935 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I know that the OP's version of Destroy is not in the game, although Low-EMS Destroy definitely resembles it. I agree that High-EMS Destroy is a good ending, even though I prefer Synthesis. I'm not arguing that High-EMS Destroy is bad. I'm arguing that the OP's extreme version of Destroy is not worth the cost.

I would have selected any one of the races, including humanity to go along with the geth and EDI, but since his scenario winds up ultimately on Refuse, why even suggest it?  Of course I already answered that question.  However, my choice is hardcore, it's not too much to ensure that the galaxy has a chance to continue as it was before the war that's not a war.  There is nothing easy about the aftermath of the choice either.  Rebuilding is going to be a long drawn out process, but at least we have the chance to do so, free of the Reaper threat once and for all.

[Wayning_Star]

word of "God" doesn't mean anything... distraction really. (like 'good' ending?)

[CosmicGnosis]

robertthebard wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

A line from one of the leaked scripts states the following:

"Shepard must now make his final decision - to control the Reapers, to destroy the Reapers, or if they had a perfect game to become one with the Reapers."

The conversation with the Catalyst from the scripts also favors the "merge" option, and Destroy is always implied to be the worst option. In fact, in the leaked scripts, Destroy is the only ending that destroys the mass relays, which is appropriate. The endings that we originally got, however, had the relays destroyed in every ending.

One of Ieldra's threads has the dialogue from an older script:

About Destroy:
C: It's energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will succumb.
C: As will much the technology your kind rely on.
C: Including the relays you depend upon.
S: But the Reapers will be dead?
C: Correct. But the probability of singularity occurring again in the future is certain.

About Control:
C: Harness the Crucible's energy. Use it to take control of the ones you call the Reapers.
S: Control? So the Illusive Man was right.
C: Correct... though he could never have taken control, as we already controlled him.
S: What would happen to me?
C: You will become the catalyst. You will continue the cycle as you see fit.
S: And the Reapers will obey me?
C: Correct.

About Synthesis:
C: You may combine the synthetic and the organic.
C: Add your energy, your essence, with that of Crucible. The resulting chain reaction will transform both of our kind.
C: We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us.
S: So we'll just... go on living, together?
C: It is a very elegant solution. And a path you have already started down.
C: The harvesting will cease. It will be a new ascension, for synthetic and organic life.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11989180

Not seeing the "good" ending.  Not really seeing much that's very different from what we actually got, except the retcon of all synthetics will be destroyed to all synthetics will be targeted.  You see, proof of Synthesis is the good ending is going to need to be Word of God.  The leaked script was retconned, and is no longer Word of God.  I mean, if we play on might have beens, wasn't the singularity the Dark Matter plot?

It's obvious that the third option is favored. Not only does the script refer to it as a "perfect game", the Catalyst also favors it over Control and Destroy.

Here is another version:

Shepard: What is it you want from me?

Catalyst: I can harness and direct the energy of the Crucible.
Catalyst: But you must choose how to release it.
Catalyst: And you must decide the form its energy will take.

Shepard: I don’t understand.

Catalyst:The energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will be destroyed.
Catalyst: As will much of the technology your kind rely on.
Catalyst: Including the relays you will use to dispense the energy.

Shepard: And the other choice?

Catalyst: You may harness the energy. Use it to circumvent my control of the Reapers.

Shepard: Control? So the Illusive Man was right.

Catalyst: Correct... though he could never have taken control, as we already controlled him.

Shepard: And what happens to me?

Catalyst: You will subvert my existence. You will control the Reapers. You will continue to seek an answer to problem.

Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?

Catalyst: Correct.
Catalyst: There is another choice.
Catalyst: My ultimate goal, the exact solution to the singularity problem, is to combine the synthetic and the organic.

Shepard: Combine?

Catalyst: Much like yourself. You are already a melding of both.
Catalyst:If you choose so, your energy, combined with that of the Crucible, can be used to convert, and transform each of our kind.
Catalyst: We, will become like you, and organic life will become like us. And the problem of Technological Singularity will be solved.
Catalyst: But you must choose.
Catalyst: But you must act. It must be your volition that guides my actions.
Catalyst: Go. If you falter now, the cycle will continue. I will not act as Catalyst if you do not act first.


To top it all off, Synthesis as a unique ending requires the highest EMS in the final game. Shepard's survival requires more, but it is merely attached to the best Destroy ending. In other words, you can get the best Destroy ending minus the breath scene before you can get Synthesis.

Finally, here is a quote from Mac Walters:

"I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people, but I know what they mean, they’re talking about the gameplay optimal ending, and the single player has all of the assets that you need to be able to achieve that."
- Mac Walters

Before the Extended Cut, it was impossible to get the breath scene without multiplayer. And yet, Walters claims that players can get the optimal ending without multiplayer. The implication is that Synthesis is the optimal ending, which is consistent with the leaked scripts.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 avril 2013 - 06:25 .

[robertthebard]

Wayning_Star wrote...

word of "God" doesn't mean anything... distraction really. (like 'good' ending?)

Perhaps, but if a writer was to show up and ****slap me with "Yes, we intended that everybody would choose Synthesis as the superior choice, as we had no idea that you people would be so mean as to kill EDI and the geth to end the Reapers", I'd have to buy it.  I may not like it, but I'd have to buy it.  That is, however, vastly superior to a random BSN poster altering the ending to make it worse than it already was to say "you people are monsters", which is the context in which we are having this particular discussion.

[robertthebard]

CosmicGnosis wrote...


Finally, here is a quote from Mac Walters:

"I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are optimal for different people, but I know what they mean, they’re talking about the gameplay optimal ending, and the single player has all of the assets that you need to be able to achieve that."
- Mac Walters

Before the Extended Cut, it was impossible to get the breath scene without multiplayer. And yet, Walters claims that players can get the optimal ending without multiplayer. The implication is that Synthesis is the optimal ending, which is consistent with the leaked scripts.

They also claimed that you could get the best possible ending w/out MP, and we all know that wasn't true either.  Which is why they changed the EMS needed.  Nothing in that quote says:  Synthesis is the superior ending.  The EMS needed to get it means simply that it had to be in better shape for the Space Magic to work, and anything less, and that's the part that gets blowed up first.

[CosmicGnosis]

To be completely clear, I don't think High-EMS Destroy is bad. I just don't like it as much as other people do. It's obvious to me that all of the high-EMS endings are good endings.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 avril 2013 - 06:31 .

[robertthebard]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

To be completely clear, I don't think High-EMS Destroy is bad. I just don't like it as much as other people do. It's obvious to me that all of the high-EMS endings are good endings.

...and to be fair, I think getting to the endings is more contrived than the endings.  Hence my sig.  But if I'm going to swallow the Harbinger DeM, I'm blowing their asses up.

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Again, arguing opinions as facts will get you nowhere.  I don't share your opinion, therefore one of us must be wrong?  I was on Eden Prime in ME 1, and I saw how the Reapers implemented Synthesis.  Remember the Dragon's Teeth?  Unless, of course, you're going to tell me that that was geth tech?  Which Council member are you?  Sorry, but I haven't been shot in the head nearly enough times to think that that's a good idea, or to believe the geth invented the tech.  Every single Reaper Variant we fight along the way to the beam is the Reaper's attempt at Synthesis, but you still think it's a good idea?  Sorry, but when I consider the results they have gotten over the time that I've been fighting them, that's not an option.  I know, but reasons, right?  You are doing what the Reapers have spent countless cycles trying to do, make everyone the same.

It is explicitly stated that Synthesis comes from the Crucible.

The thing we built, independently of the Reapers.

Catalyst: "Add your (body) to the Crucible ..."

Ehm, wasn't the exact quote "add your energy to the crucible's"? Like in "the crucible is little more than a power source"?

[CosmicGnosis]

robertthebard wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

To be completely clear, I don't think High-EMS Destroy is bad. I just don't like it as much as other people do. It's obvious to me that all of the high-EMS endings are good endings.

...and to be fair, I think getting to the endings is more contrived than the endings.  Hence my sig.  But if I'm going to swallow the Harbinger DeM, I'm blowing their asses up.

And that's okay. I just wish that Control and Synthesis didn't get so much visceral hate. As I see it, every ending carries a combination of good themes and bad themes. Each player has to decide which ending they believe carries the most important good themes. For myself, Synthesis barely wins.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 avril 2013 - 06:41 .

[robertthebard]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

To be completely clear, I don't think High-EMS Destroy is bad. I just don't like it as much as other people do. It's obvious to me that all of the high-EMS endings are good endings.

...and to be fair, I think getting to the endings is more contrived than the endings.  Hence my sig.  But if I'm going to swallow the Harbinger DeM, I'm blowing their asses up.

And that's okay. I just wish that Control and Synthesis didn't get so much visceral hate. As I see it, every ending carries a combination of good themes and bad themes. Each player has to decide which ending they believe carries the most important good themes. For myself, Synthesis barely wins.

All the endings get it, some worse than others.  I call mine the Ultimate Refusal, since I die on the way to the beam in London.  I refuse to acknowledge that I could live through that.  I had to swallow the Lazarus DeM in order to play ME 2, which to me is where they really messed the whole series up, I don't want to face another.

[Argolas]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

To be completely clear, I don't think High-EMS Destroy is bad. I just don't like it as much as other people do. It's obvious to me that all of the high-EMS endings are good endings.

Then we pretty much agree about that. It's not just the geth, other than some Destroyers the casualties bother me. There are other synthetics, for example those "virtual aliens". I just think that the reapers can't be treated in any but the renegade way. Every attempt of cooperation, peace, even the slightest friendly offer the reapers ever made turns out to be manipulation and always ends with the extinction of the fooled. My Shep is not only playing with the lives of this cycle, but also with everyone that will ever be born. He didn't choose to make that kind of decision and he certainly never wanted to, but if that eternal ancient nightmare can be ended for good... you must understand what that chance means.

Maybe it's also the expectations that I had when I started ME3. Ever since ME1, I asked myself "how the hell are we supposed to survive this?". I saw how the whole Arcturus fleet battled Sovereign and had almost lost if I hadn't disabled its shields by killing Saren (?). If whole fleets of those arrive... well... bad. In ME2, I saw how difficult it is to even wipe out reaper pawns, it was frightening how powerful the collectors were and how much they could do even before the actual reapers came. So in ME3, I never felt particulary depressed about all those massacres, millions dying and such because I knew that galactic extinctioin is the usual thing, so everyone I saved was a win as opposed to everyone who died is a loss. Frankly, even such a depressing ending like Low EMS Destroy where almost everyone dies (and it is implied that none of the Normandy's crew survived either) would have felt like a victory- because the Reapers are gone and we survived with just enough hope left to rebuild from a galactic dark age. An amazing victory that tens of thousands of cycles failed at.

[Fade9wayz]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Mangalores wrote...

You have no clue whether it's exaggerated. None knows what these other options actually do until you choose them.

If you assume what we're told about Destroy is true, you must assume the same for Control and Sync, in which case the descriptions ("turn into badly programmed catalyst" and "everybody dies" respectively) is exaggerated demagoggy.

When you use big words, make sure you fully understand them: Here, I'll help you out. Definition of demagogy: The art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

In other words: manipulation.

Your statement, however I read it, is absolutely non-sequitur logic AND an attempt at manipulation itself. 

Considering that our motivations for our choice were outright dismissed as void or stupid/monstrous and that we were then presented with the lolzupsetfutureAI-that-doesn't-even-appear-in-the-Destroy-ending argument. Personnally I feel very entitled to point out that what we see of the Control ending does not exclude the fact that ShepAI could turn into a bloodthirsty ruler of the galaxy. Especially if we played an Ultra-renegade Shep. You know? The one who lets the Council die, lets civillians burn in a factory, lets some kid get himself killed, throws people out of the window for fun, keeps the Collector base, doesn't care if his male crew members die, keeps the Genophage and chose Quarians over Geth because Quarians booty>>>>Geth booty and oh, an organic species was just screwd up on Tuchanka, it's the synthetics turn, wouldn't want to be accused of being biased against organics after all. That is actually my current playthrough and his motivations are just that: You've got a nice boooty? I'll keep you. You annoy me? You die. And I'm going to pick Control for this one, because EDI booty>>>freedom for galaxy. And once I'm in control, I will build myself a remote platform, like EDI, only part organic since I'm a Reaper and I'll have one big orgy. Yup, yup, be happy, your manipulation worked. Oh, and the EC music for ShepAI's talk in Control has such a foreboding feeling, so much better than the banally epic one in Destroy or the flat electronic one in Synthesis. (actually, I think just the music in Synthesis is enough for me to refuse it)

At least I'm consistent with my role-playing 

Modifié par Fade9wayz, 18 avril 2013 - 08:26 .

[Mangalores]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

...

My point is that I don't think this particular victory is worth it. People like to condemn Synthesis because it alters all life in the galaxy, but this version of Destroy will literally annihilate all life in the galaxy..... It's also better to cast aside the legacies of the species within the Reapers and ensure that they are forever lost to history. Humanity will also be forgotten. Other species that are currently evolving on other worlds will never be known.

Such a profound waste of life. What if you had the choice between this version of Destroy and controlling the Reapers? Would you still choose Destroy?

It would have been indeed a better dilemma and I certainly would have pondered more about what to do,  particularly if Synthesis would have been proposed more convincingly.

I'm not against any of the three choices in principle, my problem is that Control and Synthesis aren't really portrayed in the game. Control is what TIM stands for, no thanks, and Synthesis is what the Reapers think up right before I might be able to blow them up. Both have pisspoor arguments for them since they come from entirely untrustworthy sources without any in game facts backing them up.
If they had been foreshadowed and argued for the entire game and by characters who show a minimum of mental capacity I would prefer Control over Destroy and Synthesis if necessary.

Would I destroy all life to kill the Reapers? It would have been a hell of a game ending to ask me that.

PS: Concerning the leagacy of civilizations lost in destroying the Reapers. Again, if we had ever seen the wonders of the past I might have a reason to ponder that but as is we do not even know what Reapers mean by harvesting. The only things we see is black goo and people dieing horribly.

Modifié par Mangalores, 18 avril 2013 - 08:12 .

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

Completely disproven by Harbinger in ME2. Bring Legion to fight the Collectors. If a Harbinger-possessed drone takes Legion down, you will hear Harbinger analyze Legion:  "Geth: an annoyance, limited utility."

Saren says that Soveregin sees them as nothing then tools. NOT harvests. tools.

And THAT'S your arguement on the Catalyst? A statement saying that if a synthetic being said it was alright to jump off a cliff, that's it's the logical thing to do? That we should jump off the cliff because the synthetic said to? On blind faith? Just because said being is synthetic? That doesn't even begin to make sense. The Catalyst devalued life as an equasion. Shepard proved it wrong in the end, and it changed it's formula and made a new solution, and let Shepard - the independent variable - choose which one was best to impliment.
Even Mordin atmitts that he made a mistake in altering the genophage, and that he only saw the big picture when the "big picture made up of little pictures. Too many variables." And that this is him setting it right. He admits it was a mistake. That it was bad. So your arguement is out the window yet again.

And if that's true, why was a new Refuse ending put in? And again, they seem to have put equal work in the other endings of the game. AND they had a poll to see which ending people preferred. The answer was Destroy because that's where Shepard lives. That's pretty much the only reason.
So, then, WHERE is your proof that Synthesis is what BioWare "preferred" to be the ending?

And accepting the deal with the Reapers is STILL death, because the Reapers will discard them when done. They traded qucik death with the quarians for enslavement and eventual death with the Reapers. You yourself argued with me that the alternitive that makes you live longer is sensless since they die anyway. And yet here you are doing a complete 180 and agreeing with me that the option that ensures you live longer IS the right option when deciding in the here and now? Make up your mind!

Nothing was completely disproved by Harbinger. The Catalyst is the boss. Harbinger is its flunky. The boss said all organic and synthetic life is harvested. Harbinger said some sh*t about a single Geth when quite frankly the Geth are not even considered true AI until the Reaper upgrades. They are essentially cave men when it comes to synthetics. None of which disproves the Catalyst’s statement. There is nothing that prevents someone from being a tool as well as a harvest. Marauders, Cannibals, Banshees, Husks, etc. are all tools to the Reapers. They all ultimately are created from races that can be harvested. So tools and harvest is not mutually exclusive so you have disproven nothing.  Further, Harby's statment was to Geth.  Proves nothing about all the previous synthetic races in the previous cycle.

And you are confused. Shep provides evidence the harvest ie the imperfect solution is no longer necessary. If a vaccine is no longer successful in fighting a disease that does not mean the disease was an illusion. The harvest was a solution to a problem.  The fact it was an imperfect or dumb solution does not prove the problem was not real.

As for Synthesis being the preferred ending, Cosmic already provided additional evidence. I don’t really care if you choose to believe it or not. The Refuse ending was put in specifically because fans cried about the endings.

And as I said to Argolas, accepting the deal with the Reapers is not certain death precisely because someone like Shep can come along and save you. The game proves it is not the same as dying today because the Geth did not die tomorrow in some playthroughs.  In some playthroughs Shep saves them which he would be unable to do if they chose to die today.

Modifié par remydat, 18 avril 2013 - 11:09 .

[remydat]

Mangalores wrote...

Actually the reasoning for the genophage is that Krogan reproduction was based on high number of offspring with extremely low survival rates and that uplifting removed this factor. The genophage artificially reintroduced a factor rebalance the system.

It's a bit weird that in a breeding strategy of 1000 offspring per year the emotional effects for a species with 1:1 female ratio would be similar as that of mammals with high investment offspring and low birth rates

The reason does not change the fact the genophage kills Krogan babies that never harmed anyone yet.  It was a pre-emptive solution just like the harvest was.  It does not punish the person committing the crime.  It punishes their descendents for eternity if it remains uncured.

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

But genetics ARE part of culture. Our genetics give us our senses, which factor into how we percieve things: the foundation for how culture is created. Change genetics, and you change a core part of who you are, and how you percieve things, and by changing how you persieve things, be it through taste, touch, sensory, or even hanar biolumenesience, then you are changing how that lifeform's culture evolves. So YES, the two are irrovocibly linked - one can't exist without the other.
So, sorry, but I think you might need to drop that class.

You guys basically want to change the very definition of words just to support your argument.  Culture is in fact defined as learned behaviors that are NOT the result of genetics.  This is basic anthropology.  So you are in fact wrong.  So sorry I trust the academic discipline that studies culture and their definition more than I trust you.  What are your credentials to support your claim?  Did you stay at a holiday inn express last night or something?


In the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be attributed to genetic inheritance. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

robertthebard wrote...

I'm going to point out the obvious contradiction to this by underlining one word in your reply.  I am beginning to see the problem we are having, and really there's not a lot I can do about it.

Yes the problem is I studied anthropology and the definition above is invalidates your whole genetics destroys culture argument.  You are free to petition various anthropology departments across the globe and ask they revisit their definition because you don't like synthesis.

Modifié par remydat, 18 avril 2013 - 11:30 .

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

I ignore that question because it is irrelevant.

The reason the geth went extinct in my playthrough was their own stupidity. They drove the quarians into exile and took their homeworld, they have no right to act like victims when the quarians come back for it. Both sides commited genocide in the Morning War, yet while all those quarians back then are dead and the current ones are mere victims of their mistakes, the very same geth that did this still rule Rannoch.

The quarians forced the geth's hand to join the reapers? The geth forced the quarian's hands to attack them. And Legion forced my Shepard's hand to destroy it because it would otherwise have uploaded FRICKIN REAPER TECH to its whole species. This is nearly as insane as what TIM did to his soldiers, minus the indoctrination which might as well follow for all I know. Many claimed to have reaper tech under control and it was never true.

As I said before, the geth did about the only thing they could do to turn my Shepard against them. Even if they didn't become extinct, they have already sacrificed anything a true geth would stand for.#

Their final move, the alliance with the reapers, was the most stupid move that they could possibly pull. If you don't see that, as I said, I don't know how to discuss with you.

Except it isn't irrelevant.  Your entire claim is that it was stupid to join the Reapers.  The fact the Reapers are the only way in the game for them to live long enough so that Shep can decide to save them or not is in fact the only relevant point in this entire discussion. 

All you did is go off on a tangent from the original point.  If siding with the Reapers allows the Geth to live long anough for ANYONE in ANY playthrough to save them then that is preferrable to the finality of extinction.

Argolas wrote...
The geth themselves disagree with that point.

Legion: An interesting choice, Shepard-Commander. Your species was offered anything the geth aspired to. True unity. Understanding. Transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused the possibility of using the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your specie's own terms. You are more like us than we thought.

The above statement is completely irrelevant when extinction is on the table.  In a pre-extinction world I will not screw a fat chic.  In a world where if I don't screw a fat chic, my species dies then I will do what I have to do.

Modifié par remydat, 18 avril 2013 - 11:35 .

[Argolas]

remydat wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I ignore that question because it is irrelevant.

The reason the geth went extinct in my playthrough was their own stupidity. They drove the quarians into exile and took their homeworld, they have no right to act like victims when the quarians come back for it. Both sides commited genocide in the Morning War, yet while all those quarians back then are dead and the current ones are mere victims of their mistakes, the very same geth that did this still rule Rannoch.

The quarians forced the geth's hand to join the reapers? The geth forced the quarian's hands to attack them. And Legion forced my Shepard's hand to destroy it because it would otherwise have uploaded FRICKIN REAPER TECH to its whole species. This is nearly as insane as what TIM did to his soldiers, minus the indoctrination which might as well follow for all I know. Many claimed to have reaper tech under control and it was never true.

As I said before, the geth did about the only thing they could do to turn my Shepard against them. Even if they didn't become extinct, they have already sacrificed anything a true geth would stand for.#

Their final move, the alliance with the reapers, was the most stupid move that they could possibly pull. If you don't see that, as I said, I don't know how to discuss with you.

Except it isn't irrelevant.  Your entire claim is that it was stupid to join the Reapers.  The fact the Reapers are the only way in the game for them to live long enough so that Shep can decide to save them or not is in fact the only relevant point in this entire discussion. 

All you did is go off on a tangent from the original point.  If siding with the Reapers allows the Geth to live long anough for ANYONE in ANY playthrough to save them then that is preferrable to the finality of extinction.

Argolas wrote...
The geth themselves disagree with that point.

Legion: An interesting choice, Shepard-Commander. Your species was offered anything the geth aspired to. True unity. Understanding. Transcendence. You rejected it. You even refused the possibility of using the Old Machines' gifts to achieve it on your specie's own terms. You are more like us than we thought.

The above statement is completely irrelevant when extinction is on the table.  In a pre-extinction world I will not screw a fat chic.  In a world where if I don't screw a fat chic, my species dies then I will do what I have to do.

Your interpration is false.

The geth never planned to hold out until someone comes for their rescue (while under reaper control, good one), they accepted a permanent alliance with the reapers.

Shepard: Even if it costs the geth their free will?
Legion: That is appearently an acceptable trade.

Your second point also false. It wasn't a desperate measure. They want it.

Legion: We find this growth... beautiful.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

But genetics ARE part of culture. Our genetics give us our senses, which factor into how we percieve things: the foundation for how culture is created. Change genetics, and you change a core part of who you are, and how you percieve things, and by changing how you persieve things, be it through taste, touch, sensory, or even hanar biolumenesience, then you are changing how that lifeform's culture evolves. So YES, the two are irrovocibly linked - one can't exist without the other.
So, sorry, but I think you might need to drop that class.

You guys basically want to change the very definition of words just to support your argument.  Culture is in fact defined as learned behaviors that are NOT the result of genetics.  This is basic anthropology.  So you are in fact wrong.  So sorry I trust the academic discipline that studies culture and their definition more than I trust you.  What are your credentials to support your claim?  Did you stay at a holiday inn express last night or something?


In the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be attributed to genetic inheritance. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

robertthebard wrote...

I'm going to point out the obvious contradiction to this by underlining one word in your reply.  I am beginning to see the problem we are having, and really there's not a lot I can do about it.

Yes the problem is I studied anthropology and the definition above is invalidates your whole genetics destroys culture argument.  You are free to petition various anthropology departments across the globe and ask they revisit their definition because you don't like synthesis.

Does it?  Take a look at (1) in your definition again, and tell me, where are we having our problem?  So that's how the word is defined in anthropology, or, rather, how the concept is defined.  So if we go look, we'll find that this is the only definition?

In this new view, genes allow the human mind to learn, remember, imitate, imprint language, absorb culture and express instincts. —Matt Ridley, Time, 2 June 2003

 
Source  Gee, I guess not all sciences share the definition of the word, eh?  Genes equals genetics, yes?  So altering DNA will alter these genes, which will alter the ability to learn, remember, etc etc etc.  So, exactly as I postulated initially, Synthesis takes this away, thus killing cultures before they ever get a chance to evolve, hey, there's that pesky word again.  Thanks for providing the definition though, it's very enlightening.

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

Your interpration is false.

The geth never planned to hold out until someone comes for their rescue (while under reaper control, good one), they accepted a permanent alliance with the reapers.

Shepard: Even if it costs the geth their free will?
Legion: That is appearently an acceptable trade.

Your second point also false. It wasn't a desperate measure. They want it.

Legion: We find this growth... beautiful.

You are confused.  I don't need to know exactly how I can be saved or rescued.  I simply need to know that as long as I survive, it is possible.

No they did not want it.  That second comment was Legion explaining the upgrades' benefits ONLY AFTER being given them against his will..  He says several times in the game that the Geth only accept the Reaper's help because the Quarians attack.  See below where Legion says the Geth had not other choice, How Tali tries to claim they did, how EDI says no they did not and then how Tali finally laments how she told the Quarians not to go to war.  So no they did not want it.  They were forced.  Legion after the fact simply realises that the RC allows them to become True AI and he says we find that growth beautiful.



So yeah you are blatantly taking the above statement out of context.  

Modifié par remydat, 19 avril 2013 - 01:37 .

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

Does it?  Take a look at (1) in your definition again, and tell me, where are we having our problem?  So that's how the word is defined in anthropology, or, rather, how the concept is defined.  So if we go look, we'll find that this is the only definition?

In this new view, genes allow the human mind to learn, remember, imitate, imprint language, absorb culture and express instincts. —Matt Ridley, Time, 2 June 2003

 
Source  Gee, I guess not all sciences share the definition of the word, eh?  Genes equals genetics, yes?  So altering DNA will alter these genes, which will alter the ability to learn, remember, etc etc etc.  So, exactly as I postulated initially, Synthesis takes this away, thus killing cultures before they ever get a chance to evolve, hey, there's that pesky word again.  Thanks for providing the definition though, it's very enlightening.

Um, no.  If I am mentally retarded, of course my ability to learn culture is impaired.  However, the culture is still there, I just can't learn it.  There is no evidence synthesis turns everyone into mentally retarded people.  In fact, the game flat out contradicts this.



Please cite your evidence from the above vid that culture is destroyed?  EDI says they now have access to unlimited knowledge.  EDI says the Reapers share the knowledge of the collective cultures that came before.  EDI says it allows them to recover the greatness once lost and to surpass it.

Everything in the game contradicts you.  Synthesis makes it easier for people to share, learn, remember, etc. which makes it easy to share and understand each other's cutlures.  So you are confused.  If synthesis made everyone mentally retarded you would have a point.  It does not.

Modifié par remydat, 19 avril 2013 - 01:51 .

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Completely disproven by Harbinger in ME2. Bring Legion to fight the Collectors. If a Harbinger-possessed drone takes Legion down, you will hear Harbinger analyze Legion:  "Geth: an annoyance, limited utility."

Saren says that Soveregin sees them as nothing then tools. NOT harvests. tools.

And THAT'S your arguement on the Catalyst? A statement saying that if a synthetic being said it was alright to jump off a cliff, that's it's the logical thing to do? That we should jump off the cliff because the synthetic said to? On blind faith? Just because said being is synthetic? That doesn't even begin to make sense. The Catalyst devalued life as an equasion. Shepard proved it wrong in the end, and it changed it's formula and made a new solution, and let Shepard - the independent variable - choose which one was best to impliment.
Even Mordin atmitts that he made a mistake in altering the genophage, and that he only saw the big picture when the "big picture made up of little pictures. Too many variables." And that this is him setting it right. He admits it was a mistake. That it was bad. So your arguement is out the window yet again.

And if that's true, why was a new Refuse ending put in? And again, they seem to have put equal work in the other endings of the game. AND they had a poll to see which ending people preferred. The answer was Destroy because that's where Shepard lives. That's pretty much the only reason.
So, then, WHERE is your proof that Synthesis is what BioWare "preferred" to be the ending?

And accepting the deal with the Reapers is STILL death, because the Reapers will discard them when done. They traded qucik death with the quarians for enslavement and eventual death with the Reapers. You yourself argued with me that the alternitive that makes you live longer is sensless since they die anyway. And yet here you are doing a complete 180 and agreeing with me that the option that ensures you live longer IS the right option when deciding in the here and now? Make up your mind!

Nothing was completely disproved by Harbinger. The Catalyst is the boss. Harbinger is its flunky. The boss said all organic and synthetic life is harvested. Harbinger said some sh*t about a single Geth when quite frankly the Geth are not even considered true AI until the Reaper upgrades. They are essentially cave men when it comes to synthetics. None of which disproves the Catalyst’s statement. There is nothing that prevents someone from being a tool as well as a harvest. Marauders, Cannibals, Banshees, Husks, etc. are all tools to the Reapers. They all ultimately are created from races that can be harvested. So tools and harvest is not mutually exclusive so you have disproven nothing.  Further, Harby's statment was to Geth.  Proves nothing about all the previous synthetic races in the previous cycle.

And you are confused. Shep provides evidence the harvest ie the imperfect solution is no longer necessary. If a vaccine is no longer successful in fighting a disease that does not mean the disease was an illusion. The harvest was a solution to a problem.  The fact it was an imperfect or dumb solution does not prove the problem was not real.

As for Synthesis being the preferred ending, Cosmic already provided additional evidence. I don’t really care if you choose to believe it or not. The Refuse ending was put in specifically because fans cried about the endings.

And as I said to Argolas, accepting the deal with the Reapers is not certain death precisely because someone like Shep can come along and save you. The game proves it is not the same as dying today because the Geth did not die tomorrow in some playthroughs.  In some playthroughs Shep saves them which he would be unable to do if they chose to die today.

And AGAIN, the geth are treated as nothing but tools. They are seen as the primary problem by the Catalyst itself. The Catalyst itself says that machines trying to userp their masters is the cause of the Cycle, not orgnaic fear. Also, the Catalyst is to Harbinger what the Emperor is to the Sith in Star Wars:TOR - an absentee landloard. The Reapers have basically been on autopilot this whole time, up until they reclaim the Citadel.
Also, Legion IS a true A.I., just as EDI is one. Both evolve as time goes on. Also, Harbinger is talkinhg about ALL geth. He makes observations on the ENTIRE SPECIES of each squadmate.
Quarian; considered due to cybernetc augmentation, weakened immune system too dibilitating. (Tali)
Drell; useless, insufficant numbers. (Thane)
Human; viable possibility, agression factor usefull if controlled. (Zaeed)
Asari; reliance upon alien species for reproduction shows genetic weakness. (Samara)
Salarian; insufficant lifespan, fragile genetic structure. (Mordin)
Human; viable possibility, impressive genetic malleability. (Miranda)
Geth; an annoyance, limited utility. (Legion)
Human; viable possibility, impressive technical potential. (Kasumi)
Human; viable possibility, if emotional drives are subjugated. (Jacob)
Human' viable possibility, impressive biotic potential. (Jack)
Krogan; sterlized race, potential wasted. (Grunt)
Turian; you are considered... too primitive. (Garrus)
So, NO. Harbinger is making an observation of the entire geth race based on Legion. And Legion is the most advanced geth in existance. So when he said "limited utility," he damn well meant it.
Also, the fact that you claim that the geth can't become true A.I. until Reaper upgrades is like saying they weren't living beings prior to that. Something I don't buy for a second. They were advanced. They were simply symbioticly dependant on each-other. NOT primitive, but interdependant. So your caveman theroy holds no water.
And look at the Zha'till. Used by the Reapers as a proxy army ine the prothean cycle, just as Sovergien used the geth.

Regardless, Shepard DOES prove that the Catalyst was wrong in the end. And this is rich, because errlier, you were chastizing the quarians for taking their cource of action based on all the information pointing to it being right. You chastize them for that, yet defend the Reapers for it?? What is even the hell??? If you can uderstand the way the Catalyst took it's actions, surely you can understand the quarians? Taking the action that they believed was right based on everything else they knew?

And I never DID say the problem was not real. I said that Shepard disproved the solution taken was the right cource. The Catalyst admits as much. Stop trying to twist my words.

And Cosmic himself admitted that the endings are all balanced. Synthesis being a harder ending doesn't make it the preferred ending, but an extra choice. The High EMS Destroy with Shepard breath scene requires just about as mcuh to unlock, I remind you.

What?? Shepard coming was a fluke. People like Shepard are exceedingly rare. In other words, you are a habitual gambler who would chance everything on blind luck? The entire point of this thought line is if there WAS no Shepard to intervine. A situation where Shepard NEVER freed them from their inslavement to the Reapers. Like, say, never going to the Heretic Station, where the Heretics likely rewrite all geth in that case.
Once again, you are basing your entire arguement on hindsight. I am saying that with NO assurances of ANYTHING ELSE but eventual death vs instant threat, you claim the former is better. Even though you denied that earlier in the case of fighting the Reapers.
You are all over the place, and contridicting yourself.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

But genetics ARE part of culture. Our genetics give us our senses, which factor into how we percieve things: the foundation for how culture is created. Change genetics, and you change a core part of who you are, and how you percieve things, and by changing how you persieve things, be it through taste, touch, sensory, or even hanar biolumenesience, then you are changing how that lifeform's culture evolves. So YES, the two are irrovocibly linked - one can't exist without the other.
So, sorry, but I think you might need to drop that class.

You guys basically want to change the very definition of words just to support your argument.  Culture is in fact defined as learned behaviors that are NOT the result of genetics.  This is basic anthropology.  So you are in fact wrong.  So sorry I trust the academic discipline that studies culture and their definition more than I trust you.  What are your credentials to support your claim?  Did you stay at a holiday inn express last night or something?


In the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be attributed to genetic inheritance. Specifically, the term "culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

robertthebard wrote...

I'm going to point out the obvious contradiction to this by underlining one word in your reply.  I am beginning to see the problem we are having, and really there's not a lot I can do about it.

Yes the problem is I studied anthropology and the definition above is invalidates your whole genetics destroys culture argument.  You are free to petition various anthropology departments across the globe and ask they revisit their definition because you don't like synthesis.

 By altering genes, you alter the way we learn, memorize, experiance, adapt, percieve, and think. You are again using an inflexible viewpoint and not considering that other definitions of the word/term exist. We have yet to see evidence that our ideal of antropology is the definite ideal of it.

@Robertthebard already answered this for me, by posting what Matt Ridley's quote.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Does it?  Take a look at (1) in your definition again, and tell me, where are we having our problem?  So that's how the word is defined in anthropology, or, rather, how the concept is defined.  So if we go look, we'll find that this is the only definition?

In this new view, genes allow the human mind to learn, remember, imitate, imprint language, absorb culture and express instincts. —Matt Ridley, Time, 2 June 2003

 
Source  Gee, I guess not all sciences share the definition of the word, eh?  Genes equals genetics, yes?  So altering DNA will alter these genes, which will alter the ability to learn, remember, etc etc etc.  So, exactly as I postulated initially, Synthesis takes this away, thus killing cultures before they ever get a chance to evolve, hey, there's that pesky word again.  Thanks for providing the definition though, it's very enlightening.

Um, no.  If I am mentally retarded, of course my ability to learn culture is impaired.  However, the culture is still there, I just can't learn it.  There is no evidence synthesis turns everyone into mentally retarded people.  In fact, the game flat out contradicts this.



Please cite your evidence from the above vid that culture is destroyed?  EDI says they now have access to unlimited knowledge.  EDI says the Reapers share the knowledge of the collective cultures that came before.  EDI says it allows them to recover the greatness once lost and to surpass it.

Everything in the game contradicts you.  Synthesis makes it easier for people to share, learn, remember, etc. which makes it easy to share and understand each other's cutlures.  So you are confused.  If synthesis made everyone mentally retarded you would have a point.  It does not.

...and yet, nowhere in the game is there mentioned a superAI that's mad, lolz, but this is your most prominent argument against Destroy.  Why, if you can pull head canon, or, wait for it, speculation in as a viable argument, is it only allowed for you?  Wait for it, I have the answer:  So you can say "you people are monsters".  It's funny, really, I refuted your science, with your science, so now you go to the metagame video of an ending we're not allowed to alter in a similar fashion to the alteration of the Destroy beam in this topic?  Just wow.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Does it?  Take a look at (1) in your definition again, and tell me, where are we having our problem?  So that's how the word is defined in anthropology, or, rather, how the concept is defined.  So if we go look, we'll find that this is the only definition?

In this new view, genes allow the human mind to learn, remember, imitate, imprint language, absorb culture and express instincts. —Matt Ridley, Time, 2 June 2003

 
Source  Gee, I guess not all sciences share the definition of the word, eh?  Genes equals genetics, yes?  So altering DNA will alter these genes, which will alter the ability to learn, remember, etc etc etc.  So, exactly as I postulated initially, Synthesis takes this away, thus killing cultures before they ever get a chance to evolve, hey, there's that pesky word again.  Thanks for providing the definition though, it's very enlightening.

Um, no.  If I am mentally retarded, of course my ability to learn culture is impaired.  However, the culture is still there, I just can't learn it.  There is no evidence synthesis turns everyone into mentally retarded people.  In fact, the game flat out contradicts this.



Please cite your evidence from the above vid that culture is destroyed?  EDI says they now have access to unlimited knowledge.  EDI says the Reapers share the knowledge of the collective cultures that came before.  EDI says it allows them to recover the greatness once lost and to surpass it.

Everything in the game contradicts you.  Synthesis makes it easier for people to share, learn, remember, etc. which makes it easy to share and understand each other's cutlures.  So you are confused.  If synthesis made everyone mentally retarded you would have a point.  It does not.

You are set in your ways and inflexible to change. You think your viewpoint is law. If you meet an alien race that had an entirely different analouge to antropology, what would give you the right to say they are wrong? The fact that their laws don't match yours?

And by changing how every race senses, percieves, interacts, and interperts data, it destroys the path they were on before. Synthesis affects EVERYTHING, including the pre-spaceflight cultures, permematly changing their perception of the galaxy, and forever altering the way they would have progressed.
And actually, the game contrididcs YOU. Just by looking at the Synthesis vs the others, you see that the races develop much differently then they would have going their own seperate, diverse paths. The quarians and geth are melded together, blending their cultures, destroying two unique cultures to create another. The same is likely repeated everywhere else.
And if they have access to unlimited knowledge, then what is LEFT to achieve. Mordin Solus exposited in ME2 about this with the Collectors, and on what happens when you suddenly remove the limitations of life.
"Disrupts socio-technological balance! All scientific advancement due to life overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement! No advancement, culture stagnates!
Also works both ways to. Advancement before culture is ready... disastrous."
So, according to Mordin Solus, Synthesis is actually the Catalyst for sociatal collapse, by taking away all limitation, and advancing many pre-spaceflight cultures far beyond their point of readyness.

So, sorry, but I think you are the one that is confussed. Synthesis is not a perfect utopia. If anything, it's more risky then all the other options, as it has just as much poentetial to backfire.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 19 avril 2013 - 03:32 .