120 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Dark Energy Ending: 

 

Child: It is in your power to destroy us. You can destroy all biotic life if you want, including the Asari. 

Shepard: But the reapers will be destroyed?

Child: Yes. But be warned, you will have only a short time to come up with a solution to the build up of dark energy in this galaxy that will eventually destroy the universe.

Shepard: There has to be another way.

Child: There is. You could control us.

Shepard: So The Illusive Man was right after all.

Child: Yes, but he could never control us because we already controlled him.

Shepard: But I can?

Child: Yes. You will die. You will lose everything you have. You will also sacrifice humanity and save the entire universe from its destruction from dark energy buildup caused by the use of biotics, the mass relays, and element zero.

Shepard: I... don't know.

Child: Releasing the energy of the crucible will destroy the mass relays. You have a difficult choice to make and little time. 

[FlyingSquirrel]

To be honest, "taking it to the next level" confused the hell outta me. Doesn't even make sense. In that plot, using biotics would be considered bad, so the Reapers would look for someone TO USE BIOTICS to prevent it? Unless the "next level" goes back on the "biotics = bad" thing and makes them essential to the galaxy's survival?

But then what would be the point of wiping out entire species? What, is there a universal limit to how many different species can exist at one time, so that one has to give up their spot for another?

 

They'd probably have still had to introduce something like the Catalyst - i.e. a poorly programmed but powerful AI that has misunderstood its mandate - for this to hold up.

 

Otherwise, there's the simple question of why the Reapers wouldn't just communicate with existing species and warn them not to use biotics, as opposed to spending their time killing people, blowing air horns, and ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL. I know, people tend to be short-sighted and use power without considering the consequences of overreaching, but I would think that ancient superbeings descending from the sky and telling you to stop using biotics because continuing to do so will destroy the galaxy would be a pretty powerful motivation. It's similar to the question of why the Reapers don't just intervene to stop people from creating synthetics, the answer being the Catalyst and its screwy programming.

[Jukaga]

The biggest problem with the Dark Energy plot is that the Reapers, in making the Relays and leaving around evidence of Eezo technology set the process in motion that is leading to the accelerated Big Crunch. It's not like 90% of species out there would ever figure out Eezo tech on their own, so why facilitate the problem you want to prevent?

[Iakus]

Comparing Dark Energy to Synthetics is like comparing a pencil outline to a finished picture.

 

Sure Dark Energy may have been worse, but we really don't know how it would have been presented, forshadowed, or ultimately resolved.  It never really got out of the concept stage. 

 

Synthetics, are a finsihed product, we can see how it was done (badly)

[dreamgazer]

ME3's ending is certainly flawed, but they dodged a bigger bullet by not implementing the dark energy concept. 

 

Nearly every criticism lobbed at the current ending---Reaper explanation leading them to being actual good guys saving the galaxy, Shepard becoming "unheroic" and an antagonist, techno-science magic, a heavy-handed "grimdark" decision---applies two-fold to dark energy's core principles, fleshed out or not.  While that excludes the issues people have with the Catalyst, there's no telling whether Drew would've featured an info-dump AI figurehead of the Reapers or not, since he's also responsible for Vigil. 

[AlanC9]

They'd probably have still had to introduce something like the Catalyst - i.e. a poorly programmed but powerful AI that has misunderstood its mandate - for this to hold up.

 

 

The intended final choice would also have required something like the Crucible. -- some sort of superweapon so it could come down to a final choice of whether to use it or not.

[dreamgazer]

Comparing Dark Energy to Synthetics is like comparing a pencil outline to a finished picture.

 
More like a thesis outline to a finished paper, really, and there's only so far further explanation can go to justify a premise that's faulty from the start. At least with OvS, there's some room for interpretation and debate in regards to the villainy of the Reapers' agenda.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Nobody is going to like any reason given for systematic harvesting/genocide.

[Reorte]

ME3's ending is certainly flawed, but they dodged a bigger bullet by not implementing the dark energy concept. 
 
Nearly every criticism lobbed at the current ending---Reaper explanation leading them to being actual good guys saving the galaxy, Shepard becoming "unheroic" and an antagonist, techno-science magic, a heavy-handed "grimdark" decision---applies two-fold to dark energy's core principles, fleshed out or not.  While that excludes the issues people have with the Catalyst, there's no telling whether Drew would've featured an info-dump AI figurehead of the Reapers or not, since he's also responsible for Vigil.

The big advantage with the DE ending is that anything eezo-related stays entirely within the fictional universe, so doesn't run into half the logical objections to the AI issue. If you touch on anything that could even theoretically happen in reality making blanket "this will happen" statements is never going to work. It still wouldn't be entirely issue-free, the big one being, as mentioned, encouraging eezo use instead of just trying to harvest up as much of it as possible and dumping it out of harm's way, just turning up every now and then to make sure nothing's slipped through and started using it. And sticking up some notices saying "Don't touch, it'll end the universe." So still problems but not as big.

The "Reapers turn out to be good guys" is mostly because they don't behave remotely like that; it would need something to explain why they're still jerks.

The "grimdark" part is less of a problem. Assuming everything else was consistent at least it would be fixed. It would boil down to whether or not you've got faith in everyone else to work something out once they know it's a problem.

IMO dark energy still isn't at all good, but it sounds like it might've been marginally better than what we got. Certainly no worse, and had at least a few hints of foreshadowing.

[dreamgazer]

The "Reapers turn out to be good guys" is mostly because they don't behave remotely like that; it would need something to explain why they're still jerks.

Doesn't change their fundamental purpose, whatsoever. They're the galaxy's saviors.

The "grimdark" part is less of a problem. Assuming everything else was consistent at least it would be fixed. It would boil down to whether or not you've got faith in everyone else to work something out once they know it's a problem.

And it'll still be a problem that's largely out of the universe's control at that point, evidenced by Haestrom. They don't have a solution; they have blind faith and a galaxy ravaged by the Reapers.

IMO dark energy still isn't at all good, but it sounds like it might've been marginally better than what we got. Certainly no worse, and had at least a few hints of foreshadowing.

 
So did the organic-synthetic conflict, all the way back to ME1 (heretic geth wouldn't exist without it) and continued into ME2.  Far more than dark energy, at least, which was entirely optional content. Point still stands about the Reapers' agenda, antagonist Shepard, heavy-handed decisions, and space-magic bull. It's worse.

[Reorte]

Doesn't change their fundamental purpose, whatsoever. They're the galaxy's saviors.

A position inconsistent with the way they behave, therefore it would need some effort to make it convincing.

And it'll still be a problem that's largely out of the universe's control at that point, evidenced by Haestom. They don't have a solution; they have blind faith and a galaxy ravaged by the Reapers.

They're aware it's a problem and can start looking for a solution. It doesn't sound like it's anything like an immediate threat.

So did the organic-synthetic conflict, all the way back to ME1 (heretic geth wouldn't exist without it) and continued into ME2.  Far more than dark energy, at least, which was entirely optional content. Point still stands about the Reapers' agenda, antagonist Shepard, heavy-handed decisions, and space-magic bull. It's worse.

No it didn't. This has been explained numerous times before. We had some conflicts with AIs throughout the games. Nothing suggested these were any more significant than the conflicts with other organics. The few dark energy hints were of something big going on.

It's bad but not worse since it at least sticks entirely within the fictional universe, so it's a bit easier to justify the bull.

[dreamgazer]

No it didn't. This has been explained numerous times before. We had some conflicts with AIs throughout the games. Nothing suggested these were any more significant than the conflicts with other organics. The few dark energy hints were of something big going on.

Yes, it did. The geth opposition in ME1 wouldn't have happened without the lingering effects and conflict at the heart of the Morning War. It's always been a theme. Drew Karpyshyn confirms it at the bottom of this article.
 

It's bad but not worse since it at least sticks entirely within the fictional universe, so it's a bit easier to justify the bull.

Rebellious synthetics are part of the universe, and the direct association to real-life theories actually makes it more interesting.

[Reorte]

Yes, it did. The geth opposition in ME1 wouldn't have happened without the lingering effects and conflict at the heart of the Morning War. It's always been a theme.

"AIs can sometimes be nasty" is simply part of the background. Nothing whatsoever suggests a fundamental problem, it's merely part of the setting.

Rebellious synthetics are part of the universe, and the direct association to real-life theories actually makes it more interesting.

It got interesting for a while with Legion's loyalty mission.

Rebellious synthetics are part of the universe but a part that, unlike eezo, is extrapolated from the real world. Therefore, unlike eezo, the extrapolations need to be kept on a leash if you want to maintain suspension of disbelief. The problem with the real-life theories meeting the game is stating blankly "This will be the case. It is inevitable." Not "might be", not even "very likely" but "inevitable." You can have example AIs go bad, fine. It's the jump to inevitable disaster no matter what that's such a facepalm.

[Iakus]

Yes, it did. The geth opposition in ME1 wouldn't have happened without the lingering effects and conflict at the heart of the Morning War. It's always been a theme. Drew Karpyshyn confirms it at the bottom of this article.
 

One data point isn't a pattern

 

heck ME2 demonstrates the geth opposition in ME1 was only a tiny minority of them anyway!

[Obadiah]

...
So did the organic-synthetic conflict, all the way back to ME1 (heretic geth wouldn't exist without it) and continued into ME2. Far more than dark energy, at least, which was entirely optional content. Point still stands about the Reapers' agenda, antagonist Shepard, heavy-handed decisions, and space-magic bull. It's worse.

Our perception was too myopic until the ending, where the full scope of the problem was revealed.

We were as blind men trying to see the elephant.
http://en.m.wikipedi...and_an_elephant

[dreamgazer]

"AIs can sometimes be nasty" is simply part of the background. Nothing whatsoever suggests a fundamental problem, it's merely part of the setting.

It's a fundamental part of the creation and development of artificial intelligence, a concern enough for AI research to be deemed illegal in this universe.
 

Rebellious synthetics are part of the universe but a part that, unlike eezo, is extrapolated from the real world. Therefore, unlike eezo, the extrapolations need to be kept on a leash if you want to maintain suspension of disbelief. The problem with the real-life theories meeting the game is stating blankly "This will be the case. It is inevitable." Not "might be", not even "very likely" but "inevitable." You can have example AIs go bad, fine. It's the jump to inevitable disaster no matter what that's such a facepalm.

Speculation about potential technology and building on that speculation as a "fact" in the work's universe is a long-running and ingrained part of science-fiction, and the idea of a technological singularity is still a very real concern.
 

One data point isn't a pattern
 
heck ME2 demonstrates the geth opposition in ME1 was only a tiny minority of them anyway!

It demonstrates the capacity for that line of "thinking", though. That's the way synthetic processes operate: they're not static or guided by organic morality systems.

[Iakus]

 

It demonstrates the capacity for that line of "thinking", though. That's the way synthetic processes operate: they're not static or guided by organic morality systems.

And once again I point out that the Rachni Wars and Krogan Rebellions were by far more destructive.

 

And demonstrate why organic uplifting is frowned upon as much as AI development

[AlanC9]

Comparing Dark Energy to Synthetics is like comparing a pencil outline to a finished picture.

 

Sure. And we can see what the pencil drawing is an outline of.

[dreamgazer]

And once again I point out that the Rachni Wars and Krogan Rebellions were by far more destructive.
 
And demonstrate why organic uplifting is frowned upon as much as AI development

Good thing you're not required to uplift organics, then.

[Iakus]

Good thing you're not required to uplift organics, then.

Okay, I give up.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

[dreamgazer]

Okay, I give up.
 
What does that have to do with anything?

The galaxy has learned from its mistakes in regards to organic uplifting, and the only way one can uplift organics in this ending is by choosing Synthesis, which is entirely optional and hinged on the player's perception of where the upgrades will go. The Rachni Wars and the Krogan Rebellion serve as cautionary tales, and it's clear that the galaxy has taken that to heart.

AI development remains, and will remain, a problem, however. That's how technological advancement and organic ego/ambition works, along with the fickle and cold nature of computational processes. You're not required to deal with the idea of organic uplifting in the ending, but you are required to acknowledge the chaos of developing advanced technology that can lead to self-destruction.

[Iakus]

The galaxy has learned from its mistakes in regards to organic uplifting, and the only way one can uplift organics in this ending is by choosing Synthesis, which is entirely optional and hinged on the player's perception of where the upgrades will go. The Rachni Wars and the Krogan Rebellion serve as cautionary tales, and it's clear that the galaxy has taken that to heart.

AI development remains, and will remain, a problem, however. That's how technological advancement and organic ego/ambition works, along with the fickle and cold nature of computational processes. You're not required to deal with the idea of organic uplifting in the ending, but you are required to acknowledge the chaos of developing advanced technology that can lead to self-destruction.

 

Erm, the salarians are shown to be looking into uplifting three different species in ME3.  And genetic engineering was carefully regulated.  Arguably as much as AI development (which still didn't prevent projects like Okeer's).

 

And not having to deal with organic uplifting in the ending just shows how foolish the ending was.  Heck it proves being dependant on one type of technology blinds you to other paths.  One of the enants of the game that was conveniently forgotten about in ME3

[Deathsaurer]

Everyone with a brain thinks the Salarians are nuts for messing with the Yahg. But hey, if that one blows up in their face too I can point and laugh at them.

[Reorte]

It's a fundamental part of the creation and development of artificial intelligence, a concern enough for AI research to be deemed illegal in this universe.

A concern, yes. You don't see the difference between concerns that might have examples of danger and saying it's an all-out inevitability?

Speculation about potential technology and building on that speculation as a "fact" in the work's universe is a long-running and ingrained part of science-fiction, and the idea of a technological singularity is still a very real concern.

Once again, concern, not fact. Whilst playing out the results of various speculations is part of science fiction stating that any of them are global, inevitable certainties is not. That's just plain crappy writing. It makes as much sense as saying "all aliens WILL want to eat us." Some may. Some sci-fi might have some aliens trying to do just that, and by having those it's giving individual examples, not claiming a universal truth. There is a massive difference.
 

It demonstrates the capacity for that line of "thinking", though. That's the way synthetic processes operate: they're not static or guided by organic morality systems.

Some might be. There's no reason to think that they are all like that and the game offers nothing to challenge that. Like I said, the huge, big important difference between "some" and "all". The capacity for that line of thinking existing is fine. Saying it is is inevitable is stupid.

[dreamgazer]

Erm, the salarians are shown to be looking into uplifting three different species in ME3.  And genetic engineering was carefully regulated.  Arguably as much as AI development (which still didn't prevent projects like Okeer's).
 
And not having to deal with organic uplifting in the ending just shows how foolish the ending was.  Heck it proves being dependant on one type of technology blinds you to other paths.  One of the enants of the game that was conveniently forgotten about in ME3

Yes, and they're looked down upon for doing so.

Here's the problem with the comparison between genetic uplifting and creation of artificial intelligence: the level of necessity behind the two technologies. Genetic advancing is another side of developments in medicine and physiology, which have been widely considered to be a necessity for the longevity of life. Creation of artificial intelligence, on the other hand, is derived directly from convenience, to handle remedial and/or dangerous jobs that could be done in other ways by organics.

And you, actually, are allowed to pave your own path in the ending, with the caveat that frying the Reapers will (logically) have repercussions. You have to build on the mistakes of this cycle to go forward.
 

A concern, yes. You don't see the difference between concerns that might have examples of danger and saying it's an all-out inevitability?

I see what's going on in our cultural and technological state in terms of artificial intelligence and don't discard it as a likely inevitability for this fictional universe, given the examples of it already occurring. And I don't see any problem with them working with the idea as an inevitability, or at least one perceived by the Catalyst's creators. Mass Effect's interpretation of a future might be out-of-date in forty or fifty years, of course, just like classic science-fiction movies and their outlook on where we'd be at this point.
 

Once again, concern, not fact. Whilst playing out the results of various speculations is part of science fiction stating that any of them are global, inevitable certainties is not. That's just plain crappy writing. It makes as much sense as saying "all aliens WILL want to eat us." Some may. Some sci-fi might have some aliens trying to do just that, and by having those it's giving individual examples, not claiming a universal truth. There is a massive difference.

No, it makes a lot more sense than the example you've presented, actually, given the evolution of synthetic intelligence over the past few decades. It's not "crappy writing", either; it's building off a feasible premise that we're already able to observe in rudimentary fashions. It also serves as its own form of cautionary tale, though this kind of cautionary tale is far from innovative.
 

Some might be. There's no reason to think that they are all like that and the game offers nothing to challenge that. Like I said, the huge, big important difference between "some" and "all". The capacity for that line of thinking existing is fine. Saying it is is inevitable is stupid.

It might not even be inevitable, once the Reapers are gone. That's up to the player to decide with their context.