381 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

SwobyJ wrote...

There's a lot of intelligence in the ending of ME3 (omgididnt), but they lacked perception and insight into just how much narrative consistency and character conclusions matter.

Too much 'high level', not enough 'down to earth'.

To be intelligent it has to tie into everything else properly, but almost all of it feels like someone had some grand ideas and didn't think them through thoroughly. An idea isn't intelligent if you can't make it work.

[SwobyJ]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

This thread is funny when the ITers are here.

They remind me of crazy ex-accountants that live in the desert who think the government kidnaps people in flying saucers.

They don't?????????????!!!! :alien:

Love you too.

[SwobyJ]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

I'd argue with the notion that the problem just came out of left field. Sure, it had not been specifically identified as a problem to Shepard before then, but once the Catalyst articulated it, to me, from just a cursory recollection of ME1, ME2, and ME3, it was pretty damn obvious that the problem was there and the end result would be as the Catalyst described.

Only when I got this forum did I realise that other Shepards:
- Just didn't believe the problem existed
- Were pissed that the narrative threw them a curve ball and basically wanted a different story
- Did not want to make this choice

Looking back on it, it kinda reminds me of Neo meeting the Architect in Matrix 2 and watching all these other versions of himself rail against what the Architect was saying. (BTW I only remember that scene because someone linked it in on this forum).

The idiotic thing about it is that sure the problem exists, but not in some vacuum of "it must always exist and is always potentially deadly for all organic life".  Thing is there are other conflicts that are even more sure than this one because there's at least the initial and even continual possibility for a variety of synthetic lifeforms that could be created just as there are a variety of individual organic people with an almost infinite variety of proclivities-the good and the bad that exists already.  It's like saying a child will get angry with its parents and I'd say, of course.  But how many of those children will take out an axe and chop off their parents' heads?  If it's 1 or 10 do we then assume every single one of them will?  Or that this will lead to the deaths of parents everywhere?  And then is the solution to kill the parents and then every single person that reaches that parental stage?


Sure, some synthetic lifeforms may have conflict with organic lifeforms just as surely as all individuals have the ability to argue, but the converse is just as true-they may decide not to.  And that is THE most relevant thing that does exist as a large story in the game saying "don't ignore me", but that gets ignored.

The AI on the Citadel in ME1 wanted to stowaway on a geth ship and was willing to kill a lot of people if he was stopped.  But he was stopped and no one had to die.  EDI was on Luna, going a bit crazy, but wow look what EDI became or could become-a person wanting to help organic lifeforms and even falling in love with one.  The geth wanted to be alive and were being put down for that egregious act and went too far in their self-defense, but they retreated and showed themselves capable of far more nuanced understanding than the quarians--they had remorse and acted as caretakers for Rannoch awaiting the day when the quarians would come home.  Every single tale of synthetics going awry has a really good reason as to why it happened and outcomes that range from terminating them to making peace with them through dialogue and communication-not a forced understanding but a show of faith that they need not always be mistrusted. 

And that's far more intelligent than trying to create some artificial symbiotic existence.  The use of trust and a willingness to listen even in the face of overwhelming power that could snap you like a twig means far more and leads to a more solid coexistence than does some internal implanted connection that forces you to understand one another.  It creates growth and relationships--just like what happened with EDI.  Shepard in my game could have consistently told her what to do and she'd have complied, but she would not have learned and might not have become a real person by forming her own responses and feelings to things.  It's about deciding what to do rather than being made to do it. 

Anyone who's ever raised a child may have at one time confronted something similar with them.  It's amazing the first time this happens.  When they're growing up they may want to do something bad but see you looking at them and so maybe they won't do it.  But at one point, they're out of your view, and have to decide for themselves between right and wrong.  They may tell you about it or someone else might, and explain how they made the right choice and did a good thing.  The point is that is priceless.  Your child made a decision for the good without you telling them what to do.  It's kind of the same thing with forming bonds between synthetics and organics based upon a growth of trust and a decision to work together.  It creates a better more authentic bond.

TLDR version = Synthesis is a Reaper solution (Reapers ultimately coming from even more derp Leviathans)

Maybe if the Intelligence had more street smarts, it'd just go: "Ok, Shepard, you fought well, we'll.... stand down if you do. And find our own place in the stars. We'll come back when both of us are ready."

Nah, it was too sure that synthesis was the ideal solution.

[SwobyJ]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

This thread is fun when the ITers are here.

just corrected that for you.  hope you don't mind.

I do mind. It's funny. I'm all for IT'ers to have their own little song and dance and seance around the fire, but it just becomes humorous when they come in here and start waxing philosophically on the 'deontological' merits of destroy versus a 'utilitarian' philosophy of control and synthesis (Seriously, have any of you guys actually read and studied John Stuart Mill?) It's hilarious, pathetically so.

Um, yes. I have several of his essays in a book right next to my desk.

None of the choices are positive philisophies of said terms, but they do represent a precieved motivation. There's a transhumanist bent to all of them that Mill would have likely never concieved of.

[dorktainian]

i dunno. There is more going on here than we realise. Are there any straight answers? If one of the choices is wrong then surely they all have to be wrong (or vice versa).

What if there is no solution? Maybe thats the point?

What if we're all wrong? What if we're all right? What if it is indeed a test that does not have a correct answer?

[SwobyJ]

Deathsaurer wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Or, more appropriately it takes an organic to force it upon other organics, except the kid's been forcing it all along on organics.  Yeah, this time it looks different but the kid says it all-the created will always rebel against the creator -- will destroy the creator.  The creator is an organic being named Shepard who is spreading all this creative juice all over everything-and is the first to be destroyed by the created (in the act of creating the created).  And every single time synthesis has happened it has resulted in the created (tech) overtaking the creator (organic).  I stand by this that this is the only constant that makes what the kid says true-external tech or tech that is not integrated with organic components does not destroy organic life.  Internal integrated tech (synthesis) does-always in this game it has.  It interanally destroys the organic organism the tech has attempted to integrate with-always.

Once again you're confusing the Catalyst's vision for it and the actual thing. I tried to force the machine perspective on organics, this can't work. The real thing is an actual balance of both, you know strengths of both weaknesses of neither. Kinda like Shepard post Lazarus only taken to the logical conclusion. It will happen, eventually. Science marches on. The Catalyst understood at the end it takes organics and synthetics working together to make it happen else it will fail entirely.

Yeah, I mean, if what we see is what we get, more or less, then Synthesis is sure better than Harvesting.

Which is part of why I find all endings to have beauty in them.

Control --> Sacrificial hero for the galaxy, and what Shepard may have developed into through his experiences with allies and friends and loves
Synthesis --> You're friggin Neo, a wholeeee new deal
Destroy --> Most 'core Shepard' (core = motivations since meeting Sovereign), focused on the fight and survival as he is in most of his journey (but NOT all)

[SwobyJ]

Reorte wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

There's a lot of intelligence in the ending of ME3 (omgididnt), but they lacked perception and insight into just how much narrative consistency and character conclusions matter.

Too much 'high level', not enough 'down to earth'.

To be intelligent it has to tie into everything else properly, but almost all of it feels like someone had some grand ideas and didn't think them through thoroughly. An idea isn't intelligent if you can't make it work.

Lots of ideas are intelligent even if we can't make them work. They just don't really lead to positively recieved creations. Ideas are cheap, and that really describes how I feel about the ending they made.

But yes, 'only your actions will be remembered' , certainly applies to Bioware here. They have a lot to make up for in DA:I and 'ME4', and I hope they actually remember that.

I can theorize all over the place - it's FUN. Wow, like a game! But in the end, if there isn't a good product released as the next game, well, I had my fun... and now it's time to move on

[AlanC9]

dorktainian wrote...

i dunno. There is more going on here than we realise. Are there any straight answers? If one of the choices is wrong then surely they all have to be wrong (or vice versa).

What if there is no solution? Maybe thats the point?

What if we're all wrong? What if we're all right? What if it is indeed a test that does not have a correct answer?

Why should there be one correct answer that works for every Shepard? We don't expect that for other decisions.

[AlanC9]

Steelcan wrote...
Its funny how the ITers who come here with their lunacy are the same ones who poisoned the main thread and also use that cesspit of a section the "Scary Door", go talk about how the protheans actually enacted synthesis or something.

"Scary Door"?

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Its funny how the ITers who come here with their lunacy are the same ones who poisoned the main thread and also use that cesspit of a section the "Scary Door", go talk about how the protheans actually enacted synthesis or something.

"Scary Door"?

The IT forum now has a subsection called 'Scary Door' where anything goes for ideas as long as it's not utterly and completely random (I suppose). A number of us (including myself) diverged enough from 'IT' and went off-topic enough for its creation.

[SwobyJ]

AlanC9 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

i dunno. There is more going on here than we realise. Are there any straight answers? If one of the choices is wrong then surely they all have to be wrong (or vice versa).

What if there is no solution? Maybe thats the point?

What if we're all wrong? What if we're all right? What if it is indeed a test that does not have a correct answer?

Why should there be one correct answer that works for every Shepard? We don't expect that for other decisions.

Well yeah that's true. Even if there's an overall Sheploo story that Bioware works off of, that doesn't invalidate Control or Synthesis in having potential positive results at some point, or immediately after making it.

Only times I can think of choices leading to instafail are:
-Morinth 'romance'
-Doing enough stuff bad in ME2 that Shepard dies
-Sticking around Arrival until weirdcrazymontage

That is, unless you consider 'success' as Shepard living or at least seemingly living, which I actually don't for ME3. It's the end of a trilogy and I don't think Bioware wants people to feel bad for their hero going out with death.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 30 octobre 2013 - 11:32 .

[Steelcan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Its funny how the ITers who come here with their lunacy are the same ones who poisoned the main thread and also use that cesspit of a section the "Scary Door", go talk about how the protheans actually enacted synthesis or something.

"Scary Door"?

Insanity wearing the guise of speculation

[Br3admax]

Steelcan wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Its funny how the ITers who come here with their lunacy are the same ones who poisoned the main thread and also use that cesspit of a section the "Scary Door", go talk about how the protheans actually enacted synthesis or something.

"Scary Door"?

Insanity wearing the guise of speculation

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Now pay a visit to the Dragon Age: Inquisition forums and read that some people don't think Dragon Age is "dark and gritty" enough. I'm beginning to think we're in the minority and if BW delivers on that it's time to move on.

Seriously I agree with 3D that there was a way to avoid the ending like this, but it would have taken quite a bit of resources to do it. Dealing with indoctrination and over all reaper power would have been the two big ones.

I loved the bunny rabbit anology. It was totally over the top, but I loved it. Beautiful reducto ad absurdium. Well done. Then again it isn't any more absurd than Marmalade Theory either.

[Reorte]

SwobyJ wrote...

Reorte wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

There's a lot of intelligence in the ending of ME3 (omgididnt), but they lacked perception and insight into just how much narrative consistency and character conclusions matter.

Too much 'high level', not enough 'down to earth'.

To be intelligent it has to tie into everything else properly, but almost all of it feels like someone had some grand ideas and didn't think them through thoroughly. An idea isn't intelligent if you can't make it work.

Lots of ideas are intelligent even if we can't make them work. They just don't really lead to positively recieved creations. Ideas are cheap, and that really describes how I feel about the ending they made.

No, part of what makes an idea good is being able to make it work. That doesn't mean that you can't have good ideas botched by a bad implementation, but an idea that can't be implemented well isn't a good one. It might be a good one in a completely different settings. For an example of a good idea go back to the geth in ME2 and try to get your head around the nature of an intelligence made up of multiple fairly unintelligent parts, that will split and join frequently. That's really interesting, tricky stuff, and works both in-game and as a wider concept - as far as we know it's not completely implausible for reality, and is also one of the few examples I've come across in fiction of a truly alien yet convincing intelligence.

There's plenty of mileage in the concept of merging synthetic and organic but that's not a new concept and ME3 didn't add anything to it. It would be possible to do intelligent things with it but merely raising it on its own isn't.

Modifié par Reorte, 31 octobre 2013 - 02:53 .

[Deathsaurer]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Now pay a visit to the Dragon Age: Inquisition forums and read that some people don't think Dragon Age is "dark and gritty" enough. I'm beginning to think we're in the minority and if BW delivers on that it's time to move on.

Well that's... unfortunate.

Seriously I agree with 3D that there was a way to avoid the ending like this, but it would have taken quite a bit of resources to do it. Dealing with indoctrination and over all reaper power would have been the two big ones.

Ah that wonderful moment when you realize making the Reapers a group of warships with mind control powers a ground soldier is supposed to fight really hurt the plot. Sounds good on paper then you realize they need to be fought. Yeeeeeeeeep.

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Now pay a visit to the Dragon Age: Inquisition forums and read that some people don't think Dragon Age is "dark and gritty" enough. I'm beginning to think we're in the minority and if BW delivers on that it's time to move on.
 

It's conceivable. I don't know how Bio could tell one way or the other.

Come to think of it, I might be part of the problem here, since whenever we get onto choices snd consequences I'm in there complaining about Redcliffe.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 octobre 2013 - 03:24 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Obadiah wrote...

I'd argue with the notion that the problem just came out of left field. Sure, it had not been specifically identified as a problem to Shepard before then, but once the Catalyst articulated it, to me, from just a cursory recollection of ME1, ME2, and ME3, it was pretty damn obvious that the problem was there and the end result would be as the Catalyst described.

I'd argue it too. I'd say the Catalyst's shpiel at the end of the game is nothing more than an allegory to the Reapers themselves. The Reapers (and, by extension, the Catalyst) *are* what one could consider a technological-singularity entity.

As such, the organic-synthetic conflict problem wasn't "taking the focus off" anything. You weren't only dealing with some future problem, those solutions take effect immediately, too. Moral issues aside: if you feel synthetic threats can grow too big and too dangerous (such as the Reapers), Destroy them; if you want the benefit of having them around, but without granting total freedom, choose Control; if you want those same benefits and want them to self-determinate, choose Sync.

! <-- I frickin love this icon.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 31 octobre 2013 - 03:24 .

[Steelcan]

The problem may have existed for the leviathans, regardless the Catalyst was programmed to believe it is true. And was programmed o find a solution to said problem that may exist, the ideal solution is Synthesis, why is that?



*insert conspiracy Leviathans want synthesis spiel*

[Deathsaurer]

I think the Leviathans made it clear they had a slightly different intention for it when they made it that didn't include Harbinger. Whatever they wanted from it it didn't care and declared them part of the problem.

[SwobyJ]

Reorte wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Reorte wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

There's a lot of intelligence in the ending of ME3 (omgididnt), but they lacked perception and insight into just how much narrative consistency and character conclusions matter.

Too much 'high level', not enough 'down to earth'.

To be intelligent it has to tie into everything else properly, but almost all of it feels like someone had some grand ideas and didn't think them through thoroughly. An idea isn't intelligent if you can't make it work.

Lots of ideas are intelligent even if we can't make them work. They just don't really lead to positively recieved creations. Ideas are cheap, and that really describes how I feel about the ending they made.

No, part of what makes an idea good is being able to make it work. That doesn't mean that you can't have good ideas botched by a bad implementation, but an idea that can't be implemented well isn't a good one. It might be a good one in a completely different settings. For an example of a good idea go back to the geth in ME2 and try to get your head around the nature of an intelligence made up of multiple fairly unintelligent parts, that will split and join frequently. That's really interesting, tricky stuff, and works both in-game and as a wider concept - as far as we know it's not completely implausible for reality, and is also one of the few examples I've come across in fiction of a truly alien yet convincing intelligence.

There's plenty of mileage in the concept of merging synthetic and organic but that's not a new concept and ME3 didn't add anything to it. It would be possible to do intelligent things with it but merely raising it on its own isn't.

It didn't just raise it on its own.

My major issue with it isn't that it was a subject of the plot, but that it relied on subtext (oh yes, it's there imo, and everywhere) instead of being central to it. There's 'encouraging investigation' for your audience, and there's 'downright annoying' them. And they, sadly, did the latter. So we're stuck with a sudden 'tweest!' that really didn't feel necessary - at the very least at first.

Sorry, I don't feel like explaining in more depth.

[SwobyJ]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

I'd argue with the notion that the problem just came out of left field. Sure, it had not been specifically identified as a problem to Shepard before then, but once the Catalyst articulated it, to me, from just a cursory recollection of ME1, ME2, and ME3, it was pretty damn obvious that the problem was there and the end result would be as the Catalyst described.

I'd argue it too. I'd say the Catalyst's shpiel at the end of the game is nothing more than an allegory to the Reapers themselves. The Reapers (and, by extension, the Catalyst) *are* what one could consider a technological-singularity entity.

As such, the organic-synthetic conflict problem wasn't "taking the focus off" anything. You weren't only dealing with some future problem, those solutions take effect immediately, too. Moral issues aside: if you feel synthetic threats can grow too big and too dangerous (such as the Reapers), Destroy them; if you want the benefit of having them around, but without granting total freedom, choose Control; if you want those same benefits and want them to self-determinate, choose Sync.

! <-- I frickin love this icon.

I'd say they're less like a technological-singularity, but more a machine race searching for that singularity because they suck at reaching it themselves, or at least perfecting it all into singularity status.

Also I agree with the bolded.

[SwobyJ]

Deathsaurer wrote...

I think the Leviathans made it clear they had a slightly different intention for it when they made it that didn't include Harbinger. Whatever they wanted from it it didn't care and declared them part of the problem.

Yep. As far as we know, the Intelligence could be doing EVERYTHING else right. The Cycle is something the Leviathans may very well support, but for their own benefit. Leviathan is clearly the Control DLC anyway, so it wouldn't surprise me. (NOTE: I do not mean 'Shepard as controller', but simply the whole concept of Control, just as Omega doesnt focus on Cerberus controlling things, but instead the chaotic and destructive pew pew rebellion against Cerberus order)

Which makes the Leviathans approx just as bad as the Reapers/Intelligence, but Shepard seems to be convinced we need their help as things are that dire. (which is why I do Leviathan just before Thessia, to fit into the whole dire feeling.

Leviathan: It is clear why the Reapers perceive you as a threat.
Your victories are more than a product of chance. We will fight, but not
for you, or any lesser race. We were the first, the apex race. We will
survive. And the Reapers who trespass on this world will understand our
power. They will become our slaves. Today, they pay their tribute in
blood.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 31 octobre 2013 - 04:37 .

[dorktainian]

SwobyJ wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

I'd argue with the notion that the problem just came out of left field. Sure, it had not been specifically identified as a problem to Shepard before then, but once the Catalyst articulated it, to me, from just a cursory recollection of ME1, ME2, and ME3, it was pretty damn obvious that the problem was there and the end result would be as the Catalyst described.

I'd argue it too. I'd say the Catalyst's shpiel at the end of the game is nothing more than an allegory to the Reapers themselves. The Reapers (and, by extension, the Catalyst) *are* what one could consider a technological-singularity entity.

As such, the organic-synthetic conflict problem wasn't "taking the focus off" anything. You weren't only dealing with some future problem, those solutions take effect immediately, too. Moral issues aside: if you feel synthetic threats can grow too big and too dangerous (such as the Reapers), Destroy them; if you want the benefit of having them around, but without granting total freedom, choose Control; if you want those same benefits and want them to self-determinate, choose Sync.

! <-- I frickin love this icon.

I'd say they're less like a technological-singularity, but more a machine race searching for that singularity because they suck at reaching it themselves, or at least perfecting it all into singularity status.

and here you might have hit on something.   Okies..speculation hat on    

Is Shepard the final piece of the puzzle, that allows the reapers to become that Technological Singularity by him choosing synthesis?  In the synthesis ending everyone appears synthesised.  Synthesise is an interesting word as well.  It can all mean something akin to 'copy'.  

"It is not something that can be forced"           


There is no spoon.

[SwobyJ]

Akin to, maybe.

Synthesis typically means something like: to be made whole/into one (convergence), changed (one of the more pure forms of it), multiples merged into something unalike what they were before, usually more complex/complicated.
Stuff like that.

Synthesis typically has a 'building up' part to it. It isn't breaking down/removing (Destroy) or maintaining/regulating (Control).


The part you might be thinking as 'copy', isn't exactly that, but that 'synthesis' typically means any of the things I listed earlier in this post, BUT it has to be done in an ARTIFICIAL way. As in, it could be interpreted as UNNATURAL CREATION of something of many parts making a WHOLE.

In that sense, we might interpret Synthesis as yes, a copy of what once was, but with elements added to it, but also qualities subtracted.