333 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMyron]

Necanor wrote...

iakus wrote...

Necanor wrote...

iakus wrote...
organics have to exterminate synthetics in order to survive

What's wrong with that?

Not everyone wants to be Reaper-Lite.

Then just stop building them. After that semi-genocide, I doubt the Quarians will ever build new ones(Xen is insane, she'll probably be sent to an asylum after the war). I'm sure we organics are smart enough to figure that out.

Too bad, her voice sounds kinda hot.

[Kiwiphoenix]

Always assumed that Destroy simply fried the complex electronics that allowed intelligent machines to think, EMP-style. So it makes sense that all synthetics would get fried.

Not sure how that's much of a problem, though. You can always build more, and correct old mistakes while you do so.

[TheMyron]

After the Reaper's destruction, I would have the council pass a law making the creation of an A.I. punishable by death.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

jtav wrote...
Destroy is saying, loudly, that you don't need the Reapers.

No, it really isn't. Destroy is about survival via the obliteration of your enemies. Survival not just in the physical sense but also of our way of life. A way of life that includes all these nifty toys just lying around.  And the obliterated don't get a say in what happens afterwards. We win, we get all the stuff. There's really nothing else to say.

Both Destroy and Control are conquest endings through Exactly What It Says On the Tin. Destroy conquers through obliteration, Control through subjucation (roughly). Then there's also the method. If you want to get poetic, Control has you take the power of the gods by becoming one yourself. Destroy on the other hand has you go all Kratos on their ass (at least it would if it didn't "art" all over itself) and when they're all dead, humanity is free to pick up what's left.

Your and jtav's interpretation are not mutually exclusive. They're different ways of looking at the same thing. Destroy is thematically anti-synthetic for various reasons I've explained too many times, but it's also thematically Renegade (as in Destroy your enemies completely and don't give them any quarter). Destroy also thematically supports the Lovecraftian stance "Reaper tech is things we aren't meant to know" and the idea that organic life is the only valid life. You need to accept only one of those interpretations to find Destroy a valid ending, and you don't need to buy any of them in the first place, but they're all there, however you want to deny it.

Disagree destroy is about killing reapers not anti-synthetic. Destroy doesn't have any negative stance on use of reaper tech once reapers are dead & certainly doesn't convey any idea that organic life is the only valid life.

[Sir DeLoria]

TheMyron wrote...

Necanor wrote...

iakus wrote...

Necanor wrote...

iakus wrote...
organics have to exterminate synthetics in order to survive

What's wrong with that?

Not everyone wants to be Reaper-Lite.

Then just stop building them. After that semi-genocide, I doubt the Quarians will ever build new ones(Xen is insane, she'll probably be sent to an asylum after the war). I'm sure we organics are smart enough to figure that out.

Too bad, her voice sounds kinda hot.

Of course, she's space Morrigan. The Quarians in general have great voice actors(Claudia Black, Shoreh Aghdashloo, Liz Sroka, Adam Baldwin etc).

Modifié par Necanor, 04 septembre 2013 - 08:56 .

[Kataphrut94]

It's a sensible consequence because nobody likes the synthetics. Which is good; it's nice to finally have a Renegade decision that makes you feel good and that everybody wants you to take rather than being a jerk for the sake of it. It's a shame we had to wait until the very end for a Paragon/neutral/Renegade dichotomy to finally be about idealism/neutrality/pragmatism, rather than niceness/boring/racism.

[Sir DeLoria]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Your and jtav's interpretation are not mutually exclusive. They're different ways of looking at the same thing. Destroy is thematically anti-synthetic for various reasons I've explained too many times, but it's also thematically Renegade (as in Destroy your enemies completely and don't give them any quarter). Destroy also thematically supports the Lovecraftian stance "Reaper tech is things we aren't meant to know" and the idea that organic life is the only valid life. You need to accept only one of those interpretations to find Destroy a valid ending, and you don't need to buy any of them in the first place, but they're all there, however you want to deny it.

Well, I played a thematic anti-synthetic Paragon throughout the series, so Destroy was of course the only option(the Geth were already dead anyway). Still, I don't think Destroy is necessarily renegade or anti-synthetic. In fact, as Samara would point out, subjugating the Reapers is far worse than Destroying them. 

[Ieldra]

Necanor wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Your and jtav's interpretation are not mutually exclusive. They're different ways of looking at the same thing. Destroy is thematically anti-synthetic for various reasons I've explained too many times, but it's also thematically Renegade (as in Destroy your enemies completely and don't give them any quarter). Destroy also thematically supports the Lovecraftian stance "Reaper tech is things we aren't meant to know" and the idea that organic life is the only valid life. You need to accept only one of those interpretations to find Destroy a valid ending, and you don't need to buy any of them in the first place, but they're all there, however you want to deny it.

Well, I played a thematic anti-synthetic Paragon throughout the series, so Destroy was of course the only option(the Geth were already dead anyway). Still, I don't think Destroy is necessarily renegade or anti-synthetic. In fact, as Samara would point out, subjugating the Reapers is far worse than Destroying them.

We need to define when a theme can be said to be in a story or story event. My take on it is that a theme exists if it's evoked by certain elements in the story and is not specifically denied or contradicted. The Reapers are evocative of "space Cthulhu" and Reaper tech is evocative of "things we aren't meant to know" - I don't think this can reasonably be denied - so the Lovecraftian theme exists in the story and when you destroy the Reapers, you also destroy the evil abominations,  who know things we aren't meant to know. It doesn't matter whether you think thinking like that is stupid (I do think that), or whether you agree, it's still very evocative of the theme.

Destroy is thematically anti-synthetic because of the Catalyst's rationale combined with the fact that you do destroy all synthetics. It's also supported by Javik. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Catalyst's rationale is stupid, it doesn't matter if you personally choose Destroy for other reasons, the theme is still in the decision.

In the same way, Synthesis carries the theme of "we must become more physically similar to get along". It doesn't matter that I think that's stupid, and it doesn't matter that I choose Synthesis for other reasons, I still need to deal with the annoying fact that my favorite decision has thematically annoying aspects. At least if I'm intellectually honest about it all.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 septembre 2013 - 12:39 .

[Br3admax]

No, Destroy is not anti-synthetic because it kills synthetics. It's completely anti-Reaper. The Catalysts said that synthetics would rise again, and Shepard acknowledges this. The point is to kill Reapers, that's the only point to Destroy. Destroying Reapers.

Using your reasoning and logic, Cole used the RFI because he was anti-Conduit. I mean he knew what it would do, canon wise this was his choice, the themes still there. He thought that it would kill all Conduits, even if it turns out that it didn't. Cole MacGrath hates Conduits, amirite?

Fallacies are the wrong way to go when making a valid argument.

Modifié par Br3ad, 04 septembre 2013 - 01:14 .

[Ieldra]

I'm sorry, but the balance is clear. In Destroy, organics are ascendant, and this is an intrinsic part of the decision just as in Control, synthetics are ascendant in form of the new AI god and its servants. Even the symbolism points that way as Shepard sacrifices their synthetic aspects in Destroy and their organic aspects in Control. That this is not the only thematic consideration, nor necessarily the dominant one, doesn't change that.

BTW, understand the whole argument before you reply. I didn't say because you destroy all synthetics Destroy is thematically anti-synthetic. It's because the Catalyst says that synthetics are a danger to organics and then you proceed to kill them, whether accidentally or not, and create a galaxy where organics alone determine the shape of the future civilization for now. Purpose and emotional stance hasn't necessarily anything to do with themes. Yet again: it does not matter if you, personally, hates synthetics or even if your Shepard does. The theme lies in the action itself and its presentation. You don't influence those.

I also don't know the example you were using.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 septembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[dorktainian]

how about...?

Synthesis = the Reapers solution (as proven by the husks etc...)
Control = Leviathans Solution. Enthrallment - as seen in the DLC
Destroy = Shepards solution - right from the start of the game.

As much as you want to go deeply into it, thats what it simply boils down to.

Will you have the willpower to see it through to the end without giving into the reapers or the leviathan?

[Br3admax]

The Catalyst also says that Destroy will not prevent more synthetics, which I responded to. And incase you didn't notice, organics were pretty much already doing that. The most synthetics did was kill anybody that came near. It's not anti-Synthetic at all. Again, I use the above argument, which still holds true to what you are saying. It's a very similar scenario with the same implications and the same drawbacks, with the same outcome. Sacrifice some to save the rest. It's ends justify the means, but it is not anti-synthetic in the slightest. Shepard opts to kill all synthetics, including themselves, as far as they can tell, to insure that the galaxy can determine its own fate. It's only anti-synthetic if you make it that way.

[DecCylonus]

iakus wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

iakus wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

jtav wrote...
Destroy is saying, loudly, that you don't need the Reapers.

No, it really isn't. Destroy is about survival via the obliteration of your enemies. Survival not just in the physical sense but also of our way of life. A way of life that includes all these nifty toys just lying around.  And the obliterated don't get a say in what happens afterwards. We win, we get all the stuff. There's really nothing else to say.

Both Destroy and Control are conquest endings through Exactly What It Says On the Tin. Destroy conquers through obliteration, Control through subjucation (roughly). Then there's also the method. If you want to get poetic, Control has you take the power of the gods by becoming one yourself. Destroy on the other hand has you go all Kratos on their ass (at least it would if it didn't "art" all over itself) and when they're all dead, humanity is free to pick up what's left.

If Destroy said, loudly "we don't need the Reapers" then it would have destroyed the Reapers and the relays without touching the other synthetics.

Instead, in destroying both Reapers and the geth and EDI what it says is "The Reapers are right organics have to exterminate synthetics in order to survive"

Except that all synthetics by that point had been "reaper-ized" with Reaper code and possibly other technology. It's as logical for EDI and the Geth to be destroyed as it is for the mass relays. It's just a logical consequence of the story. It doesn't say anything about whether the Catalyst is right or wrong.

So roll them back.  They lived without Reaper tech before.

And you'll notice that the relays, whcih are reaper tech through-and-through are not destroyed, or even rendered permanently non-functional.  They're simply damaged, but repairable.

That's the exact opposite of a "logical consequence" to me.

An (admittedly bad) analogy: Microsoft incorporated the solitaire game into the core programming of Windows 95. Businesses hated that and demanded it be removed. It couldn't be removed (i.e., rolled back) because of the way Microsoft had integrated it. I see EDI and the Geth in the same way.

Also, at the decision point to use the Crucible, there isn't time to do a software rollback, even if it could be done. Shepard has to make a decision while the Reapers are continuing to destroy things outside. So the Crucible fires while EDI and the Geth are still fully integrated with Reaper tech.

[Br3admax]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Using your reasoning and logic, Cole used the RFI because he was anti-Conduit. I mean he knew what it would do, canon wise this was his choice, the themes still there. He thought that it would kill all Conduits, even if it turns out that it didn't. Cole MacGrath hates Conduits, amirite?

Speaking of which, I'm very disappointed that that was the canon ending. I liked the other ending so much more.

Especially since they went with the whole, "Not everyone died, psych!" in Infamous: Second Sun. 

If the next ME does that, I'll be....I can't even lie and say that I'll be disappointed. I'm expecting it. 

[rekn2]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Using your reasoning and logic, Cole used the RFI because he was anti-Conduit. I mean he knew what it would do, canon wise this was his choice, the themes still there. He thought that it would kill all Conduits, even if it turns out that it didn't. Cole MacGrath hates Conduits, amirite?

Speaking of which, I'm very disappointed that that was the canon ending. I liked the other ending so much more.

Especially since they went with the whole, "Not everyone died, psych!" in Infamous: Second Sun. 

If the next ME does that, I'll be....I can't even lie and say that I'll be disappointed. I'm expecting it. 

It can't be a ME sequel if you're not slaughtering hordes of geth while simultaneously being preached at about how innocent and sympathetic they are.

i cant wait for the new bsn crowd. its dead around here and i enjoy when people argue about dumb ****.

theres a few smart people in this thread and even they are "sullying" themselves by giving the endings more than 5 minutes.

me3, especially the ending, is thematically broken. its broken at such a level that there is no argument.there is no right or wrong. there is only bad.

[Iakus]

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

iakus wrote...

You mean the war the Reapers themselves instigated? 

The Metacon War, along with the Geth conflict, were not instigated by the Reapers.  

I am not quite sure what you're getting at.

The Reapers were the ones who suborned the zha'til AIs in the first place. 

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

iakus wrote...

You mean the war the Reapers themselves instigated? 

The Metacon War, along with the Geth conflict, were not instigated by the Reapers.  

I am not quite sure what you're getting at.

The Reapers were the ones who suborned the zha'til AIs in the first place. 

Which you only get to know if you take Javik with you to the Geth Dreadnought, if I recall things correctly, so it's rather easy to miss, to say nothing for those who don't have him.

(Did I say Javik gives invaluable perspective on the organic/synthetic conflict and that it isn't good storytelling to rip such a character - as opposed to one with no such contribution - out of the main game to sell as DLC? It can't be repeated often enough)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 septembre 2013 - 03:22 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Which you only get to know if you take Javik with you to the Geth Dreadnought, if I recall things correctly, so it's rather easy to miss, to say nothing for those who don't have him.

(Did I say Javik gives invaluable perspective on the organic/synthetic conflict and that it isn't good storytelling to rip such a character - as opposed to one with no such contribution - out of the main game to sell as DLC? It can't be repeated often enough)

Does not make the Reaper philosophy any less of a self-fufilling prophecy we shouldn't have to follow.

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Which you only get to know if you take Javik with you to the Geth Dreadnought, if I recall things correctly, so it's rather easy to miss, to say nothing for those who don't have him.

(Did I say Javik gives invaluable perspective on the organic/synthetic conflict and that it isn't good storytelling to rip such a character - as opposed to one with no such contribution - out of the main game to sell as DLC? It can't be repeated often enough)

Does not make the Reaper philosophy any less of a self-fufilling prophecy we shouldn't have to follow.

Very Interesting(Will have to take Javik on that mission when  mehem v4 comes out) & agree completely about it being that reapers deliberately interfere to ensure a self fulfilling prophecy to justify themselves.

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...
We need to define when a theme can be said to be in a story or story event. My take on it is that a theme exists if it's evoked by certain elements in the story and is not specifically denied or contradicted.

Invoked according to a certain interpretation that is solely on you. And also denied by further developments in the games themselves.

Like I said, the Reapers ceased being mecha-Cthulu the moment we started killing'em and making'em (ends of ME1 and ME2) and the final nail came when they turned out to be mere killbots in service to a holographic child. Reaper tech was never "we're not meant to know" (I've only ever heard you claim that) it was just avoided like the plague, because like the plague, it ruined your day 99% of the time.

Destroy is thematically anti-synthetic because of the Catalyst's rationale combined with the fact that you do destroy all synthetics. It's also supported by Javik. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Catalyst's rationale is stupid, it doesn't matter if you personally choose Destroy for other reasons, the theme is still in the decision.

That rationale is the only reason you destroy all synthetics. It's forced on you, as a consequence, of the decision, not as its main effect. A side effect cannot carry a theme. That's like saying killing the Shiala clones in the Thorian fight makes you anti-cloning. It really doesn't. It just had to be done (and I really mean that here, unlike in Destroy, where it's arbitrary nonsense).
It's different from Synthesis because in Synthesis you're a) accepting the holokid's bull**** as true and your decision is necessarily a direct response to it. Destroy and Control barely acknowledge the holokid's babble. Synthesis holds it as true and responds by removing the offending distinction. That's a main effect. That actually can't be ignored. But all synthetics dying when we were only trying to kill our enemies? Tragic, but incidental. It's not a theme, it's collateral damage.

And Javik may anti-synthetic but he's only one character on the squad and no more significant to the final choice than Legion or EDI (or even Tali by the end of the Rannoch arc). I don't see why his opinion should be held above the others' or why it should be more significant to a particular ending than the others' would.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Imanol de Tafalla wrote...

iakus wrote...

You mean the war the Reapers themselves instigated? 

The Metacon War, along with the Geth conflict, were not instigated by the Reapers.  

I am not quite sure what you're getting at.

The Reapers were the ones who suborned the zha'til AIs in the first place. 

Which you only get to know if you take Javik with you to the Geth Dreadnought, if I recall things correctly, so it's rather easy to miss, to say nothing for those who don't have him.

(Did I say Javik gives invaluable perspective on the organic/synthetic conflict and that it isn't good storytelling to rip such a character - as opposed to one with no such contribution - out of the main game to sell as DLC? It can't be repeated often enough)

iirc, Javik said the Protheans were "turning the tide" in their war with synthetics before the Reapers showed up.

That would mean there was already such a conflict taking place, and the Reapers simply used it to their advantage.

That detail is a bit irrelevant, anyway. If the Catalyst doesn't believe organic civilization will outlast all synthetic threats, then why should he not use synthetics the same way as it already uses organics (brainwashed minions for dirty work)? People like to point to that as if it's an "Aha!" kind of thing. It isn't. It means nothing, aside from the Reapers being ruthless.

To quote Garrus: "When has that ever mattered in war?"

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 04 septembre 2013 - 05:08 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

That detail is a bit irrelevant, anyway. If the Catalyst doesn't believe organic civilization will outlast all synthetic threats, then why should he not use synthetics the same way as it already uses organics (brainwashed minions for dirty work)? People like to point to that as if it's an "Aha!" kind of thing. It isn't. It means nothing, aside from the Reapers being ruthless.

To quote Garrus: "When has that ever mattered in war?"

Because that makes them complete hypocrites?