326 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Here's my link to all my links on why I think Synthesis is undesirable.

Seriously, you should take a look at it. Also, take a look at the thread that it's in.

Shameless self-promotion/repost.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

mopotter wrote...
I don't have any Shepards who believe the tall tale about controlling the reapers and only 1 who had lost everyone else she cared for (Kaidan in Me1, Thane in 3)  so had this moment when she figured she was diying anyway and wanted Joker to be happy.  She was rather blind to all the other implications, but she was hurt and mentally stressed. 

Controlling the Reapers is a viable means of stopping them. TIM proved it (for which my Shepard, who always admired and respected Cerberus is greatful for; they did more than the useless alliance and council could ever hope to do) and the Crucible proved it. 

However, Control is undesirable for me for these reasons.

[CrutchCricket]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

However, Control is undesirable for me for these reasons.

And check the sig for my reasons why that's all nonsense.

And for the record Cerberus didn't prove anything. Hijacking a few husks is insignificant compared to the power of the Reapers.

As much as I hate to say it, Control being viable comes from the holokid. Yes it's full of crap but if you believe it that one option will do what it says, there's no reason not to believe the other options work as well. For my Shep's part, he stops listening beyond "you can control the Reapers". The rest of it is merely bad programming.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CrutchCricket wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

However, Control is undesirable for me for these reasons.

And check the sig for my reasons why that's all nonsense.

And for the record Cerberus didn't prove anything. Hijacking a few husks is insignificant compared to the power of the Reapers.

As much as I hate to say it, Control being viable comes from the holokid. Yes it's full of crap but if you believe it that one option will do what it says, there's no reason not to believe the other options work as well. For my Shep's part, he stops listening beyond "you can control the Reapers". The rest of it is merely bad programming.

I've seen it before. Standard response: It's all nonsense, no matter how you spin it because BW failed to define it. You take your interpretation, I'll take mine. I think there's a fundamental disconnect of viewpoints from a programming that is inherently flawed. Seriously, what's stopping Shepard from eventually adopting the Catalyst's perspective? It's fine if he doesn't in yours, but I don't like that kind of power being in the hands of any single entity that might be based off the hardware of the previous Catalyst. Memories are meaningless when you change perspective, and thoughts change with perspective. That's why I'm all doom and gloom with Control. You're using contexts from another universe. I think the indifference of the Shepalyst will eventually cause it to come into conflict with the races of the galaxy personally. You're not defining whatever its potential agenda might be.

Cerberus pretty much had the theoretical proof of concept down. They showed the potential utility of such a method. Even when they were indoctrinated, that's more than the alliance did. I had to pull their asses out of the mud and make them build the Crucible. That said, it's all control stuff is irrelevant with the Leviathans; why not simply bring a lot of orbs to the fight and use them to fight the Reapers?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 août 2013 - 04:13 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

but what if I don't want to be a machine lol.

[CrutchCricket]

Fandango9641 wrote...
What a depressingly narrow-minded point of view Ieldra. Christ, what does 'our nature prevents us from achieving certain things' even mean? Urgh!

Ah the irony.

-Calls someone narrow-minded

-Fails to understand (or accept) inherent human limitations.

Seems legit.

[Bfler]

Synthesis tells you, that the hard way of solving your problems step by step through a learning process accompanied by setbacks is bad and useless.
Synthesis is a cheap dirty deal, the ultimate sledgehammer method, which solves the problem at a stroke and where nobody gains any experience or learns to act cautiously.

Modifié par Bfler, 02 août 2013 - 04:24 .

[CrutchCricket]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Seriously, what's stopping Shepard from eventually adopting the Catalyst's perspective? It's fine if he doesn't in yours, but I don't like that kind of power being in the hands of any single entity that might be based off the hardware of the previous Catalyst. Memories are meaningless when you change perspective, and thoughts change with perspective. That's why I'm all doom and gloom with Control.

Indifference. The simple fact that something so advanced shouldn't even notice these piddly organics let alone care about them. Ant and boot and all that, except none of us make a life goal to stomp out ants (inb4 crazies). As for hardware, hardware is hardware, there is no such thing as hardware predisposed to kill. Even a Terminator can be programmed to be a teddy bear. I agree that memories are only reference and thoughts will change. But those thoughts won't even acknowledge the insects crawling on a few dustballs, let alone care enough to murder them. All of this is in my thread.

Cerberus pretty much had the theoretical proof of concept down. They showed the potential utility of such a method. Even when they were indoctrinated, that's more than the alliance did. I had to pull their asses out of the mud and make them build the Crucible. That said, it's all control stuff is irrelevant with the Leviathans; why not simply bring a lot of orbs to the fight and use them to fight the Reapers?

We can theorize about subatomic particles moving back through what we percieve as time and maybe further theorize of a way that can be used to send information. Does that mean we're on the verge of a time machine? Not even close.

Like I said, controlling a few husks (that have practically zero mind to begin with) is nothing compared to trying to dominate the mind of a Reaper. At the bottom of my thread is a link to another post estimating the intelligence of just one Reaper. Now tell me how Cerberus and that weakling Lawson plan to control that. It's not happening.

Leviathans have no shot either. Those orbs work on husks and other Reaper toys just fine, but they have zero chance against the Reapers themselves. If they did, Leviathans would be back on top instead of wetting themselves in some ocean. That scene we see in the DLC where the Reaper goes down was basically a three-on-one sucker punch and I believe it only stunned it, and it was destroyed conventionally under the waves.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 02 août 2013 - 04:29 .

[AlanC9]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Indifference. The simple fact that something so advanced shouldn't even notice these piddly organics let alone care about them. Ant and boot and all that, except none of us make a life goal to stomp out ants (inb4 crazies). As for hardware, hardware is hardware, there is no such thing as hardware predisposed to kill. Even a Terminator can be programmed to be a teddy bear. I agree that memories are only reference and thoughts will change. But those thoughts won't even acknowledge the insects crawling on a few dustballs, let alone care enough to murder them. All of this is in my thread.

It could also take an ecological perpective and want to preserve that life even though it isn't  advanced or important. Like the scientists trying to preseve these guys.

[CrutchCricket]

AlanC9 wrote...
It could also take an ecological perpective and want to preserve that life even though it isn't  advanced or important. Like the scientists trying to preseve these guys.

A few differences, though.

Crabs and humans are at levels close enough for the latter to empathize with the former. In general, human sentiment is a factor.

Humans are ultimately dependent on the same ecosystem as the crabs and a drastic change can negatively impact them.

Neither of these hold for the Control entity. Its perspective is far beyond ours, quite likely to the point where our most important wants and desires are trivially meaningless to it. Emotion is not a factor and it is entirely unaffected by our predicament.

In the past I've compared ants with humans to give a sense of scale, but perhaps even that doesn't do it justice. Microbes and bacteria with humans is probably a closer comparison.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 02 août 2013 - 04:48 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

CrutchCricket wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Seriously, what's stopping Shepard from eventually adopting the Catalyst's perspective? It's fine if he doesn't in yours, but I don't like that kind of power being in the hands of any single entity that might be based off the hardware of the previous Catalyst. Memories are meaningless when you change perspective, and thoughts change with perspective. That's why I'm all doom and gloom with Control.

Indifference. The simple fact that something so advanced shouldn't even notice these piddly organics let alone care about them. Ant and boot and all that, except none of us make a life goal to stomp out ants (inb4 crazies). As for hardware, hardware is hardware, there is no such thing as hardware predisposed to kill. Even a Terminator can be programmed to be a teddy bear. I agree that memories are only reference and thoughts will change. But those thoughts won't even acknowledge the insects crawling on a few dustballs, let alone care enough to murder them. All of this is in my thread.

Yes, and I disagree with what's in your thread. 'Should' is really not a complete argument. I disagree. I don't think indifference will exist, and I think you're relying too much on examples from other universes, which have a much different context from what we get in Mass Effect. I think hardware is everything. I'm saying I think that Shepard being uploaded as the new master AI would also lead to the externality of him also now being based off the Catalyst's prior programming. He's being uploaded into the same hardware, possibly with the same programming and logic functions built in by the Leviathans, and thus gaining the same perspective on the problem as the original Catalyst. He will retain, through his own memories and thoughts, some semblance of his prior existence, but I think the organic perspective he had will be considered incompatible with his new perspective. Why will he care about the insects on the dustballs? Because he's programmed to care. It's built into his construct. It was built into his construct hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaurs even existed. His hardware isn't predisposed to kill: it is predisposed to solve the problem that the original Catalyst was built to solve. That was what the Leviathan's built for it. That's why I think it's going to eventually end up as a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

At the end of the day, it really is your headcanon vs. mine. We aren't given enough information to quantitatively say what the specifics will be, how the process works, or the tech that goes into it. 

So it seems we'll reach an impasse.

Cerberus pretty much had the theoretical proof of concept down. They showed the potential utility of such a method. Even when they were indoctrinated, that's more than the alliance did. I had to pull their asses out of the mud and make them build the Crucible. That said, it's all control stuff is irrelevant with the Leviathans; why not simply bring a lot of orbs to the fight and use them to fight the Reapers?

We can theorize about subatomic particles moving back through what we percieve as time and maybe further theorize of a way that can be used to send information. Does that mean we're on the verge of a time machine? Not even close.

Like I said, controlling a few husks (that have practically zero mind to begin with) is nothing compared to trying to dominate the mind of a Reaper. At the bottom of my thread is a link to another post estimating the intelligence of just one Reaper. Now tell me how Cerberus and that weakling Lawson plan to control that. It's not happening.

I think I remember TIM saying something about using the Crucible to control the Reapers? Wasn't that part of implementing his plan? The husks were the proof of concept that it could be done on a base level? Yeah, I think TIM always planned on using the Crucible, or some kind of facsimile device that could control the Reapers. I think that was their plan all along.

It's not happening, but not for the reasons you prescribe. It will work, just not for TIM or Cerberus. Reaper intelligence is irrelevant to the Crucible. This is proven in game. 

Leviathans have no shot either. Those orbs work on husks and other Reaper toys just fine, but they have zero chance against the Reapers themselves. If they did, Leviathans would be back on top instead of wetting themselves in some ocean. That scene we see in the DLC where the Reaper goes down was basically a three-on-one sucker punch and I believe it only stunned it, and it was destroyed conventionally under the waves.

Let's put it this way: it's a numbers game. As far as we know, there are only 3 Leviathan's, possibly more, but no where near enough to challenge the Reapers.

As I recall, the Catalyst took the Leviathans by surprise. It turned on them and slaughtered many of them before they knew what was going on. By the time Levi could flee and regroup, the Catalyst was now running the show.

As for the orbs, they clearly do work on the Reapers. I think the Reapers are well aware of the capabilities of the Leviathans however. I think that's why the Reapers probably wouldn't take chances attacking the Leviathan's on their own. The single Reaper we see that is destroyed is the exception, and I think that that is because the Reaper had been lured into a false sense of security.

As for the Reaper being 'disabled' by the 3-on-1 punch, that's speculative headcanon. You're clearly saying 'I believe' and exercising it as proof. 

So allow me to retort: I disagree. I believe the Reaper was killed by one Leviathan. I have no proof beyond the shot of one Leviathan using the orb to disable the Reaper and make it crash within the water. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 août 2013 - 05:02 .

[dreamgazer]

It's a noble idea when you factor in the highly-interpretive support from the ending's backers, but its illogical, contradictory, and abrupt execution dismantles whatever positives could come of it.

I don't tend to drink from poisoned wells.

[o Ventus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Indifference. The simple fact that something so advanced shouldn't even notice these piddly organics let alone care about them. Ant and boot and all that, except none of us make a life goal to stomp out ants (inb4 crazies). As for hardware, hardware is hardware, there is no such thing as hardware predisposed to kill. Even a Terminator can be programmed to be a teddy bear. I agree that memories are only reference and thoughts will change. But those thoughts won't even acknowledge the insects crawling on a few dustballs, let alone care enough to murder them.

It not only has Shepard's memories, but is also influenced by his or her moral standing and personality, as seen by the renegade and paragon variations.

Indifference didn't work that well in the past. Ask the first Catalyst.

You also make the wildly preemptive assumption that something so powerful and advanced shouldn't notice or care about something so far lesser than itself. I'm an atheist, but have you met God? How would you know what he (or something like him) would think? This is unfounded at the very least, and is contradicted by your own ant/boot analogy. If humans are so much bigger and more advanced than ants, why are ants such a nuisance? They're enough of a pest that there are products devoted to ridding your lawn of ants. People may very well become ants to the Shepalyst. We have no way of knowing. People kill ants by virtue of ants following their "programming". They become inconvenient, so we eliminate them. The renegade version of Control somewhat touches upon this with Shepalyst enforcing the peace instead of allowing it to come normally. If those pesky organics can't cooperate, why shouldn't be just kill them?

[Iakus]

Bfler wrote...

Synthesis tells you, that the hard way of solving your problems step by step through a learning process accompanied by setbacks is bad and useless.
Synthesis is a cheap dirty deal, the ultimate sledgehammer method, which solves the problem at a stroke and where nobody gains any experience or learns to act cautiously.

Legion:  Geth build our own future. The heretics asked the Old Machines to give them the future. They are no longer part of us.

[mopotter]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

mopotter wrote...
I don't have any Shepards who believe the tall tale about controlling the reapers and only 1 who had lost everyone else she cared for (Kaidan in Me1, Thane in 3)  so had this moment when she figured she was diying anyway and wanted Joker to be happy.  She was rather blind to all the other implications, but she was hurt and mentally stressed. 

Controlling the Reapers is a viable means of stopping them. TIM proved it (for which my Shepard, who always admired and respected Cerberus is greatful for; they did more than the useless alliance and council could ever hope to do) and the Crucible proved it. 

However, Control is undesirable for me for these reasons.

And really, this is what I've always liked about BioWare games including the ME series.  Each Shepard is different with different motivations and different outlooks on life.  There is no "right or wrong" choices, just choices one Shepard wouldn't make and another would.  At least that's my viewpoint.  (do think they missed the execution of the endings though).

[ioannisdenton]

Synthesis is indeed a good and a valid choice. It is people here that are judges dredd who "judge" who dictate that synthesis is unlikeable. To many of us all endings have their ups and lows.

[Arcian]

Bionuts wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

This is why Synthesis improves the
physical nature of organics: now, like synthetics, their technology is
inseparable from their physical being. They can advance at the same rate
as synthetics, mitigating the fear of obsolescence. For synthetics,
they now understand the chemical processes of organics, specifically how
it all functions up there in the brain to create emotions and morality.
With a better understanding of this, they can better communicate with
organics and form diplomatic agreements/bonds, thereby catalyzing
organics' understanding of them.

Seems pretty good, but I've seen much hate for it.

As a transhumanist, I'm all for upgrading our species to a better state. But:

1) It has to happen in a way that makes sense. Synthesis does not make sense, which is why I hate it. It boils down to space magic, which, as the name implies, isn't science and therefore not real.

2) A lot of people do not believe in transhumanism - by the time our species is capable of upgrading ourselves, a lot of people are going to refuse the upgrades because of 10,000 different religious, philosophical and practical reasons I don't care about but which I am going to respect when I upgrade myself (provided I am alive when that day comes).

Synthesis does not respect those 10,000 reasons but instead changes everyone without giving them a choice in the matter. That is another of the reasons I hate synthesis. People need to be able to choose how to live their lives, and in what state to live them.

ioannisdenton wrote...

Synthesis is indeed a good and a valid choice.

What's good and valid about it? Both the ethics and the science are thrown out of the window in the first paragraph describing the concept. Even wiccan healing has more scientific validity than synthesis does. How can you take this at face value and consider it valid?

Ignorance is the original sin of mankind, and is responsible for all misery since the day we learned how to use tools. To embrace synthesis as it is presented is to embrace ignorance.

Modifié par Arcian, 02 août 2013 - 05:50 .

[Iakus]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Synthesis is indeed a good and a valid choice. It is people here that are judges dredd who "judge" who dictate that synthesis is unlikeable. To many of us all endings have their ups and lows.

Thank you for telling us how to think

[SpamBot2000]

Why the hate, you ask?

I refer you to the BioWare Social Network, Mass Effect 3 Story and Campaign Discussion. If you have any questions after reading that, please get back to us.

[KaiserShep]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Synthesis is indeed a good and a valid choice. It is people here that are judges dredd who "judge" who dictate that synthesis is unlikeable. To many of us all endings have their ups and lows.

I'm not sure what the Judge Dredd part is supposed to mean, but I would let him decide the outcome. 

[KaiserShep]

"As for you glow boy. Judgment time."