Harbinger could not be born.  So not sure your point about living civilisation.  I said they were synthetic organics because they are.  You need both materials to create a reaper.

And I think you missed my point.  My point was whether you like it or not, the Reapers are synthetic and organic.  My point was the threat is to both synthetics and organics.  So if the solution to an entity that is made of both and that threatens both is a machine that kills all of synthetics then that is an inherently biased solution.  That was me saying that is how a synthetic would likely see it.  Organics created a weapon to deal with an entity of synthetic organic origins that threated both synthetics and organics which prejudiciously kills all synthetics.

And I was just saying your point about the Geth is metagaming.  The Geth in the story need the RC to either kill the Quarians or to convince the Quarians to stand down.  So I was just pointing out they have no basis not to upload the code in the story.  Doesn't mean you can't mention it but it is a point that not all people agree with so wasn't sure where you stood on the matter.

/stares at remydat

At this point I have to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. You're the one missing my point entirely, these organic components, even living ones, don't seem to have consciousness. The only consciousness I'm given to witness throughout all three games is the synthetic one. Reapers were made to harvest. That's what they do like good little drones obeying the Catalyst's, a completely synthetic AI hidden in the Citadel. They never question it and it's logic. If the organic goo had retained any sort of consciousness from before their harvest, I highly doubt it would agree to it being inflicted on other organics. When they say "We are nation -bla-bla-bla" It' just means that the organic parts they store are organic datas from a DEAD DEAD DEAD civilisation. Shall I underline it too? This is why I brought up the Shepard exemple. His/her synthetic parts don't have consciousness. And again, why would Reapers need Synthesis in the first place, if they already were such perfect hybrids both the organic and synthetic parts had equal say in their behaviour? Obviously, while they use and store organic components, they sure as hell don't understand what it really means being organic, just as Shepard doesn't really know what it means being a real synthetic. Anyway, we still don't know what true function the organic parts might have. Nowhere is it explained and my interpretation is no more invalid than yours is. Besides, this is a moot point, I have already stated I don't care about their nature or origin and whatever any future hypothetical AI might think of this, especially if it isn't smart enough to put it all back into context. Yes, organics, built a device that could destroy synthetics in self-preservation. They weren't going to build a super virus that would kill all organics in the hope of destroying Reapers too in the process, were they? Especially since they didn't know they were part organic. The premises of your reasoning are wrong, because as far as we know, Shepard is the first person who's ever spoken with any of them, seen how a Reaper is made and met Leviathan, let alone met the Catalyst. It can't be resentful to organics for building the crucible. It's a logical outcome in a context of galactic conflict with a super-race of Synthetics. Geth helped build the Crucible, they most likely knew what it could do and they still helped.

Frankenstein WAS organic. What is your point? It's not the two nails in his skull that make him synthetic or we are talking semantics between two different kinds of synthetics, organic and inorganic ones, and I have no interest in that. Frankenstein was more organic than any Reaper ever was. Matter is matter, you do not transform organic matter into wholly different inorganic matter out of thin air and vice versa, unless you're telling me we could build giant metallic structures with only the traces of iron and even faintest amount of other kind of metal found in an entire body by mashing up the whole mankind into some unindentified organic goo. Hey! Maybe that's the way to solve ressources problems!

There is space magic I can accept, and there's the one I can only shake my head at. That, for me, falls into the second category. Just like adding inorganic DNA to organic DNA. Physics and biology have rules even Reapers and the Catalyst shouldn't ignore. You won't find chains of desoxyribbonucleic acids in Geth or EDI, let alone ones that will combine in any way with ours. We can't even combine with other organic species without rejecting it. Or do you mean Synthesis creates on the spot Geth DNA and EDI DNA just so that it can combine with organics? Compatible with all the organics, dextro and levo? Sapient races, animals and even plants as shown in the Synthesis ending if we metagame? Is iron part organic and sentient too now? Whoa! And what will the Geth and EDI do with it? Grow glands and start producing hormones so that they can experience mood swings like us? Can we switch the universal connexion off when we need raw material? I don't want to hear my salad scream when I eat it, or the tortured wails of agony from molten rocks in the core of planets. Is it murder to eat a salad to begin with? 

I know I'm exaggerating my point, but it does illustrate well my feelings about it. So Sorry, but personally, there's no way I can accept it. The whole ending was already stretching the line of what I could accept extremely thin, but Synthesis was like a giant insult for me. It fell so deep into the uncanny valley pit, that it had to stay buried there. If you can accept it, then good for you, you obviously have more tolerance for bad story-telling than me.

And since you seem to base your decision with metagaming. Answer me this, do you think North Koreans are really as exctatic as they look in their propaganda vids? And what about those who opposed the government? What about the kids born into reeducation camps that will betray their own mother without a second thought for a rice bowl? I'm pretty sure Kim Jong Un would love to have indoctrination at his disposal too. You'd be amazed at what simple tight community control can already achieve.
Oh, and we know now for a long time that we can radically modifiy someone's personality with drugs or by removing some part of the brain. Even without going that far, I can attest to the fact that it's very easy to feel very, very happy for no reason with morphin, for exemple. So maybe in Synthesis people are sincerely happy, maybe their state of mind is sublty controlled. There's no evidence one way or the other so any speculation about it possible, including mine. If I am going to entertain the idea of a super AI getting antsy by organics' past behaviour, you have to be ready to entertain the idea that Shep might go all Kim Jung Un on the Galactic community or that everyone is brain-washed in Synthesis.

About the Geth, it's not metagaming since this possibilty doesn't exist and we can't modify our desision according to this. It's pure speculation.

And because all of this was way too serious: 




http://efleck.devian...hesis-345902361

Modifié par Fade9wayz, 16 avril 2013 - 12:40 .

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

fizzypop wrote...

Everyone get's an opinion and a vote, but the majority is who votes them in and has control over policies. It wouldn't be mob rule it'd mean just what I said the majority votes in their elected reps and those reps vote in policies. Those policies should be about benefitting the most people because let's face it, it's unrealistic we will help everyone. Sometimes you do have to make hard choices in order to make sure everything runs smoothly. Not that I don't disagree there are problems with the system and we've seen them, but I still think that system is better than the alternative. As far as protecting the minorities that's a laugh and I am a minority.

Of course that part is off topic let's go back to the game. Where did I say you should kill those you don't like? Choosing destroy means you kill the geth not because you don't like them, but because you need to kill the reapers who refuse to stop harvesting. You make a choice it has a consequence. Does that consequence suck? Sure, but that's life. Your balancing the needs of the many races over the needs of one race.

That's okay if you wouldn't do it. I don't really care what you decide in your game, but what I am saying is it should have consequences that are realistic. We both know that everyone being all peachy with it isn't realistic. That's my problem. It makes the choice hollow. It's just another "let's all be friends ending" which is a cop out.

I have the same problem with the control ending. It's simply a cop out. Ignoring any real depth and making it again another hollow choice.

I'm not even arguing one choice is more vaild than another, but I do think you need to open up your mind to the possible consequences of said actions. Acting as if they are perfect in every single way cannot possibly have ramifcations that are negative is short-sighted and boring. All of the endings could've been better, but destroy felt real because it had consequences. Heck I might have even chosen control if there were consequences that felt real.

No sorry, allowing someone for example to be lynched because the majority is ok with it is not the role of government.  The constitution guarantees everyone a right to life.  EVERYONE.  You just don't get to take that right away when there are other alternatives.

If you made a decision to kill all blacks to save the rest of humanity the majority of which were part of the KKK, how do you think that will be viewed by them?  The majority hate/fear the Geth simply because they exist.  Killing them is validating not only them but the Reapers who thought this hate/fear was inevitable and so decided to harvest ie kill.

And sorry, you must not have been reading my other posts because I have argued from the start control and synthesis are not perfect.  Hell I even had a humorus example of how I had to end a playthrough because my earthborn ruthless shep would because use Control to dominate or eliminate the Council Races.

No, it doesn't.  In fact, it currently gives the government the right to kill people that violate laws.  A capital crime, such as murder or treason can carry the death penalty.  The Reapers are guilty of murder.  But Rob, the Reapers are really preserving all life.  Really, stand on the graves of a trillion dead people, and ask them if they feel preserved.  Ask Joker if his family is still alive.

I'm not even going to debate racism.  This is just another reach to say "you people are monsters".

[remydat]

The Twilight God

The game does not show Shep understanding on his own he could just shoot this power conduit.  There is no way to prove your arriving at this conclusion is not the result of the Catalyst explaining this to you because that is the beauty of being a game player.  You can see how everything plays out and then pretend like you would have arrived at the conclusion about the Power Conduit without the Catalyst.

I see plenty to trust the Catalsyt. You don't  Either we both have the right to form our own judgments or we don't  You are making a blanket statement and trying to apply it to people like me who disagree.  So don't tell me WE don't see anything because you are trying to speak for me.  You don't see anything.  I do.

The purpose was to find a perfect solution.  The harvest is not a perfect solution.  The harvest was not Leviathan's idea, protect life AT ALL COSTS was.  So you are confusing goals and methods.  Levithan knows what the goal is ie end conflict, it does not know the method it will achieve it.  If it did then it would not have had to give it such a vague directive.

Yes we know the Catalyst represents their collective intelligence.  Just like the Reapers are the collective intelligence of the species it harvested.  That doesn't mean they are not different.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

No, it doesn't.  In fact, it currently gives the government the right to kill people that violate laws.  A capital crime, such as murder or treason can carry the death penalty.  The Reapers are guilty of murder.  But Rob, the Reapers are really preserving all life.  Really, stand on the graves of a trillion dead people, and ask them if they feel preserved.  Ask Joker if his family is still alive.

I'm not even going to debate racism.  This is just another reach to say "you people are monsters".

Yes it does.  The constitution guarantees everyone the right to life and liberty.  EDI and the Geth are not guilty of the Reapers crimes.  No one cares about the Reapers.  No one chooses Synthesis or Control to save the Reapers.  They do it to save EDI and the Geth ie the people not responsible for the Reapers crimes.

If I commit a crime, you don't just get to kill someone else for my crime.  And no, organics are prejudiced against synthetics.  That is clear in the game.  The Geth were attacked when they harmed no one, harmless AI were killed when they harmed no one and EDI would be attack if the Council knew she was an unshackled AI.  She says this herself in the game.  If synthetics are considered a race or species then what am I suppose to call organics fearing/hating them for what they are?

Modifié par remydat, 16 avril 2013 - 08:22 .