Green:Saren's dream.How was it.... The relationship is symbiotic, organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel, the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!"
Indocrinated.
Those are the words of an indoctrinated and almost reaperfied guy. You just can't compare that (reaperfication) to an entirely new DNA. There are just magnitudes of difference...
Headcanon is wishful thinking, or outright denial in the more extreme cases.
Until Bioware says what happens next, I don't see anything wrong with Headcanoning unless there is evidence that disproves said headcanon.
Potentially accepting evidence that'll disprove it also has to mean accepting that there's currently no evidence that proves it either (although you can argue for the liklihood). Headcanon is a form of fanfic, nothing more. If you want it to be more than that you need to become an author, not a player.Until Bioware says what happens next, I don't see anything wrong with Headcanoning unless there is evidence that disproves said headcanon.
Dude, it's a friggin' Bible quote.In ME1, Sovereign refers to the Reapers as a "legion". In ME2, EDI interrupts with "I am Legion for we are many"
So, you basically made stuff up. If it makes you feel better, that's fine, as long as we aren't expected to take it seriously.I took the Extended Control ending as:
Shepard: I will destroy those who threaten the future of the many.
Shepard: I will destroy those who threaten the future of the Reapers.
Shepard: I will act as Guardian for the many.
Shepard: I will act as Guardian for the Reapers.
Shepard: I will remember those who sacrificed themselves, so that the many could survive.
Shepard: I will remember those who sacrificed themselves, so that the Reapers could survive.
I don't see any peacekeeping force going on here. Just replace the word many with Reapers, and you'll see what I mean. Shepard is working in the Reaper's interests now, not the galaxys. He switched sides, and is now working with the enemy.
Shepard is working in the Reaper's interests now, not the galaxys. He switched sides, and is now working with the enemy.
I don't really care for Control myself, but for this to be true, Shepard would have to be collaborating with the reapers, but this isn't the case at all. S/he's replaced the Catalyst entirely. Shepard is the reapers. There's no sides switched, because the enemy we knew has been erased, and all that's left are its tools.
I think Aria's quote fits the endings: "I don't have time for hate, but I distrust them all equally."
And here's the deal with the ending - no one knew what the Crucible would do. So whatever Shepard chose was the right choice. And if Shepard survived destroy, the existence of the other two choices are a secret she would take to her grave.
Potentially accepting evidence that'll disprove it also has to mean accepting that there's currently no evidence that proves it either (although you can argue for the liklihood). Headcanon is a form of fanfic, nothing more. If you want it to be more than that you need to become an author, not a player.
I realize that. But until we have evidence, there isn't anything wrong with imagining. I don't know how I will be 30 years from now, but there is nothing wrong with me imagining how I will be. Same with headcanoning, we simply do not know how the post-ME3 galaxy will be aside from what we see in the slides, so until we actually see it, there is nothing wrong with imagining it until it happens.
I'm not saying that "This WILL happen", I am saying "This is what I imagine could happen".
And here's the deal with the ending - no one knew what the Crucible would do. So whatever Shepard chose was the right choice. And if Shepard survived destroy, the existence of the other two choices are a secret she would take to her grave.
Yup. In Shepard's shoes, that's exactly what I would do. I'd feel no obligation to tell them the truth, because the truth won't help either myself or anyone else. It certainly wouldn't be meaningful in terms of alleviating guilt, because I wouldn't feel any. Best thing to do is just enjoy some reaper-free galaxy and leave people to wonder and move on.
I'm not certain which DLC it is (I think Citadel, maybe Leviathan), but the Catalyst stops directly referring to the destruction of the geth and EDI during his spiel about Destroy. He does say it won't differentiate between Reapers and 'regular' synthetics, but it does stop specifically stating that the Geth and EDI will be destroyed along with the Reapers.
To me, Control is too likely to end up proving Lord Acton's Dictum (Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely). No matter how pure Shepard's motives, no matter how much of a paragon she may be, in the end, having complete control of the Reapers (and thus the direction of the galaxy) would corrupt her. Yes, she may have the best interests of the galaxy at heart, but how long before she starts deciding what those best interests are? What happens when she no longer has the emotional checks on her power that her crew/LI would offer? One hundred years? One thousand years? What happens when Shepard no longer remembers what it is to be alive?
Synthesis is just hogwash all around, for me. For one thing... space magic. I know we're dealing with high sci-fi here, but I just seriously have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the catalyst can suddenly turn every living species in the galaxy into some biosynthetic organism. And frankly, I don't understand how the Crucible/Catalyst can have that kind of power and control, and yet somehow when it comes to Destroy, it can't differentiate between biosynthetic organisms (the Reapers) and pure synthetics (Geth/AIs)? Furthermore, the entire time you're going through ME3, countless comments are made on how good diversity is, how good multiculturalism is, how important it is that the galaxy is filled with diverse species working together... (Play Beyond Ashes and listen to Javik explain the differences between his cycle and our own). Now suddenly, we're supposed to believe that diversity is Bad ™ and that obviously the absolute best choice is for everyone to be the same?
Sorry, I can't buy it.
I support headcannon. I support Destroy and I support Shepard living on after the breath. And frankly, I support the idea that if the Crucible/Catalyst is so dang all powerful, it can tell the difference between a biosynthetic and a synthetic. Yes, in my headcannon, the Geth survive. Maybe I'm wrong for supporting the concept of a happy ending, but then, I don't play games for realism. I play them because I want to enjoy myself, and I don't enjoy seeing hundreds of hours of work turned into nothing more than a smear of color. *shrug*
To me, Control is too likely to end up proving Lord Acton's Dictum (Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely). No matter how pure Shepard's motives, no matter how much of a paragon she may be, in the end, having complete control of the Reapers (and thus the direction of the galaxy) would corrupt her. Yes, she may have the best interests of the galaxy at heart, but how long before she starts deciding what those best interests are? What happens when she no longer has the emotional checks on her power that her crew/LI would offer? One hundred years? One thousand years? What happens when Shepard no longer remembers what it is to be alive?
It is not The Shepard who is in command, it is a Shepard-AI, after all. It reminds me of Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker (MGS is the only series i value above Mass Effect, and it's astonishing how many parallels you can draw between series), where there was a Decision-maker type of AI, based 100% on one very specific person. Similar thing is going on here, it is not Shepard who is in command, it is an AI that mimics Shepard in every possible way to carry out a decision she would make.
After all, as someone said in Mass Effect: "Machine will be a machine, designed to do what it's programmed for over and over again." or something like that.
It is not The Shepard who is in command, it is a Shepard-AI, after all. It reminds me of Metal Gear Solid: Peacewalker (MGS is the only series i value above Mass Effect, and it's astonishing how many parallels you can draw between series), where there was a Decision-maker type of AI, based 100% on one very specific person. Similar thing is going on here, it is not Shepard who is in command, it is an AI that mimics Shepard in every possible way to carry out a decision she would make.
After all, as someone said in Mass Effect: "Machine will be a machine, designed to do what it's programmed for over and over again." or something like that.
Can it predict with 7% accuracy what the real Commander Shepard will say? >.>;
I mean, Leviathan's species programmed the AI to end synthetic/organic conflict. The AI decided the best way to do this was to... destroy its organic creators. Somehow, you simply prove my point. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the end, an AI Shepard controlling the Reapers is even worse than the idea of Living Shepard controlling the reapers. When you no longer see living beings as nothing more than counters on a board, then all that is left is ruthless calculus.
Can it predict with 7% accuracy what the real Commander Shepard will say? >.>;
I mean, Leviathan's species programmed the AI to end synthetic/organic conflict. The AI decided the best way to do this was to... destroy its organic creators. Somehow, you simply prove my point. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the end, an AI Shepard controlling the Reapers is even worse than the idea of Living Shepard controlling the reapers. When you no longer see living beings as nothing more than counters on a board, then all that is left is ruthless calculus.
That's the thing. Catalyst was programmed to find a solution, which it did - it didn't go corrupt, it didn't do anything to gather more power, it was devoid of desire and other human feelings. It just fulfilled it's purpose.
The Shepard-AI is programmed to do what Shepard would do, based on her characteristics, it doesn't look for a solution as a baseless AI, there is massive difference between creating an AI and making it seek for solution AND making an AI based on actual person. (Funny enough, it is also a major thing in Metal Gear Series)
Catalyst never went corrupt. It provided solution. It did exactly what Leviathans wanted it to.
Those are the words of an indoctrinated and almost reaperfied guy. You just can't compare that (reaperfication) to an entirely new DNA. There are just magnitudes of difference...
And we should trust the outright reaper more?
I am a vision of the future Shepard, the evolution of all organic life!
We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence
Synthesis is the final evolution of life.
I dunno about you,. but I'm seeing a pattern here.
The green one since it caused the least destruction. Red always seem like a jerk/renegade option aka I want to live screw you EDI,and everyone else. If Shepard is the only person to die in the end,I'm fine,since the lost knowledge of the those who came before is useful,and I want EDI,along with everyone else to be improve,maybe Miranda can have John (default appearance/paragon) Shepard J.r. so Hannah Shepard can have a grand kid,thus the Shepard family can live or Liara could do it secretly.
That's the thing. Catalyst was programmed to find a solution, which it did - it didn't go corrupt, it didn't do anything to gather more power, it was devoid of desire and other human feelings. It just fulfilled it's purpose.
The Shepard-AI is programmed to do what Shepard would do, based on her characteristics, it doesn't look for a solution as a baseless AI, there is massive difference between creating an AI and making it seek for solution AND making an AI based on actual person. (Funny enough, it is also a major thing in Metal Gear Series)
Catalyst never went corrupt. It provided solution. It did exactly what Leviathans wanted it to.
That's kind of my point. An AI - a machine - can't predict a human response, because it has no humanity. Leviathan's ilk certainly never intended to have their AI destroy them - in fact, the very solution is a dangerous flaw, since it only exacerbates the issue instead of solving it. Having synthetics (even biosynthetics) destroy all organic life in order to keep synthetics from destroying all organic life... it's circular reasoning, and technically, it should have broken the AI before it even got to the point of harvesting the cuttlefish. Kind of like the age-old idea that the Liar's Paradox (this statement is false) will break a computer that tries to parse it. (Unless it's Wheatley. Then it's just too dang stupid to understand.)
You can program it to react however Commander Shepard should react, but in the end, logic will win out over emotional response because an AI can't have an emotional response. To put it another way: My Shepard isn't willing to consider the idea of genocide during the Quarian War, so instead fights for (and wins) peace between the Geth and the Quarians. And yet, in the end, she's willing to risk the destruction of the Geth if it means the destruction of the Reapers, because the needs of the many. To my Shepard, this is an intensely emotional decision that had to be made without recourse to logic. The Geth and the Quarians were both equally precious to her, so she had to try to save both. But when it came down to whether the Geth were as precious as the rest of the Galaxy, without a suitable resolution that left both alive, she had to be willing to make the tough choice.
Shepard, like any human, is a bundle of contradictions. Sometimes they will make decisions that completely negate or contradict previous decisions based on emotional response or changing parameters. No AI, no matter how advanced, could possibly understand enough about morality and emotions to accurately predict 100% of the time how the true Shepard would respond to certain stimuli. In the end, a Shepard AI's decisions would boil down to logic and which decision is 'morally superior' in the eyes of said AI - and each decision made without consideration of the emotional weight would skew further decisions away from what a real Commander Shepard would truly decide.
Guest_marburg_*
Headcanon is wishful thinking, or outright denial in the more extreme cases.
So people just need Bioware's official statement on everything? You need to learn to form your own opinions, not have the developers tell you what to think.
S/he's replaced the Catalyst entirely. Shepard is the reapers.
Let me clear this up.
Shepard was essentially against the whole Reaper agenda for the most part of 3 games. He wanted to destroy the Reapers, up until the point of meeting the Catalyst. Now he essentially goes against destroying them, and allows them to live? Now he is the Reapers, instead of being allied with his friends that he helped recruit to destroy the Reapers? All his allies want the Reapers dead too. Sounds like a complete 180 from what Shepard's initial plan was, which was to destroy them.
The other options other than destroy do not fit with Shepard's initial agenda. They fit with the Reaper's agenda. Shepard is helping the Reapers. He is doing their job for them.
So, you basically made stuff up. If it makes you feel better, that's fine, as long as we aren't expected to take it seriously.
If you played ME1+ME2, this information is straight from those games. It isn't stuff I made up. I just took information from the game and used it here. That is unless you didn't play ME1+ME2 or don't remember this being said. I guess I just have a really good memory.
That's kind of my point. An AI - a machine - can't predict a human response, because it has no humanity. Leviathan's ilk certainly never intended to have their AI destroy them - in fact, the very solution is a dangerous flaw, since it only exacerbates the issue instead of solving it. Having synthetics (even biosynthetics) destroy all organic life in order to keep synthetics from destroying all organic life... it's circular reasoning, and technically, it should have broken the AI before it even got to the point of harvesting the cuttlefish. Kind of like the age-old idea that the Liar's Paradox (this statement is false) will break a computer that tries to parse it. (Unless it's Wheatley. Then it's just too dang stupid to understand.)
You can program it to react however Commander Shepard should react, but in the end, logic will win out over emotional response because an AI can't have an emotional response. To put it another way: My Shepard isn't willing to consider the idea of genocide during the Quarian War, so instead fights for (and wins) peace between the Geth and the Quarians. And yet, in the end, she's willing to risk the destruction of the Geth if it means the destruction of the Reapers, because the needs of the many. To my Shepard, this is an intensely emotional decision that had to be made without recourse to logic. The Geth and the Quarians were both equally precious to her, so she had to try to save both. But when it came down to whether the Geth were as precious as the rest of the Galaxy, without a suitable resolution that left both alive, she had to be willing to make the tough choice.
Shepard, like any human, is a bundle of contradictions. Sometimes they will make decisions that completely negate or contradict previous decisions based on emotional response or changing parameters. No AI, no matter how advanced, could possibly understand enough about morality and emotions to accurately predict 100% of the time how the true Shepard would respond to certain stimuli. In the end, a Shepard AI's decisions would boil down to logic and which decision is 'morally superior' in the eyes of said AI - and each decision made without consideration of the emotional weight would skew further decisions away from what a real Commander Shepard would truly decide.
To start with, it's not Catalyst's fault that writers couldn't think of a better excuse for it. It did what it was programmed for 100% fine.
And then, AI is a very strong analysing device, it could analyse how would Shepard, based on all the data about her, would react, it's not that impossible or hard, given enough data, especially in a sci-fi universe, you can make an AI mimicking a real person,
I.e. what would Shepard chose based on her interactions with Legion - does she hate geth? Or does she favors them to the point of preferring them over humans? Or does she hate Quarians and looking for excuse to get rid of them? Would she fight for peace? With capabilities of Reaper tech you can pretty much analyse it and come up with pretty accurate solution.
And even picking destruction after brokering peace is not even that hard, picking destruction after saving geth is not a contradition, it is decision with different variables, even more so, Geth survival is just a side effect, it's not like she chooses between killing\saving geth, but it's about destroying\controlling reapers. Is she willing to sacrifice the whole race to destroy reapers? Over again, if you're AI based on that human, you CAN understand that.
Reaper AI is not something for mundane tasks like what type of ice cream should i pick, and Shepard has made a lot of decisions that can be analysed to create a decision-making AI after her. That's my point.
I think Aria's quote fits the endings: "I don't have time for hate, but I distrust them all equally."
And here's the deal with the ending - no one knew what the Crucible would do. So whatever Shepard chose was the right choice. And if Shepard survived destroy, the existence of the other two choices are a secret she would take to her grave.
Interesting to speculate... even though I know how much some hate to do that... in a post-destroy galaxy, when everyone is beginning to put things back together, if there would be any evidence left behind from the crucible/citadel, with regards to its other potential solutions. For example, some nosy salarian scientists poking around the remains and discovers, "wow The Shepard could have done this or this instead!" ... Would people believe him? Would shep then be vilified afterward? Hmm...
To start with, it's not Catalyst's fault that writers couldn't think of a better excuse for it. It did what it was programmed for 100% fine.
And then, AI is a very strong analysing device, it could analyse how would Shepard, based on all the data about her, would react, it's not that impossible or hard, given enough data, especially in a sci-fi universe, you can make an AI mimicking a real person,
I.e. what would Shepard chose based on her interactions with Legion - does she hate geth? Or does she favors them to the point of preferring them over humans? Or does she hate Quarians and looking for excuse to get rid of them? Would she fight for peace? With capabilities of Reaper tech you can pretty much analyse it and come up with pretty accurate solution.
And even picking destruction after brokering peace is not even that hard, picking destruction after saving geth is not a contradition, it is decision with different variables, even more so, Geth survival is just a side effect, it's not like she chooses between killing\saving geth, but it's about destroying\controlling reapers. Is she willing to sacrifice the whole race to destroy reapers? Over again, if you're AI based on that human, you CAN understand that.
Reaper AI is not something for mundane tasks like what type of ice cream should i pick, and Shepard has made a lot of decisions that can be analysed to create a decision-making AI after her. That's my point.
Except the non-emotional choice for Shepard to make at the end would be Control or Synthesis. Her destruction for the survival of all - even the Reapers. A Shepard who is hell-bent on saving everyone she can - the Krogan, the Geth, the Quarians - would logically make the choice to take control of the Reapers or to synthesize everyone, NOT to destroy the Reapers and possibly destroy the Geth and her friend EDI as well. It's pure emotion on [my] Shepard's part that makes her unwilling to take the Control (enslave) ending or Synthesis (reject free will) ending. Nothing in the previous two games nor in ME3 prior to the ending gives us any indication as to how Shepard feels about the concepts of Control or Synthesis other than her reaction to the Illusive Man and her constant determination that we HAVE to destroy the Reapers (which in and of itself is a purely emotional response - the Illusive Man's idea of controlling the Reapers has merit, but Shepard automatically rejects it based on her feelings towards the Illusive Man).
Don't get me wrong. I see what you're saying. But in the end, no matter how sophisticated, an AI is still a machine, and a machine can only react as it is programmed. Perhaps it is a limitation on my part, but I don't believe any AI - any machine - can be programmed to predict with 100% accuracy a response based on human emotion. Humans are, by nature, chaotic and contradictory. Everyone contradicts themselves at some point. Everyone's opinion evolves based on evidence and emotion. What Shepard might do today might be something she'd never have considered yesterday, simply because the situation has changed. Or she was having a bad day. Or someone made an off-hand comment she overheard that got her thinking. Can an AI truly mimic that?
Guest_marburg_*
"Oh wow! There's that slide showing _____! My choice of _____ really made a difference!" I don't know. Maybe some people will notice. I sure as hell didn't notice a lot of differences.
Wrex being in charge is quite different (Tuchanka rebuilt to its former glory) than having Wreav in charge (nuclear wasteland). If both are dead, the Rachni rule the galaxy. That's just one example. Sorry, if you don't think there's much of a difference, but there certainly was for me.
List of endings and their EMS requirements depending on your choices. Not including the Extended Cut slides, which each are toggled based on EMS and previous choices.
Don't get me wrong. I see what you're saying. But in the end, no matter how sophisticated, an AI is still a machine, and a machine can only react as it is programmed. Perhaps it is a limitation on my part, but I don't believe any AI - any machine - can be programmed to predict with 100% accuracy a response based on human emotion. Humans are, by nature, chaotic and contradictory. Everyone contradicts themselves at some point. Everyone's opinion evolves based on evidence and emotion. What Shepard might do today might be something she'd never have considered yesterday, simply because the situation has changed. Or she was having a bad day. Or someone made an off-hand comment she overheard that got her thinking. Can an AI truly mimic that?
Probably depends on how complex the program is. I do find it pretty perplexing that a machine programmed in the correct way could reproduce human-like thoughts and feelings, but I also find it equally perplexing that the slab of grey matter we call the brain can do the same thing (see the "Conscious Meat" story from Terry Bisson, quoted in the first chapter of Colin McGinn's The Mysterious Flame).
You're demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of what fiction is what that statement. Opinion is not fact. If it isn't in the game or other canon material you don't know what happens, simple as that. You can form opinions about what likely happened or will happen but they are just that, opinions. You are not the author.So people just need Bioware's official statement on everything? You need to learn to form your own opinions, not have the developers tell you what to think.
Why do you say that? You could equally argue that it's an emotional choice that does something as potentially dangerous as the alternatives to Destroy to save one synthetic species and one individual which, like it or not, are overall pretty insignificant in the overall galaxy (which is vastly bigger than what we see of it in the games yet is all affected by the outcome).Except the non-emotional choice for Shepard to make at the end would be Control or Synthesis. Her destruction for the survival of all - even the Reapers. A Shepard who is hell-bent on saving everyone she can - the Krogan, the Geth, the Quarians - would logically make the choice to take control of the Reapers or to synthesize everyone, NOT to destroy the Reapers and possibly destroy the Geth and her friend EDI as well.
Probably depends on how complex the program is. I do find it pretty perplexing that a machine programmed in the correct way could reproduce human-like thoughts and feelings, but I also find it equally perplexing that the slab of grey matter we call the brain can do the same thing (see the "Conscious Meat" story from Terry Bisson, quoted in the first chapter of Colin McGinn's The Mysterious Flame).
And the Shepalyst is expressly not going to produce human-like thoughts:
You will die, you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Your corporeal form will be dissolved. But your thoughts and even your memories will continue. You will no longer be organic. Your connection to your kind will be lost. Although you will remain aware of their existence.
No good endings. Not even satisfying endings.
Unless you played Commander Shepard as Walter White
Disagree. I played my Shepard as willing to make any personal sacrifice for the good of all, and it... well, worked. Not happily, precisely, but the story ended in a manner satisfying enough for me.
Retour en haut