428 réponses à ce sujet

[Phatose]

KingZayd wrote...
Yes. And I will act to prevent what I consider "an abuse".

In the case of an overlord with restricted power, nobody is able prevent what they consider "an abuse". The more freedom they have, the more people are able to resist what they consider "an abuse"

And that's why we adopt a certain level of government and laws. To maximise our freedoms as much as we can. Absolute anarchy means no security which means less freedom for those to weak to prevent themselves.

The rejection of dictators and monarchs (who have any actual power) and the adoption of democracy is a result of this quest to maximise freedom.

People who have proven themselves to be dangerous, and who threaten the freedoms, have a certain amount of freedom removed from them (house arrest/ prison / death etc.) in the interests of preserving the most freedom.

It's a balancing act. You try to prevent someone getting enough power that the freedoms of others are reduced significantly. It's not easy, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If it was easy, then the world would be a much more comfortable place.

Ah, at least now we're speaking on the same terms.  And once again, I reminded what a ham-handed Deus Ex knockoff Mass Effect became at the end.

I think I'll echo that here.  Democracy is ultimately a form of government designed entirely around the worst aspects of it's people.  It exists not so much to maximize freedom, but to limit the impact it's flawed individuals can have.  It's built around "Power corrupts."

But why does power corrupt?  People use power to seek more power.  But for a creature that already has complete power, this becomes pointless - there's no more power to be gained.

I'm reminded of a line from Deus Ex.  "God is man's dream of good government."  In Reaper-Shep, I see the possibility for that to actually come into existence.  An entity with benevolent intentions, the power to enforce those intentions, the intelligence and information to find the best route to those goals.  No need to lust for power, he's already got it.  No need for physical vices since he's left those behind.

I'm not willing to pass that oppurtunity up.

[Bill Casey]

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 mai 2013 - 04:16 .

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
Yes. And I will act to prevent what I consider "an abuse".

In the case of an overlord with restricted power, nobody is able prevent what they consider "an abuse". The more freedom they have, the more people are able to resist what they consider "an abuse"

And that's why we adopt a certain level of government and laws. To maximise our freedoms as much as we can. Absolute anarchy means no security which means less freedom for those to weak to prevent themselves.

The rejection of dictators and monarchs (who have any actual power) and the adoption of democracy is a result of this quest to maximise freedom.

People who have proven themselves to be dangerous, and who threaten the freedoms, have a certain amount of freedom removed from them (house arrest/ prison / death etc.) in the interests of preserving the most freedom.

It's a balancing act. You try to prevent someone getting enough power that the freedoms of others are reduced significantly. It's not easy, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If it was easy, then the world would be a much more comfortable place.

Ah, at least now we're speaking on the same terms.  And once again, I reminded what a ham-handed Deus Ex knockoff Mass Effect became at the end.

I think I'll echo that here.  Democracy is ultimately a form of government designed entirely around the worst aspects of it's people.  It exists not so much to maximize freedom, but to limit the impact it's flawed individuals can have.  It's built around "Power corrupts."

But why does power corrupt?  People use power to seek more power.  But for a creature that already has complete power, this becomes pointless - there's no more power to be gained.

I'm reminded of a line from Deus Ex.  "God is man's dream of good government."  In Reaper-Shep, I see the possibility for that to actually come into existence.  An entity with benevolent intentions, the power to enforce those intentions, the intelligence and information to find the best route to those goals.  No need to lust for power, he's already got it.  No need for physical vices since he's left those behind.

I'm not willing to pass that oppurtunity up.

Deus Ex is still the best game I've ever played. It disappoints me that nearly none of my friends have played it, and that they probably never will because of the graphics. I've never understood how graphics trumps gameplay and story.

Yes the democracy we have now doesn't work particularly well, especially since it puts people in charge of a country when their skillsets and experience are focused primarily on getting elected, rather than running a country. But I'd say it beats the tyranny we had before.

For StarShepard my problem is not with the idea that the power would corrupt the AI, but that it would impose its morality on the universe with no chance for change of ruler. If we're going to do that, we have to make sure we get it right. You don't want to be taking chances on something like this. I guess now, I finally understand why Tracer Tong supported the "Dark Age", beyond simply a reactionary measure. Unfortunately all that does is tear the system apart, and hope things go better next time, with no reason to suspect it will.

I chose the Helios ending myself. Helios already seemed to be an excellent, logical and reasonably objective ruler that quickly acted to improve conditions. I trusted it, and I trusted its judgement that I would be a good addition to the system (and also it was such a cool ending). Also, there was no quantum blue-box issue in the game, nor was I aware of such a idea at the time.

[Indy_S]

You don't need to be malicious to fall prey to one bad decision. Installing a television over your bathtub without proper brackets, for example, is a bad decision. If it falls off and lands in the tub while you are in it, you will be electrocuted. But if you run the idea before a few of your mates, someone could catch up on exactly why this idea is bad and offer a way to fix it. With Shepard, there will be no peer review, no one to second guess his choices. The galaxy can fall victim to one bad decision on a scale only matched by the creation of the cycles.

Benevolence is no guarantee for good outcomes.

[Phatose]

As we've seen from the very existence of the Reapers, having that power spread across a number of individuals doesn't actually protect you.

I understand the point you're making. History is filled with examples of how giving any single person too much power is trouble. But it's also filled with example of how sharing that power amongst many doesn't actually stop abuses, and it comes with problems of it's own.

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

As we've seen from the very existence of the Reapers, having that power spread across a number of individuals doesn't actually protect you.

I understand the point you're making. History is filled with examples of how giving any single person too much power is trouble. But it's also filled with example of how sharing that power amongst many doesn't actually stop abuses, and it comes with problems of it's own.

The Reapers are all controlled. Therefore the power wasn't really spread.

True,sharing the power doesn't 100% stop the abuses, but it certainly makes them more difficult, and typically reduces the scope. To get the same scope, they need to cooperate. And there is potential for an opposition. The smaller the fraction of power the potential abuser has, the less capable they are of the abuse.

True, you do get the risk of non-governance with that sort of system (There is the whole seperation of powers idea in politics, which does do it's job, but admittedly it also makes it hard to get good work done), but then I think people are more likely to cooperate for good things than for selfish things. Cooperative selfishness is a bit more difficult to pull off due to people's wants often clashing against each other.

[Ieldra]

Indy_S wrote...
You don't need to be malicious to fall prey to one bad decision. Installing a television over your bathtub without proper brackets, for example, is a bad decision. If it falls off and lands in the tub while you are in it, you will be electrocuted. But if you run the idea before a few of your mates, someone could catch up on exactly why this idea is bad and offer a way to fix it. With Shepard, there will be no peer review, no one to second guess his choices. The galaxy can fall victim to one bad decision on a scale only matched by the creation of the cycles.

Benevolence is no guarantee for good outcomes.

That's why historically, good autocrats were most often those who listened to their advisors. And knew when to follow their advice and when not.

With Control, I guess the idea is that Control!Shep has enough processing power to extrapolate the effect of his decisions instead of just guessing, all the while keeping watch over public and not-so-public opinions in order to extrapolate people's reactions as well. Also, he doesn't need to be a tyrant - he'll manipulate public opinion through memetic engineering. His most significant advantage is that he has time. It needs two hundred years of carefully guiding public opinion to make a decision acceptable? No problem, and if it doesn't work, that may be an indication that the decision needs a re-thinking.

[AlanC9]

Sort of like Asimov's Daneel Olivaw. Or Second Foundation,

Would the Sheplyst use Indoctrination too? The Second Foundation didn't have any qualms about such techniques; their mind-control don't have negative effects on the subject, though. Maybe Indoctrination could be improved?

[JasonShepard]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sort of like Asimov's Daneel Olivaw. Or Second Foundation,

Would the Sheplyst use Indoctrination too? The Second Foundation didn't have any qualms about such techniques; their mind-control don't have negative effects on the subject, though. Maybe Indoctrination could be improved?

Well Domination can be used for in the long term without negative affects - remember the workers on that asteroid in Leviathan? Whether or not the Shepalyst would use mind control techniques probably depends on your Shepard. I can see Renegades doing it.

I'm fully aware that I haven't read enough Asimov. I should probably fix that...

[TheRealJayDee]

Phatose wrote...

I'm reminded of a line from Deus Ex.  "God is man's dream of good government."  In Reaper-Shep, I see the possibility for that to actually come into existence.  An entity with benevolent intentions, the power to enforce those intentions, the intelligence and information to find the best route to those goals.  No need to lust for power, he's already got it.  No need for physical vices since he's left those behind.

There are many ways I can see such a scenario go wrong...

[johnj1979]

Optimystic_X wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Wrong.

why?

Husks are the organic and the synthetic. Synthesis is the organic and the systheic only with a will of there own.

[johnj1979]

AlanC9 wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

for me Mass Effect games have been about the moral choice and that is just not happening in Mass Effect 3.

So it's not about making the best choice under the circumstances, but finding  the "moral" choice. The one where nothing has to be compromised and everything works out. The choice that often isn't available ITRW. 

Fair enough. I thought that almost always having such a choice available was a problem with the series, not a design principle to be upheld. Different tastes.

Mass Effects endings have (for me anyway) been Moral and Tactical there just isn't that with Mass Effect 3. All the endings seem to result in a form of death.

Control = Death of the will of the Reapers
Destory = Killing ALL Synthetic life
Synthesis = The death of organic and synthetic life
Do Nothing = The death of everything but Reapers.

So this  leaves the question what has Shepard spend three games fighting for?

[Auld Wulf]

Change isn't death, though it's sometimes represented as such in superstitious circles. To become something new doesn't mean the old dies, it's a transformation point, where the butterfly emerges from the cocoon. Synthesis is nothing more than us emerging from our cocoon and becoming something better, whereas Control is a holding pattern, and Destroy is the end of all things (starting with the fringe groups).

[JasonShepard]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

WATCHMEN-DR-MANHATTAN SNIP

You do remember how that ended up, don't you? Dr Manhattan eventually came to the conclusion that life on Earth was just too complicated, and decided to leave it be and go into a self-imposed exile elsewhere in the universe where things would be simpler and he would be free to follow his own desires. No negative consequences for life on Earth.

If the Control-Shepard-AI lasts long enough, I can see it making a similar choice.

[Phatose]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Phatose wrote...

I'm reminded of a line from Deus Ex.  "God is man's dream of good government."  In Reaper-Shep, I see the possibility for that to actually come into existence.  An entity with benevolent intentions, the power to enforce those intentions, the intelligence and information to find the best route to those goals.  No need to lust for power, he's already got it.  No need for physical vices since he's left those behind.

There are many ways I can see such a scenario go wrong...

Yeah, there are ways it can go wrong.  Horribly nightmarish, hell for everyone if it goes wrong.

All the endings share that character.  Synthesis, Destroy, Refuse - these could all lead to very, very bad things.  If you're not willing to take an ending where things could go horribly wrong, you're stuck turning off the power.

[Auld Wulf]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Phatose wrote...

I'm reminded of a line from Deus Ex.  "God is man's dream of good government."  In Reaper-Shep, I see the possibility for that to actually come into existence.  An entity with benevolent intentions, the power to enforce those intentions, the intelligence and information to find the best route to those goals.  No need to lust for power, he's already got it.  No need for physical vices since he's left those behind.

There are many ways I can see such a scenario go wrong...

Oh, we're doing that? Okay, there's many ways in which this could go right.



Danny the World is a guardian of the soulsick, a creature who provides a world of infinite novelty for those who need it, and never abuses those living within his little pocket reality. There are many who'd find such a thing preferable to today's reality.

What I'm getting at is that it really depends upon the entity in question, it could go either way.

[Phatose]

johnj1979 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Wrong.

why?

Husks are the organic and the synthetic. Synthesis is the organic and the systheic only with a will of there own.

Well, as a matter of course, they aren't the *only* fusion of Organic and Synthetic we see.  Shepard is one too.  So, does Synthesis= Reapers turning everyone into Shepard hold true as well?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

"We have tried... similar things before and they have always failed."
"Why?"
"Because the organics were not ready. It is not something that can be ... forced. But you are ready."

So synthesis might not work in the long term either. It must have thought the others were ready otherwise it wouldn't have tried it then.

This is quality writing I must say. Powering down the XBox at that point might be the best choice. The ending simply sucks. I have no hope for the next installment. I'd love to have full modding tools and just mod a proper ending onto it.

[JasonShepard]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Change isn't death, though it's sometimes represented as such in superstitious circles. To become something new doesn't mean the old dies, it's a transformation point, where the butterfly emerges from the cocoon. Synthesis is nothing more than us emerging from our cocoon and becoming something better, whereas Control is a holding pattern, and Destroy is the end of all things (starting with the fringe groups).

Nonetheless, change is the end of one thing and the beginning of another. When I graduated, my entire life changed. I've stayed in touch with some people, but not others, and I do miss the ability to just leave my room, walk down a couple of corridors, and drop in on a friend.

To bring us fully back on topic - as Shepard says, Synthesis changes everyone, whether they like it or not. All that for the sake of a problem that may not even apply to our civilisations. (I place a lot of hope in the Geth-Quarian co-operation and EDI's good relations with organics eventually leading to a more 'natural', less forced, form of Synthesis.)

Synthesis is involuntary. Believe it or not, but I like my body the way it is. I do have limitations - but I embrace them. Shepard has no right to change my body without asking, especially not without fully understanding what will happen. (Understanding which the Catalyst does not provide due to not having enough time.)

Control is, ironically, freedom for the galaxy to choose its own path (assuming the Shepard-AI doesn't enforce a police state). It also allows the Shepard-AI to perform a more... controlled release of the Reapers, if it ascertains that they are truly innocent. However, all this comes with the aforementioned risk of the Shepard-AI - if it does decide to take over the galaxy, nothing will be able to stop it. (Aside - Control is my favoured ending, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise the risk.)

Destroy is risk management. If you do not wish to perform Synthesis, with its myriad of unknowns and its involuntary galactic bodily violation, and you do not wish to take the risk of Control, putting too much power in the hands of one individual, you are left with Destroy. The Reapers will no longer be a problem, no longer be able to threaten galactic extinction. And if Synthetics do become a problem further down the line (before the galaxy can achieve Synthesis on its own terms), we can always build another Crucible (much as I hate to suggest it).

[shodiswe]

The problem with seeing TIM as an Advocate for Control is that he isn't even in Control of himself. If he's been screwing the galaxy over the whole game then you can critisize him even if he wants to pick destroy.

It doesn't matter he isn't trust worthy at that Point after all you have been going through.

Even if you support him it's apparent that he can't do anything, because he isn't in Control.

That doesn't make Control a good choice for someone capable of making the choice however with the crusible enabling this "salvation" of the whole galaxy and an end to the "Harvest".

You stop the reapers, all is good, the sythetic alleis are alive, the people on the citadel are alive lots of people are alive and the Galaxy and the relays are getting repaired and everythign goe back to "normal".

Perfect happy ending. Shepard and the Reapers become "mostly" unimportant bystanders. AI Shepard watches over the galaxy just like Shepard the Spectre did.
Guarding peoples right to have a voice about their future, and all that.

The Renegade Shepard AI might be a Little bit more intrusive than the Paragon one though.

Modifié par shodiswe, 22 mai 2013 - 07:24 .

[johnj1979]

Phatose wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...

Synthesis = Reapers turning organics into Husks.

Wrong.

why?

Husks are the organic and the synthetic. Synthesis is the organic and the systheic only with a will of there own.

Well, as a matter of course, they aren't the *only* fusion of Organic and Synthetic we see.  Shepard is one too.  So, does Synthesis= Reapers turning everyone into Shepard hold true as well?

In Mass Effect 2 Shepard can choose to have the components removed, there in no choice with Synthesis Mass Effect 3.

With the ending we don't know the effects of synthesis. We don't know if it a programmed response.

Modifié par johnj1979, 22 mai 2013 - 07:38 .

[Phatose]

Wait, what? Where are you getting the idea he gets he components removed? Are you misinterpreting the scar removal surgery, or is there something else?

[JasonShepard]

Phatose wrote...

Wait, what? Where are you getting the idea he gets he components removed? Are you misinterpreting the scar removal surgery, or is there something else?

Seconded - I do not remember any option for Shepard to have his cybernetics removed. He can optionally add to them with muscle fibres and skin weave upgrades, and he can have surgery to finish his facial reconstruction (the scars), but other than that... ?

[AlanC9]

johnj1979 wrote...
Mass Effects endings have (for me anyway) been Moral and Tactical there just isn't that with Mass Effect 3. All the endings seem to result in a form of death.

Control = Death of the will of the Reapers
Destory = Killing ALL Synthetic life
Synthesis = The death of organic and synthetic life
Do Nothing = The death of everything but Reapers.

So this  leaves the question what has Shepard spend three games fighting for?

Saving the galaxy comes to mind

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

johnj1979 wrote...
Mass Effects endings have (for me anyway) been Moral and Tactical there just isn't that with Mass Effect 3. All the endings seem to result in a form of death.

Control = Death of the will of the Reapers
Destory = Killing ALL Synthetic life
Synthesis = The death of organic and synthetic life
Do Nothing = The death of everything but Reapers.

So this  leaves the question what has Shepard spend three games fighting for?

Saving the galaxy comes to mind

Saving the galaxy...... for who?