642 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Then every, or almost every Spectre is in the wrong job.

 

Ultimately, the Spectres are there to serve their species interest - in cooperation with a Council.

 

It would be an extraordinary circumstance for a Spectre to kill off their own species for the existence of the rest of the galaxy, and still not be seen as at least potentially traitorous by the rest of the galaxy. "If this is how he treats his own, how would he treat the rest?"

 

Traitor Saren.

I won't deny your first point. But I see the Spectres as serving the Council and the galaxy as a whole first and foremost, not their own species.

 

 

Interesting. So, would you sacrifice humanity for just the krogan, or just the rachni? How about both? The vorcha, hanar and elcor?

Krogan alone, I doubt, because I think their population numbers are lower. Rachni are sticky because I don't know how much sapience individuals who aren't queens have; it's a conundrum similar to the geth, so I'd need to know more there. Vorcha... maybe; they do seem to have spread far. The elcor and hanar didn't strike me as big colonizers, so I thought their populations would also be lower.

[SwobyJ]

Generalization is usually a bad thing. Maybe most of them wouldn't, but I can totally see few of them do something like that.

 

Probably not Saren though. Or Vasir.

 

Can see somebody like Jontom doing it.

 

The Spectre candidates imo are specifically chosen to straddle the line between their own species interest, and the intergalactic interest.

 

C-Sec is more for intergalactic interest - but for intergalactic 'policing', there isn't much, other than the Spectres, born out of seeming necessity. Someone needs to establish some sort of galactic order for the Council, as long as species aren't actually unified (and even with the Council, the species themselves are NOT unified like the Prothians and maybe more were).

[SwobyJ]

I won't deny your first point. But I see the Spectres as serving the Council and the galaxy as a whole first and foremost, not their own species.

 

They're there not for the 'galaxy' (what does that mean, to the Council?), but for 'galactic stability'.

 

It isn't so much about doing the best for everyone, period, but more about doing the best for the more rational actors in the galaxy.

 

A Spectre isn't really supposed to give much of a damn about Omega, for example, unless the Council says "Hey something we're interested in relates to Omega."

Otherwise, Omega can just burn and the Council is happy with a Spectre not intervening.

 

They are Agents, not Saviors.

 

That's what ME3 can guide us into though - being the Savior of all, for better or worse (depending on perspective of player). We can start to transcend the notions of Soldier or Agent, and into the prospect that began once being the 'Savior' of the Citadel in ME3 - a Legend.

 

But that is NOT the Spectre's job. At all. They're meant to keep things stable, and that includes relations with their own species. And what is a vocation, isn't necessarily identity. (Tela Vasir will encourage stability... through technically criminal and amoral/immoral activity)

 

 

 

Of course the nature of Spectre authority can, maybe, lead to an individual Spectre going beyond the Council itself, and deciding that there's an even better route to take. At that point, you're a Rogue (not Renegade, but Rogue) Spectre (if a Spectre at all). This was Saren. This can be Shepard. We can choose to believe that Shepard makes the right choice with Synthesis, but it certainly isn't something that the Council nor Alliance would sanction - or even the Reapers, save for their collective Intelligence.

[Mordokai]

This would be seen a traitorous though, so heh, good luck to me having any sort of respect afterwards - barring them knowing exactly what I did and why I did it (which is why, for example, Synthesis works for them remembering Shepard because he is literally IN everyone).

 

You think that would lead to any less resentment on the part of people who opposed Synthesis? Understanding the motives?

[SwobyJ]

You think that would lead to any less resentment on the part of people who opposed Synthesis? Understanding the motives?

 

Yes. Understanding the motives of things almost always pacifies the resentful. There may still be resentment, but not rage. And even if there would be rage, Synthesis changes organics into synthetic-enough that rage isn't exactly what I would describe it.

 

Would there be networked debate? Probably.

Would there be disagreement? Probably.

 

But understanding others almost always reduces anger and hatred toward them. The serial killer was sick and his mind wasn't helped in time. The terrorists were living terribly. The other nation is reacting to our own invasion. The bully believed that power was the only thing respected in the school, because that's what he's been shown for years.

 

So what's not the right question imo. The question is - would that be RIGHT to do?

 

Picking Synthesis effectively puts everyone into a Postorganic state. Also effectively exterminating humanity, for the sake of a neohumanity.

Is there nothing that humanity has to offer? Can't humanity, the ones who played such a big part in *ending/breaking* the Cycle, still have more to do, AS humanity?

 

That's the issue imo. Synthesis keeps having counterpoints to what people argue against it - but that isn't the actual point. The actual point is that it changes everything, and without prior permission. If I had magical powers to make everything in your life awesome, but did it without permission, then:

1)You understand that your will isn't important anymore (loss of self and individual, chaotic will)

2)You can't struggle and fight to improve yourself to face greater problems

 

A Synthesis galaxy may be able to face most problems that come its way. Especially that relate to technology

But it probably won't be able to face unique ones. It will die to it, and its successor would have to pick up the slack.

 

This is the case when Shepard is (symbolically and literally) having to die in order to make things better. The fight for survival isn't there anymore.

 

That's what Synthesis loses. It feels the solution is already there - and in many ways it is - so it is much more willing to give up for it, even when there IS another way.

 

So no, I don't think resentment is an issue. I think lack of passion is.

[KaiserShep]

Generalization is usually a bad thing. Maybe most of them wouldn't, but I can totally see few of them do something like that.
 
Probably not Saren though. Or Vasir.
 
Can see somebody like Jontom doing it.

I would expect the likes of Nihilus or Jondam to put their own species above the rest as well, not just the "wicked" types like Vasir or Saren, because it goes far beyond something like saving countries among the same species. The very existence of the entirety of your species is a pretty heavy thing. I expect very very few people to be able to cast that all aside. I would even go so far to say that people here who claim they would may very well be blowing smoke as well.

[Mordokai]

Yes. Understanding the motives of things almost always pacifies the resentful. There may still be resentment, but not rage. And even if there would be rage, Synthesis changes organics into synthetic-enough that rage isn't exactly what I would describe it.

 

Would there be networked debate? Probably.

Would there be disagreement? Probably.

 

But understanding others almost always reduces anger and hatred toward them. The serial killer was sick and his mind wasn't helped in time. The terrorists were living terribly. The other nation is reacting to our own invasion. The bully believed that power was the only thing respected in the school, because that's what he's been shown for years.

 

So what's not the right question imo. The question is - would that be RIGHT to do?

 

Picking Synthesis effectively puts everyone into a Postorganic state. Also effectively exterminating humanity, for the sake of a neohumanity.

Is there nothing that humanity has to offer? Can't humanity, the ones who played such a big part in *ending/breaking* the Cycle, still have more to do, AS humanity?

 

That's the issue imo. Synthesis keeps having counterpoints to what people argue against it - but that isn't the actual point. The actual point is that it changes everything, and without prior permission. If I had magical powers to make everything in your life awesome, but did it without permission, then:

1)You understand that your will isn't important anymore (loss of self and individual, chaotic will)

2)You can't struggle and fight to improve yourself to face greater problems

 

A Synthesis galaxy may be able to face most problems that come its way.

But it probably won't be able to face unique ones. It will die to it, and its successor would have to pick up the slack.

 

This is the case when Shepard is (symbolically and literally) having to die in order to make things better. The fight for survival isn't there anymore.

 

That's what Synthesis loses. It feels the solution is already there - and in many ways it is - so it is much more willing to give up, even when there IS another way.

 

So no, I don't think resentment is an issue. I think lack of passion is.

 

If there would be more than one like to give, you'd have them all for this post

[Mordokai]

I would expect the likes of Nihilus or Jondam to put their own species above the rest as well, not just the "wicked" types like Vasir or Saren, because it goes far beyond something like saving countries among the same species. The very existence of the entirety of your species is a pretty heavy thing. I expect very very few people to be able to cast that all aside. I would even go so far to say that people here who claim they would may very well be blowing smoke as well.

 

That is entirely valid perspective. And I admit, I'm not paying as much attention to this topic as I maybe should. So, it depends on what are we basing this on. Your species vs another species? In that case, I agree, most would pick their own species.

 

Your species against the entire galaxy? I really want to believe there are people who would sacrifice their own species for that. I really do. If it would actually happen is another matter altogether.

[SwobyJ]

Mind you I think all of the endings have (good, not complaining) issues, on various narrative, philosophical, and symbolic levels - but that this was intentional. Even Destroy.

 

I may consider Breath Destroy the most 'Canon' ending (Shepard gotta get out of rubble the 3rd time, after all), but I also consider Synthesis to be the Optimized ending, and High Control to be the Safest ending. And even Vaporize Destroy has the Bittersweet ending.

 

To go a bit more on topic, no, I don't think Ashley is racist/speciesist. The narrative makes it quite clear that cooperation with aliens is a better ideal that sometimes works, just as competition with aliens is a more regrettable fact that always happens. Ashley runs off of that. Yes, she is nudged away from this position more and more, as the galaxy (sans Reapers and maybe Synthetics in this case) unites against a greater enemy. This is how unity works.

 

Even in a Post-Destroy galaxy, don't look forward to, say, Turians and Humans having open warfare.. any time... ever, really. It was a realistic idea back then, but now, I wouldn't be surprised at their militaries almost completely uniting. But even in this, individual Turians and Humans will compete and find differences with one another. To overlook differences is to act on an illusion, just as emphasizing differences to mean something incorrect is a (social) construct. (The former being unreal but inspiring - the latter being more real but ultimately incorrect)

 

 

In all issues, we reach Singularity/Synthesis anyway, so this is what the Catalyst speaks of. As long as organics exist, they will make tech. As long as organics make tech, it will become self-aware (we have to believe this for a lot of sci-fi to work). As long as tech becomes self-aware, the relations between it and organics will have to be dealt with. As long as these relations must be dealt with, then at some point, probability-wise, it will have to reach a peaceful relationship of some sort. The Catalyst alleges this requires the Crucible Synthesis. We can believe it is wrong, and either take another way entirely (break the cycle), or use its assets to pursue the same way, but with Shepard's chaotic influence (end the cycle). In all cases, the cycle ends, because it didn't work and the Catalyst's system managed to be stopped to the point of having to speak with Shepard instead of only putting him into a giant Reaper slushie.

 

Jump towards the future now, or fight for a better future down the road.

[Xilizhra]

I would expect the likes of Nihilus or Jondam to put their own species above the rest as well, not just the "wicked" types like Vasir or Saren, because it goes far beyond something like saving countries among the same species. The very existence of the entirety of your species is a pretty heavy thing. I expect very very few people to be able to cast that all aside. I would even go so far to say that people here who claim they would may very well be blowing smoke as well.

While I consider human culture to be marginally superior to turian and salarian, it falls short of asari, and in any case isn't worth the whole galaxy.

[Mordokai]

Mind you I think all of the endings have (good, not complaining) issues, on various narrative, philosophical, and symbolic levels - but that this was intentional. Even Destroy.

 

I may consider Breath Destroy the most 'Canon' ending (Shepard gotta get out of rubble the 3rd time, after all), but I also consider Synthesis to be the Optimized ending, and High Control to be the Safest ending. And even Vaporize Destroy has the Bittersweet ending.

 

I'm honestly confused. What's the difference between Optimized and Safest?

 

Frankly, I don't even know what's the difference between High and Low Control.

[themikefest]

While I consider human culture to be marginally superior to turian and salarian, it falls short of asari, and in any case isn't worth the whole galaxy.

I don't care about the asari's culture. It has nothing to do with sacrificing one species for another. I will always sacrifice the galaxy to save humanity

 

 

I'm honestly confused. What's the difference between Optimized and Safest?

 

Frankly, I don't even know what's the difference between High and Low Control.

The only difference between high ems control and low ems control is the time it takes to rebuild the galaxy

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I guess the problem here is that the reapers are a particularly special case in that their fate is tied to Shepard's. In Shep's position, I'd only sacrifice my life for humanity and humanity alone. If I had to die for the genophage, or help the rachni, they'd all go extinct.

 

I'm a coward. I'd sacrifice humanity if it meant myself and Miranda surviving. 

[SwobyJ]

I'm honestly confused. What's the difference between Optimized and Safest?

 

Frankly, I don't even know what's the difference between High and Low Control.

 

In the universal scale, 'optimized' is not nearly as interested in you as you are in yourself (or others, even).

 

An optimal solution has to be impartial to as many external wants as possible.

 

Peace between all nations, for example, would be viewed as optimal. It would also mean many advancements in many areas. But it would also mean that many advancements/changes would not occur - socially, culturally, economically, technologically. It would still be the best, but with one issue - while peace solves issues between nations, it may not solve issues beyond that.

For a Mass Effect example - the incorporation of organic matter into a synthetic frame was the ideal-so-far solution to the Reapers. However, it never, in itself, could have ever addressed the greater problem of organic-synthetic *relations* in a good enough way.

 

Curing the Genophage with Wrex and Eve is great. Woo. Go for it. Cultural Renaissance! However, we don't know what goes on beyond that. Just as the krogan can rise into a more peaceful state - we know it has threatened the galaxy in some of the worst ways. This also requires dropping grudges against the krogan.

 

Peace is a dream. We can fight to achieve our dreams though.

 

~~~

 

Safety between most nations is different. Instead of going on a (relative) hope and prayer that things will be good if we just put things in exactly the right place, Safety is more about taking a wider approach to try to cover as much as possible, even at the cost of losing the most optimal path, at least for now. So alliances are made in the world, sure, but nations also don't open themselves up for exploitations of their open arms. This is co-operation with some others, not assimilation of everything else.

 

The downsides really are two things (compared to Optimal):

1)Well, you're not getting your solution now. You'll get it later in some form.

2)Others will still suffer, while those you protect will more definitely be okay.

 

People argue between the 3 paths in ME3 and for good reason, but the devs intended this to be a moral choice, for better or worse. All choices succeed, as long as you got the EMS. All have some sacrifice, but not 'too much'. This way, we can make our stand in terms of morality, just as ME2 had us make our stand in terms of method (Radiation to keep any of the tech as a weapon, or Explosion to destroy all of tech for its dangers).

 

Because ME3 ended more morally (instead of ME2's mechanically - how do you want to go about saving the galaxy?, or ME1's emotionally - do you care about the Council or Alliance?), Bioware outright knew it was going to have some problems with its reception, but there you go.

 

But yeah, Safety/Freedom/Peace are big themes, and they conflict with each other at times. Sometimes to be more Safe with what you can imagine, you gotta hold back on the Peace that might achieve the unimaginable. Not to mention the Freedom to achieve more with what you know.

 

Safety is an illusion. It is an illusion that you can control though.

 

~~~

 

There isn't a lot of difference between High and Low Control. That's part of the 'safety' aspect. Whatever downsides you get from it, they are somewhat recognizable, if kinda alien, and may be dealt with (as opposed to the downsides of Synthesis being utterly unknown and would have to blindside the galaxy).

 

Control ensures that everyone save Shepard, or more than otherwise, makes it through the war (that lasted until the Crucible). Earth might be wrecked in Low, sure, but the Normandy always makes it. It was a Control wave, not a Destructive one, so we can assume that it wasn't as outright powerful.

 

Low and High dialogue with the Catalyst is different partially because more possibilities opening is a bigger thing that it seems. While it means you can do more, it also means more potential uncertainty and debate, more questioning of the self, OR more solidifying of the self against the external.

[General TSAR]

While I consider human culture to be marginally superior to turian and salarian, it falls short of asari, 

Nope.

 

A culture of military discipline and another of unparalleled scientific advancement is far superior than a culture of weak-kneed diplomacy based on titillation. 

 

 

I don't care about the asari's culture. It has nothing to do with sacrificing one species for another. I will always sacrifice the galaxy to save humanity

Yep and so will my Shepard including himself and everyone closest to him. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Nope.

 

A culture of military discipline and another of unparalleled scientific advancement is far superior than a culture of weak-kneed diplomacy based on titillation. 

 

 

 

Yep and so will my Shepard including himself and everyone closest to him. 

 

It's just fan-wanking for the Asari. The Asari can do no wrong of course for Xil.

[KaiserShep]

While I consider human culture to be marginally superior to turian and salarian, it falls short of asari, and in any case isn't worth the whole galaxy.

I don't consider this a matter of whose culture is better, and really, there's not much point to it. I guess it's really a matter of whether or not I'm willing to betray the entirety of my species (and my family) on some sort of principle. Couldn't do it myself. I'd sooner wipe out *multiple* galaxies worth first.

[Mordokai]

Nope.

 

A culture of military discipline and another of unparalleled scientific advancement is far superior than a culture of weak-kneed diplomacy based on titillation.

 

Implying their boobs is everything asari have going for themselves and that diplomacy is useless.

 

Bold new horizons of bigotry, ahoy.

 

Also, classic mate. You make stereotypical jock everywhere proud.

[General TSAR]

Implying their boobs is everything asari have going for themselves and that diplomacy is useless.

Diplomacy useless? Hell no. Asari diplomacy useless? Hell yeah. Even Liara's mother says it. I would respect the Asari if they had more capable warriors like Samara and Vasir or had a powerful military or scientific ability to exterminate an entire species. But nope, all they have is their sex appeal (which everyone in the ME universe craves apparently) and that's pretty much it. 

 

Bold new horizons of bigotry, ahoy.

 

Also, classic mate. You make stereotypical jock everywhere proud.

 

Bigotry? Against a fictional all-women pansexual species that was created primarily to cater to the desires of horny men and some women? Classic LOL.

 

Hey guys, did you know you can be bigoted toward a fictional species?  

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Diplomacy useless? Hell no. Asari diplomacy useless? Hell yeah. Even Liara's mother says it. I would respect the Asari if they had more capable warriors like Samara and Vasir or had a powerful military or scientific ability to exterminate an entire species. But nope, all they have is their sex appeal (which everyone in the ME universe craves apparently) and that's pretty much it. 

 

Bigotry? Against a fictional all-women pansexual species that was created primarily to cater to the desires of horny men and some women? Classic LOL.

 

Hey guys, did you know you can be bigoted toward a fictional species?  

 

Indeed. They're not even diplomatically useful on an idealistic scale by any modern scale of politics. We hear an awful lot about their diplomatic skills, but we never see it, and many of the Asari we see are just holier-than-thou and condescending women who assume that the universe revolves around them. Literally, their sex appeal as a whole is all they have going for them. I'm sure in-universe it's a bit more complex and deep, but outside of the universe, the Asari were acknowledged by the writers to fulfill the Sci-fi trope of Hot Alien Women that the player get's to Captain Kirk with. 

 

It doesn't help that the face of their species, Liara, is essentially a canon-sue.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Pathetic! If it came down to it I'd stop you from sacrificing humanity. Cowards have no place in this world and shouldn't be given the chance to hold the fate of humanity in their hands.

 

That's pathetic. Cowardice is underrated. You'd try and fail. If it came down to it and I had to sacrifice humanity sans myself and a few others to beat the Reapers, I'd do it.

 

Cowardice can be just as strong a motivator as courage. I live, I win. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

"You sacrifice too much..."

"There's always another way..."

 

As long as my goals are met, there's no such thing as 'too much sacrifice'.

 

If my goals aren't met by that other way, then that other way doesn't lead anywhere.