1010 réponses à ce sujet

[GreatBlueHeron]

Kroitz wrote...

So, a person who does all 3 is a great average small?  Maybe small average great?  Hmm...perhaps great small average?  

[Han Shot First]

Xilizhra wrote...

High EMS Destroy is the only ending where the civilizations of the galaxy win the Reaper War.

Well, except the one you wiped out... and it's not the only one in any case, as the main enemy is defeated regardless.

Control and Synthesis are hardly defeats for the Reapers when their entire fleet remains intact and undefeated in the 'field' of battle. Both also retain some form of an A.I. overlord managing galactic affairs, whether that is the Catalyst (Synthesis) or Catalyst 2.0. (Control). Synthesis is arguably the worst of the two as the original Catalyst responsible for the annihilation of countless space faring civilizations remains in control of the Reaper fleet.

With Control and Synthesis Shepard also does not guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization. In choosing Control or Synthesis, Shepard is gambling with the galaxy's future.

[Xilizhra]

Control and Synthesis are hardly defeats for the Reapers when their entire fleet remains intact and undefeated in the 'field' of battle. Both also retain some form of an A.I. overlord managing galactic affairs, whether that is the Catalyst (Synthesis) or Catalyst 2.0. (Control). Synthesis is arguably the worst of the two as the original Catalyst responsible for the annihilation of countless space faring civilizations remains in control of the Reaper fleet.

Firstly, there's no guarantee that the Catalyst remains intact in Synthesis, or even that the Citadel does. Second, the Reapers are only tools in and of themselves, unless freed, at which point they can be quite helpful (and they are freed in Synthesis, the Catalyst isn't controlling them anymore).

With Control and Synthesis Shepard also does not guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization. In choosing Control or Synthesis, Shepard is gambling with the galaxy's future.

I will not destroy an entire race on the basis of what might happen.

[Han Shot First]

Xilizhra wrote...

Control and Synthesis are hardly defeats for the Reapers when their entire fleet remains intact and undefeated in the 'field' of battle. Both also retain some form of an A.I. overlord managing galactic affairs, whether that is the Catalyst (Synthesis) or Catalyst 2.0. (Control). Synthesis is arguably the worst of the two as the original Catalyst responsible for the annihilation of countless space faring civilizations remains in control of the Reaper fleet.

Firstly, there's no guarantee that the Catalyst remains intact in Synthesis, or even that the Citadel does. Second, the Reapers are only tools in and of themselves, unless freed, at which point they can be quite helpful (and they are freed in Synthesis, the Catalyst isn't controlling them anymore).

The Catalyst survives in Synthesis. If that wasn't the case, the Catalyst would not need to explicitly state that it would die in Destroy as be replaced in Control as death would be the outcome in all endings. There is no dialogue indicating that the Catalyst is destroyed or deactivated in Synthesis. That the Catalyst prefers Synthesis over the other two options also, IMO, suggests its survival. Synthesis is in its best interests.

As for the Catalyst surviving in Synthesis but relinquishing control of the Reapers, that is firmly in head canon territory as there is no in game dialogue to suggest anything of the sort.

Xilizhra wrote...

With Control and Synthesis Shepard also does not guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization. In choosing Control or Synthesis, Shepard is gambling with the galaxy's future.

I will not destroy an entire race on the basis of what might happen.

What if the Reapers one day find a new 'solution' and begin the cycles anew? Would the complete annihilation of humanity, the Asari, the Turians, the Salarians, the Krogan, and every other sapient space-faring civilization be worth Shepard not having been willing to accept collateral damage?

Modifié par Han Shot First, 20 octobre 2013 - 04:41 .

[Xilizhra]

The Catalyst survives in Synthesis. If that wasn't the case, the Catalyst would not need to explicitly state that it would die in Destroy as be replaced in Control as death would be the outcome in all endings. There is no dialogue indicating that the Catalyst is destroyed or deactivated in Synthesis. That the Catalyst prefers Synthesis over the other two options also, IMO, suggests its survival. Synthesis is in its best interests.

As for the Catalyst surviving in Synthesis but relinquishing control of the Reapers, that is firmly in head canon territory as there is no in game dialogue to suggest anything of the sort.

What happens to the Catalyst isn't relevant to the outcome of Synthesis, so there's no need to bring it up. And the Catalyst mentions something about the Reapers being released.

What if the Reapers one day find a new 'solution' and begin the cycles anew? Would the complete annihilation of humanity, the Asari, the Turians, the Salarians, the Krogan, and every other sapient space-faring civilization be worth Shepard not having been willing to accept collateral damage?

And what if we're attacked by extragalactic invaders who would kill all of us but for the intervention of the Reapers? There are an infinite number of "what-if" scenarios if we're going by that measure. But, given the much-repeated fact that the solution was stupid and didn't work, I seriously doubt any Catalyst would go back to it.

[KaiserShep]

Xilizhra wrote...
I will not destroy an entire race on the basis of what might happen.

Is this with regards to the geth, or the reapers? The ending decision is not really about what they might do, but it is about stopping what the reapers are currently doing. All choices, to that end, are justifiable.

[Xilizhra]

KaiserShep wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I will not destroy an entire race on the basis of what might happen.

Is this with regards to the geth, or the reapers? The ending decision is not really about what they might do, but it is about stopping what the reapers are currently doing. All choices, to that end, are justifiable.

Mostly the geth, but I have some consideration for the Reapers.

[Xilizhra]

StreetMagic wrote...

To me, preventing extinction is not enough. It's charting the path of evolution that's just as important in these choices. That's why I'm so hung up on "normality". Nature should take it's course. Struggle/limitations/suffering/achievements/victory/loss... all should be driven by chaos, chance, and ..sheer ballsiness. Maybe a million years from that, that will be a Milky Way as strong as the one from Synthesis, but at least it'll have gotten there it's own way. We might not be allowed a "conventional victory", but I think life deserves a conventional evolution.

Nature is what the beings who live in it, make of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing some mystical superiority to evolution driven by undirected chaos as opposed to directed order strikes me as foolish and baseless.

[KaiserShep]

With something like the mass relay network in place, I imagine a million years of development without interruption would pretty much saturate the galaxy with advanced life, occupying every remotely habitable world in sight. One of the things I do like about destroy is that the galaxy actually has to deal with getting that up and running on its own, and would take longer even if just because the reapers are much more efficient builders, and just happen to be ubiquitous.. The galaxy remains unexplored a lot longer, thus taking even longer to discover the dormant relays, and much of the galaxy remains a mystery for a very very long time.

[Br3admax]

StreetMagic wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

To me, preventing extinction is not enough. It's charting the path of evolution that's just as important in these choices. That's why I'm so hung up on "normality". Nature should take it's course. Struggle/limitations/suffering/achievements/victory/loss... all should be driven by chaos, chance, and ..sheer ballsiness. Maybe a million years from that, that will be a Milky Way as strong as the one from Synthesis, but at least it'll have gotten there it's own way. We might not be allowed a "conventional victory", but I think life deserves a conventional evolution.

Nature is what the beings who live in it, make of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing some mystical superiority to evolution driven by undirected chaos as opposed to directed order strikes me as foolish and baseless.

 
Mystical? Yeah, you lost me.

edit:

What the beings live in is what makes them. Per Darwin. Not the other way around.

Science is magic friend. Darwin is a wizard. 

[Xilizhra]

StreetMagic wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

To me, preventing extinction is not enough. It's charting the path of evolution that's just as important in these choices. That's why I'm so hung up on "normality". Nature should take it's course. Struggle/limitations/suffering/achievements/victory/loss... all should be driven by chaos, chance, and ..sheer ballsiness. Maybe a million years from that, that will be a Milky Way as strong as the one from Synthesis, but at least it'll have gotten there it's own way. We might not be allowed a "conventional victory", but I think life deserves a conventional evolution.

Nature is what the beings who live in it, make of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing some mystical superiority to evolution driven by undirected chaos as opposed to directed order strikes me as foolish and baseless.

Mystical? Yeah, you lost me.

edit:

What the beings live in is what makes them. Per Darwin. Not the other way around.

It's both, ultimately. It's still nature either way.

[Steelcan]

Br3ad wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

To me, preventing extinction is not enough. It's charting the path of evolution that's just as important in these choices. That's why I'm so hung up on "normality". Nature should take it's course. Struggle/limitations/suffering/achievements/victory/loss... all should be driven by chaos, chance, and ..sheer ballsiness. Maybe a million years from that, that will be a Milky Way as strong as the one from Synthesis, but at least it'll have gotten there it's own way. We might not be allowed a "conventional victory", but I think life deserves a conventional evolution.

Nature is what the beings who live in it, make of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing some mystical superiority to evolution driven by undirected chaos as opposed to directed order strikes me as foolish and baseless.

 
Mystical? Yeah, you lost me.

edit:

What the beings live in is what makes them. Per Darwin. Not the other way around.

Science is magic friend. Darwin is a wizard. 

#vampires

[Han Shot First]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Catalyst survives in Synthesis. If that wasn't the case, the Catalyst would not need to explicitly state that it would die in Destroy as be replaced in Control as death would be the outcome in all endings. There is no dialogue indicating that the Catalyst is destroyed or deactivated in Synthesis. That the Catalyst prefers Synthesis over the other two options also, IMO, suggests its survival. Synthesis is in its best interests.

As for the Catalyst surviving in Synthesis but relinquishing control of the Reapers, that is firmly in head canon territory as there is no in game dialogue to suggest anything of the sort.

What happens to the Catalyst isn't relevant to the outcome of Synthesis, so there's no need to bring it up. And the Catalyst mentions something about the Reapers being released.

What line of dialogue are you referring to?

I just watched the Synthesis ending again and the Catalyst says nothing of the sort.

There is also no dialogue indicating that the Catalyst is destroyed in Synthesis. The fact that it isn't mentioned, while death or deactivation is mentioned as part of the consequences of Control and Destroy, suggests the opposite.

Xilizhra wrote...

What if the Reapers one day find a new 'solution' and begin the cycles anew? Would the complete annihilation of humanity, the Asari, the Turians, the Salarians, the Krogan, and every other sapient space-faring civilization be worth Shepard not having been willing to accept collateral damage?

And what if we're attacked by extragalactic invaders who would kill all of us but for the intervention of the Reapers? There are an infinite number of "what-if" scenarios if we're going by that measure. But, given the much-repeated fact that the solution was stupid and didn't work, I seriously doubt any Catalyst would go back to it.

Extragalactic invaders are hypothetical threat. Neither the Reapers or the countless extinction cycles carried out by them are hypothetical.

[KaiserShep]

Xilizhra wrote...
Nature is what the beings who live in it, make of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Ascribing some mystical superiority to evolution driven by undirected chaos as opposed to directed order strikes me as foolish and baseless.

The reapers and catalyst kept using the word chaos with a negative association, but frankly, I never actually saw chaos as a particularly bad thing. The cosmos is unpredictable. Despite our best efforts, we shape our lives around it, not the other way around. The only people who find evolution mystical are generally anti-evolution, which has always struck me as a really bad punchline to a very depressing joke.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 octobre 2013 - 05:09 .

[Xilizhra]

What line of dialogue are you referring to?

I just watched the Synthesis ending again and the Catalyst says nothing of the sort.

I might have misremembered, but the implication with "connected to all of us" is that the Catalyst won't control them any more than anyone else would.

There is also no dialogue indicating that the Catalyst is destroyed in Synthesis. The fact that it isn't mentioned, while death or deactivation is mentioned as part of the consequences of Control and Destroy, suggests the opposite.

It's conjectural either way.

Extragalactic invaders are hypothetical threat. Neither the Reapers or the countless extinction cycles carried out by them are hypothetical.

Not hypothetical, but explicitly rejected as a possibility.

The reapers and catalyst kept using the word chaos with a negative
association, but frankly, I never actually saw chaos is a particularly
bad thing. The cosmos are unpredictable. Despite our best efforts, we
shape our lives around it, not the other way around. The only people who
find evolution mystical are generally anti-evolution, which has always
struck me as a really bad punchline to a very depressing joke.

I don't find evolution mystical; what I find mystical is the idea that undirected evolution is superior to directed.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 octobre 2013 - 05:09 .

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

The reapers and catalyst kept using the word chaos with a negative
association, but frankly, I never actually saw chaos is a particularly
bad thing. The cosmos are unpredictable. Despite our best efforts, we
shape our lives around it, not the other way around. The only people who
find evolution mystical are generally anti-evolution, which has always
struck me as a really bad punchline to a very depressing joke.

I don't find evolution mystical; what I find mystical is the idea that undirected evolution is superior to directed.

Let me spell this out for you: What is evolution? Think about that for a second. If you understand how evolution works, then you should know why directed evolution is a bad idea. 

[KaiserShep]

There's no such thing as "undirected" evolution. Organisms evolve as the environment dictates.

[Br3admax]

KaiserShep wrote...

There's no such thing as "undirected" evolution. Organisms evolve as the environment dictates.

You know what I meant. 

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The reapers and catalyst kept using the word chaos with a negative
association, but frankly, I never actually saw chaos is a particularly
bad thing. The cosmos are unpredictable. Despite our best efforts, we
shape our lives around it, not the other way around. The only people who
find evolution mystical are generally anti-evolution, which has always
struck me as a really bad punchline to a very depressing joke.

I don't find evolution mystical; what I find mystical is the idea that undirected evolution is superior to directed.

Let me spell this out for you: What is evolution? Think about that for a second. If you understand how evolution works, then you should know why directed evolution is a bad idea. 

I hardly see how directed evolution is a bad idea when humanity's alterations to its environment have uplifted us so much, while undirected evolution of the human form has more or less been left in the dust by humanity's progress. Obviously, many alterations to the environment are highly destructive, and that's certainly not good, but the ultimate point is that directed seems to be the only evolution we have left that can alter us in helpful ways (and, of course, you can use directed evolution to be directly helpful to that which you evolve, as opposed to the general randomness of undirected).

There's no such thing as
"undirected" evolution. Organisms evolve as the environment dictates.

I'm using the distinction to distinguish between alterations that have been deliberately imposed by sapient life vs. those that haven't been, though if you want, I can change my terminology.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 octobre 2013 - 05:15 .

[KaiserShep]

Br3ad wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

There's no such thing as "undirected" evolution. Organisms evolve as the environment dictates.

You know what I meant. 

This was in response to Xil not you.

[DeinonSlayer]

Ieldra2 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Haha, Xil and David heroically defending the rights of their beloved AIs.

I think that's all fine and well, but AIs don't even exist yet. No hypothetical or theory deserves this level of passion. Some people at this site latch on their pet fantasy subjects like they're actual realities (look at the dudes who vehemently defend magic rights vs Qun in the DA section). As long as people are just having fun with it and roleplaying devil's advocate, that's cool.. but sometimes I can't tell who's serious or not.

These things evoke passion because they're thematically representative of elements of the real world. The mage/templar conflict is basically security vs. freedom, the qun/Tevinter conflict is individualism vs. collectivism, the question of AIs points to ideas about whether "we're all machines" (Engineer Adams) or there is some extra element to organic intelligent life (Dr. Chakwas). It is not at all surprising or weird that people get passionate about that.

Very, very true. Only for me, the synthetic/organic thing wasn't so much about the nature of existence (we're clearly meant to see them as alive in ME), but more the application of justice. Do we treat people equally, hold them to the same standards? It's patronizing and unjust to do otherwise.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Haha, Xil and David heroically defending the rights of their beloved AIs.

I think that's all fine and well, but AIs don't even exist yet. No hypothetical or theory deserves this level of passion. Some people at this site latch on their pet fantasy subjects like they're actual realities (look at the dudes who vehemently defend magic rights vs Qun in the DA section). As long as people are just having fun with it and roleplaying devil's advocate, that's cool.. but sometimes I can't tell who's serious or not.

These things evoke passion because they're thematically representative of elements of the real world. The mage/templar conflict is basically security vs. freedom, the qun/Tevinter conflict is individualism vs. collectivism, the question of AIs points to ideas about whether "we're all machines" (Engineer Adams) or there is some extra element to organic intelligent life (Dr. Chakwas). It is not at all surprising or weird that people get passionate about that.

Very, very true. Only for me, the synthetic/organic thing wasn't so much about the nature of existence (we're clearly meant to see them as alive in ME), but more the application of justice. Do we treat people equally, hold them to the same standards? It's patronizing and unjust to do otherwise.

Justice is a heavily, heavily situational thing much of the time.