287 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Agreed.

 

Also right now we live in the possibility that our species may one day destroy itself, either through destruction of the natural environment or through nuclear war. Would anyone seriously consider turning our species into cyborgs as a preemptive solution to either of those possibilities?

 

Obviously the answer to that, at least for sane and rational people, is 'no.' So why should Shepard give any thought to Synthesis?

 

Actually:

 

 

Even if you 100% disagree with guys like this, these people still exist and will attempt their solutions to the problems of humanity. To the point where you'd have to restrain or really kill them all if you want them to stop utilizing their intelligence.

[Han Shot First]

Actually:

 

 

Even if you 100% disagree with guys like this, these people still exist and will attempt their solutions to the problems of humanity. To the point where you'd have to restrain or really kill them all if you want them to stop utilizing their intelligence.

 

He doesn't suggest that transhumanism is a solution to war and the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse.

[Jorji Costava]

Destroy in no way addresses the Catalyst's problem, per its own words that the conflict will one day return. I see it simply as a rejection of its assertions without feebly posturing with some kind of spiel about freedom while doing nothing but idling on the platform, waiting for the war to grind to a halt after the reapers win.

 

I actually disagree with this for a number of reasons. First, what the Catalyst says is that destroy isn't a permanent solution; that isn't to say that it's no solution at all. When you inject botox into your face, you're not permanently solving the problem of facial wrinkles, but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to make yourself look younger when you do it.

 

Second, if destroy were not at all about the singularity, why would synthetics be the group that's made "hostage" in this decision? You're talking about a group of entities that very possibly could have already been mostly destroyed by the time you got here, so it's a bad choice if the goal is primarily just to make you feel bad about choosing it. The better explanation is that destroy, like the other ending choices, is about stopping the singularity (in fact, you could argue it's more clearly directed towards the singularity than control is, which doesn't do anything to AI's other than the Reapers).

 

Ultimately, it seems to me that destroy is thematically about the singularity every bit as much as the other endings, and this is so because that is what the game is about at this point in the narrative. A quasi-divine being gives you, The Shepard, an infodump about the fundamental existential crisis of the galaxy (something that's supposed to transcend the Reaper conflict itself) and empowers you to decide how it gets solved. That's the conceit of the ending as I see it, for better or worse.

[SwobyJ]

He doesn't suggest that transhumanism is a solution to war and the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse.

 

You miss the point. He suggests that by moving beyond the human, the dangers that affect human (say, nuclear radiation and damage, war), will be transcended more and more.

 

That's like, one of the core appeals to transhumanism. That previous problems behind as obsolete. Some people may still be hit by rocks to the head, but they're certainly not common anymore. If anything, we shoot bullets, and typically do it more deliberately instead of passionately (and punishment by stoning, an incredibly painful punishment that emphasizes brutality to the flesh and bone).

 

There may still be war and nuclear disasters, but they are more controlled, happen less often, and when they do happen, they are done more logically and deliberately (in the case of nuclear - they're just far more rare) than they otherwise would be.

[Han Shot First]

I think Synthetics are made hostage to Destroy not because Bioware had any grand theme in mind, but because they wanted to give it consequences in order to give the player a reason to choose the other options. Destroy had been the mission all along, so they needed to throw a wrench into the works and give the player reason to consider something else.

 

Also there was a clear favoritism on the part of the lead writers for Synthesis. All of the endings aren't presented equally. Synthesis was clearly the leads' darling and the game attempts to clobber you over the head that its the ideal choice. (even though it isn't)

[Iakus]

Meh. It's a dream, nightmare, reality, illusion, whatever you decide it is.

 

I'm more interested in what Bioware decides to do with it, then then ending itself at this point. I know you don't want ANYTHING, but I want something. So there.

 

I can't help shake the feeling that by using a giant (kinda sorta) Deux Ex Machina, Bioware is going "HEY GUYS, WE'RE USING SOMETHING REALLY OBVIOUS AND SILLY HERE. MAYBE THAT MEANS SOMETHING.", instead of them really wanting us to take it as seriously as so many here do.

Citadel was obvious and silly.

 

This, this was "the A-word"

[SwobyJ]

*The* solution.

We find a *new* solution.

 

Yes, you are correct osbornep.

 

A solution solves a problem.

 

But the definition of 'solution' is wide enough that a solution doesn't necessarily *perfectly* solves or addresses a problem.

 

I can solve a problem of someone yelling at me by punching them out and walking away. That sure solves the problem.

 

It doesn't solve any greater problems. It may create complicating matters. It may not address other factors outside my immediate want (him shutting up).

 

The more I seek a greater solution, the less my baser wants will be satisfied. Maybe he's yelling at me for a reason. Maybe I should talk to him. Maybe I should calm him down. Maybe I should get help in intervening so that he won't yell at me again.

[SwobyJ]

Citadel was obvious and silly.

 

This, this was "the A-word"

 

Citadel was amazing shut your mouth.

 

You fought a clone and everything. So legit.

[Han Shot First]

 

 

There may still be war and nuclear disasters, but they are more controlled, happen less often, and when they do happen, they are done more logically and deliberately (in the case of nuclear - they're just far more rare) than they otherwise would be.

 

How would becoming cyborgs lessen or eliminate war?

[SwobyJ]

I think Synthetics are made hostage to Destroy not because Bioware had any grand theme in mind, but because they wanted to give it consequences in order to give the player a reason to choose the other options. Destroy had been the mission all along, so they needed to throw a wrench into the works and give the player reason to consider something else.

 

Also there was a clear favoritism on the part of the lead writers for Synthesis. All of the endings aren't presented equally. Synthesis was clearly the leads' darling and the game attempts to clobber you over the head that its the ideal choice. (even though it isn't)

 

It is the ideal choice.

 

It isn't necessarily the right one.

[Reorte]

How would becoming cyborgs lessen or eliminate war?

Transhumanism may make us more resistant to the problems posed by nature. It won't do anything about the ones we pose to ourselves.

[SwobyJ]

How would becoming cyborgs lessen or eliminate war?

 

http://ieet.org/inde.../muzyka20140203

 

Depends what you view as war.

 

They certainly would not remove 'conflict'. But it would not be war.

 

When the Reapers Reap, in the vast majority of cases, it only barely might count as a war. They enact their solution swiftly, eliminating opposition in (in their view) a blink of an eye. A brief struggle before submission.

 

So don't take this as me being oh so positive about transhumanism. It may only mean that a future of robotics means that conflicts are not protracted and done by two even-ish actors, but instead one side utterly swallowing up the other, due to might higher tech capability. At least until a sort of equilibrium is reached.

(This is partially why the West doesn't want certain nations having nuclear weapons - it both decreases their standing in weaponization and gives a faction they do not trust, something that could be used against them; but ultimately it is probably better if all nations have nukes, if only because they'll all know that if anyone somehow does use a nuke, it is out of pure stupidity instead of guided malice)

[SwobyJ]

Transhumanism may make us more resistant to the problems posed by nature. It won't do anything about the ones we pose to ourselves.

 

Indeed. Just include in 'nature', the workings of our own biological bodies and brains.

 

Intelligences would still exist (even if they are denied by 'full humans'). They could still make decisions that entail war (even if the word 'conflict' is often more appropriate at that point). But it would be done from logical standpoints and not emotional. Less war for sure, but 'war' itself could be more massive than ever before.

[dreamgazer]

You fought a clone and everything. So legit.

 

Well, it's not as if CloneShep was the first.

 

[SwobyJ]

Well, it's not as if CloneShep was the first.

 

 

Wait, CloneShep was spit out of the Thorian too? No wonder he was so alike!

[dreamgazer]

Ah, the magical mysteries of the mind-controlling, cipher-possessing, asari-crapping plant. 

[Reorte]

Intelligences would still exist (even if they are denied by 'full humans'). They could still make decisions that entail war (even if the word 'conflict' is often more appropriate at that point). But it would be done from logical standpoints and not emotional. Less war for sure, but 'war' itself could be more massive than ever before.

Ultimately everything is driven by emotional views - even the desire to survive is an emotional, not a logical one (from a purely logical standpoint it makes no difference whether you live or not). You can act logically to achieve an emotional goal though.

[SwobyJ]

Ultimately everything is driven by emotional views - even the desire to survive is an emotional, not a logical one (from a purely logical standpoint it makes no difference whether you live or not). You can act logically to achieve an emotional goal though.

 

Indeed.

 

I don't think there is a single entity we meet in Mass Effect that is purely sacrificial of themselves (existing at all) for the sake of logic.

 

They may be willing to change themselves for the sake of it, but never kill themselves totally.

 

But survive can be subjective, logically.

 

If you survive in another form, but still consider yourself to be you, then you're survived.. logically.

 

Thus Control.

[AlanC9]

The Leviathan DLC revealed the Catalyst to be nothing more than a failed A.I., misinterpreting its mandate thanks to the flawed programming of its creators. It is no more clairvoyant than Miss Cleo.

You can disregard nearly everything it says about the inevitability of conflict between organic and synthetic or the apocalyptic doom assumed to follow . That is the programming of the Leviathans speaking, and it possesses no crystal ball capable of gazing into the future. The Catalyst is Mass Effect's Harold Camping.

Shoot the tube.

It'd be fun to make this a real crapshoot in-game. Say, 80% of the time the Catalyst is just wrong and Destroy plays out normally. The other 20% of the time, instead of the Stargazer you get a couple of synthetics talking about how wise and selfless the Shepard-unit was to permit synthetics to rule the galaxy. Perhaps something about how they're keeping Earth around as a zoo....

Obviously, you'd want to store the variable controlling this during the prologue so players couldn't just reload around it.

[Iakus]

I think Synthetics are made hostage to Destroy not because Bioware had any grand theme in mind, but because they wanted to give it consequences in order to give the player a reason to choose the other options. Destroy had been the mission all along, so they needed to throw a wrench into the works and give the player reason to consider something else.

 

And it was done in such a stupid, heavy handed manner that they really ought to be ashamed of themselves for it.

 

 

 

Also there was a clear favoritism on the part of the lead writers for Synthesis. All of the endings aren't presented equally. Synthesis was clearly the leads' darling and the game attempts to clobber you over the head that its the ideal choice. (even though it isn't)

 

That's putting it mildly.

[dreamgazer]

Ah, yes. Because the previous two games had subtly-themed endings that weren't at all inane in their execution.

Guess BioWare should be "ashamed of themselves" for those, too.

[KaiserShep]

Ah, yes. Because the previous two games had subtly-themed endings that weren't at all inane in their execution.
Guess BioWare should be "ashamed of themselves" for those, too.

I've resigned myself to seeing the Mass Effect franchise like I would a cupcake. What the hell do I care about its nutritional value? Cupcakes are delicious.

[Iakus]

I've resigned myself to seeing the Mass Effect franchise like I would a cupcake. What the hell do I care about its nutritional value? Cupcakes are delicious.

 

Too bad someone emptied the salt shaker into this batch.

[KaiserShep]

I'm starting to regret the food metaphor.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Heh, maybe the Catalyst was bluffing, since Shepard's survival indicates that the implants were still functioning anyway. No one cares about the virtual aliens though.

 

Ah, but they're in a virtual intelliegence, not a blue box AI. They are data files residing in a VI. Technically they are not synthetics operating independently and made with reaper tech or reaper code. The red wave sniffs out reaper tech and reaper code. There isn't anything said about them using it in their development. So you can handwave that they did not.

 

But alas, EDI bites it because her blue box was constructed using reaper tech, parts from Sovvy. The Geth used reaper code. So bye bye. I don't really think anyone is going to miss the geth anyway. Maybe Joker might get a real girlfriend now.... and there went his pr0n collection, unless Sam backed up all of that.... nah.