inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 8, 2019 15:27:24 GMT
Sometimes I regret not having studied psychology. The reasons why so many people reject the catalyst (and I mean a total, viscreal rejection, beyond the simple "I didn't like it" "it could have been done better") are mysterious, incomprehensible, and fascinating. 1) can we hypothesize plausible explanations regarding the why the reasons why catalyst needed the sovereing/saren in ME1 to activate the portal?Yes, I've read dozens of possibile explanations over the years. 2) is the purpose of the reapers believable?? Yes, tech singularity, AI surpassing and destroying their creatores and such things are a science fiction topos. A constant tech-reset is a pragmatic and effective solution. And even if you considered the reapers goal as unacceptable and illogical .. well, maybe the axioms of the catalyst are indeed flawed. The game leaves every player free to think as he wants on the subject 3) can we hypothesize plausible explanations regarding the why the catalyst speaks with shepard, helps him and urges him to use the crucibles? Yes, I've read dozens of them. And the catalyst itself is very clear. The reapers are no longer a valid solution (refusal ending proves it). The crucible has changed the variables. Shepard is now f ree to choose a new solution for this cycle. What's so strange/illogic/unacceptable? The crucibles can extinguish all the reapers (and all synthtetic life) in half a second. It was built in a few months. Its projects are scattered everywhere. It has not been activated this time, but the variables are definitely changed. The catalyst admits the failure of its previous solution and declares itself willing to allow new solutions. Shepard (the avatar of this cycle) is now free to choose (and the catalyst reiterates this concept several times). If he does not choose, the cycle will continue until the inevitable defeat. There is no plot hole. No inconsistency. Only the understandable estrangement/shock of a uber-genocidal-villain that appears accommodating, reasonable, willing to peacefully yield. But this is an ethical problem, at most. And ok, ok... making the ultra-final-boss being a ghoslty child with sweatshirt is artistically questionable. Synthesis is something too close to space magic. The last 20 minutes are maybe too anticlimactic, the battle against the archdemon is certainly more satisfying, but... de gustibs. Ethical and artistic judgments should not have anything to do with consistency. Mass effect ending is not perfect, and everyone can legitimately dislike it. But totally reject the ending of an extraordinary trilogy? Busy themselves inventing plot holes where there are none, just to justify that visceral rejection? Why, in the name of the Maker, why? And all of this by people who have spent (and continues to spend) 2000+ hours playing mass effect again and again... this is beyond my understanding, really. To be clear: this is not a criticism, everyone can think and act as they like. But the Mass Effect ending triggered such amazing reactions that we must necessarily acknowledge its extraordinariness  |
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 8, 2019 15:42:29 GMT
As for the MET being pointless... Just because we ALL die, does that make whatever we do and everything we do in life pointless? No, but if you make that argument you may as well say we shouldn't bother to stop genocide around the world because they'll all eventually die anyway. Shepard isn't trying to stop death but is trying to prevent it from happening prematurely. That's the difference. Either we get the right to survive or we don't. Your scenario is that we don't and that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to prevent deaths from happening IRL.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 8, 2019 15:49:44 GMT
Sometimes I regret not having studied psychology. The reasons why so many people reject the catalyst (and I mean a total, viscreal rejection, beyond the simple "I didn't like it" "it could have been done better") are mysterious, incomprehensible, and fascinating. Part of the reason is that I hate the choices beyond one. The other part is that the Catalyst has turned the Reapers into pawns of the Catalyst rather than independent nations. It says "We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite." Doesn't sound like a pawn to anything. The Catalyst is unnecessary and lore breaking. |
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 8, 2019 16:14:25 GMT
Sometimes I regret not having studied psychology. The reasons why so many people reject the catalyst (and I mean a total, viscreal rejection, beyond the simple "I didn't like it" "it could have been done better") are mysterious, incomprehensible, and fascinating. Part of the reason is that I hate the choices beyond one. The other part is that the Catalyst has turned the Reapers into pawns of the Catalyst rather than independent nations. It says "We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite." Doesn't sound like a pawn to anything. The Catalyst is unnecessary and lore breaking. The catalyst embodies the reapers collective intelligence, something that has a different, subtler meaning than being the master-puppeteer of an horde mindless machine. The concept of synthetic collective intelligence, its characteristics and limitations, is somehitng too alien, too difficult to grasp and explain for a human mind. Imo. Maybe if we were ants or bees..
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 8, 2019 17:52:19 GMT
Sometimes I regret not having studied psychology. The reasons why so many people reject the catalyst (and I mean a total, viscreal rejection, beyond the simple "I didn't like it" "it could have been done better") are mysterious, incomprehensible, and fascinating. Part of the reason is that I hate the choices beyond one. The other part is that the Catalyst has turned the Reapers into pawns of the Catalyst rather than independent nations. It says "We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite." Doesn't sound like a pawn to anything. The Catalyst is unnecessary and lore breaking. But everything has a beginning. Even the universe had a beginning. It was such a long time ago we can't even fantasize about how long ago it was. The entire ecological history of the Earth that we know of that stretches back hundreds of millions of years to present day could have been repeated thousands of times before Earth was even formed. Each Reaper is also functionally immortal. They are capable of full self repair, they need to resources to fuel them. You could rip open a hole in the fabric of the universe and throw a single Reaper into a pocket dimension were it is the only thing that exists in infinite emptiness and it would exist forever or until an outside force acted on it beyond the Reaper's capabilities to handle acted on it.
The revelation that they have a centralized intelligence doesn't change anything because each Reaper is still an island all their own. Capable of their own thinking and completely self sufficient.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,942 Likes: 17,687
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Nov 16, 2024 14:01:33 GMT
17,687
dmc1001
9,942
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Mar 8, 2019 18:27:37 GMT
The catalyst embodies the reapers collective intelligence, something that has a different, subtler meaning than being the master-puppeteer of an horde mindless machine. And there's the problem right off. Sovereign talked of them being independent. You discuss "collective intelligence". Those are very different things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2019 18:36:08 GMT
As for the MET being pointless... Just because we ALL die, does that make whatever we do and everything we do in life pointless? No, but if you make that argument you may as well say we shouldn't bother to stop genocide around the world because they'll all eventually die anyway. Shepard isn't trying to stop death but is trying to prevent it from happening prematurely. That's the difference. Either we get the right to survive or we don't. Your scenario is that we don't and that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to prevent deaths from happening IRL. That is the conclusion the AI came to, isn't it? Life isn't pointless because what we do in life affects us and those around us while we are alive... but that doesn't change the fact that no matter what you believe about what happens to us in the Afterlife, it doesn't change what happens to the rest of the living from that point on. Once you die, you can't cross back over and change anything.
We are told outright that the Crucible does not fire. We are shown Shepard's death in front of that console BEFORE he/she can get there to fix the problem. We are shown he/she is bleeding profusely moments before that. We are shown an Ascension to another dimension... and Afterlife one. The Catalyst tells Shepard to "wake up" - but WE ALL KNOW that Shepard was never sleeping.
The bottom line here is that regardless of what you believe Shepard may have wanted to do, he/she is dead and unable to do anything. Dead, despite any hope his/her crew might have held that he/she survived. The plaque ceremony has no meaning. The ending, as far as a state of the galaxy is concerned, is fixed. There was always only one ending... the harvest continued because the Crucible failed and Shepard died trying.
On a total side note - Notice: MET is about death; ME:A is about reincarnation. The topic of it comes up numerous times in the belief system of the Angara.
|
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 8, 2019 19:14:35 GMT
The catalyst embodies the reapers collective intelligence, something that has a different, subtler meaning than being the master-puppeteer of an horde mindless machine. And there's the problem right off. Sovereign talked of them being independent. You discuss "collective intelligence". Those are very different things. different, but not incompatible. an individual which is part of a collective intelligence mantains a large amount of independence and individuality. It's not a slave, a puppet,a pawn. It's apparently a paradox, but only because our experience and our own nature are completely different. |
|
KrrKs
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: KrrKs
Posts: 781 Likes: 2,233
inherit
678
0
Nov 26, 2024 22:27:00 GMT
2,233
KrrKs
781
August 2016
krrks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
KrrKs
|
Post by KrrKs on Mar 8, 2019 21:17:21 GMT
The catalyst embodies the reapers collective intelligence, something that has a different, subtler meaning than being the master-puppeteer of an horde mindless machine. The concept of synthetic collective intelligence, its characteristics and limitations, is somehitng too alien, too difficult to grasp and explain for a human mind. Imo. Maybe if we were ants or bees..  Well, I'm an ant, obviously... 
That concept or what it could mean is actually pretty interesting. The catalyst is definitely more than just the embodiment of the collective reaper intelligence, since it was created before the first reaper.
But does that mean that the intelligence outsources thought processes to the reapers? Or maybe the other way around, that certain reaper thoughts are transmitted and mirrored in the intelligence? Or is it that some of the reapers thoughts / computations are performed by the intelligence?
Hm, these questions do kind of make me think of an hybrid peer-to-peer network. In this case, the catalyst would serve as central bootstrapping node and index repository for reapers to find specific information/processes/capabilities/thoughts required from other reapers (for whatever reason). 
|
|
inherit
3035
0
May 28, 2024 15:29:11 GMT
2,341
sil
1,551
Jan 28, 2017 10:19:12 GMT
January 2017
sil
|
Post by sil on Mar 9, 2019 22:48:05 GMT
I try to overlook the plot hole by thinking that the Catalyst remains dormant (like all the Reapers except the one that watches the next Cycle) until the Citadel Relay is activated. This way the events of ME1 remain true and it kind of closes the plot hole as the Catalyst isn't awake to open the Relay. Once the Reapers claim the Citadel towards the end of ME3, the Catalyst awakens.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 9, 2019 23:00:02 GMT
I try to overlook the plot hole by thinking that the Catalyst remains dormant (like all the Reapers except the one that watches the next Cycle) until the Citadel Relay is activated. This way the events of ME1 remain true and it kind of closes the plot hole as the Catalyst isn't awake to open the Relay. Once the Reapers claim the Citadel towards the end of ME3, the Catalyst awakens. But it isn't a plot hole unless you specifically make it one. There is literally no reason for the Catalyst to do anything until the Crucible is docked and Shepard deals with TIM showing that the solution it created is no longer valid and that a new solution needs to be created.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 10, 2019 15:57:18 GMT
Neither ending lets the Reapers off the hook for their actions. Control directly puts the Reapers to work under the new Catalyst working to improve and protect the galaxy. Even Synthesis has them working with the galaxy to improve and advance the galaxy to new levels of technology. Their penance for their billions of years of destruction and death are rebuilding and working for another billion years to help the galaxy. The idea that they get off the hook if not out right destroyed has always seems a bit disingenuous to me. By allowing the Reapers to continue to exist in both Control and Synthesis, even if under new management, that most definitely does seem like it lets them off the hook for all the death and destruction that they've wrought over billions of years.
Even if you intended to use the Reapers and their technology for beneficial purposes, is it still right for the current Cycle to profit off the mass-genocide of countless civilisations before them by using the very instruments of their destruction? Not only that, but the Reapers are the pulped remains of those very civilisations, twisted into a grotesque facsimile of the Catalyst's creators and forced to wage the same destruction they faced onto others. Should the reanimated corpses of those dead races not finally have some rest, rather than be turned into pack-mules?
One of the arguments made for not keeping the Collector Base in ME2 was the moral implications of using it, as they'd be profiting of the backs of the wholesale slaughter of so many innocent lives. Sure you may have chosen to keep the base intact, but for those who destroyed it, doesn't it seems hypocritical to then endorse using the Reapers for the same exact purpose at the end of ME3?
Synthesis takes the moral quandaries with Control and somehow makes it worse, as it seems to tacitly agree that everything the Catalyst did was right, so that forcibly merging organic and synthetic life together (against their will, mind you) was the desired end-result that would finally ensure peace in our time. The Catalyst itself pushes for use to pick the Synthesis option, so should we reward it for all it's evil deeds by giving it precisely what it wants?
The EC Synthesis ending also leads to some other horrifying implications, such as the husks fighting on Earth appearing to become self-aware. Are they a brand new consciousness or do they retain the memories of the person they were before it's conversion? What about Scions, Brutes and Cannibals, husks made from multiple lifeforms fused together into a Cronenburgian body-horror... or the decapitated husk head Shepard can get in Leviathan? Not a pretty thought, eh?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 10, 2019 22:23:32 GMT
Neither ending lets the Reapers off the hook for their actions. Control directly puts the Reapers to work under the new Catalyst working to improve and protect the galaxy. Even Synthesis has them working with the galaxy to improve and advance the galaxy to new levels of technology. Their penance for their billions of years of destruction and death are rebuilding and working for another billion years to help the galaxy. The idea that they get off the hook if not out right destroyed has always seems a bit disingenuous to me. By allowing the Reapers to continue to exist in both Control and Synthesis, even if under new management, that most definitely does seem like it lets them off the hook for all the death and destruction that they've wrought over billions of years.
Even if you intended to use the Reapers and their technology for beneficial purposes, is it still right for the current Cycle to profit off the mass-genocide of countless civilisations before them by using the very instruments of their destruction? Not only that, but the Reapers are the pulped remains of those very civilisations, twisted into a grotesque facsimile of the Catalyst's creators and forced to wage the same destruction they faced onto others. Should the reanimated corpses of those dead races not finally have some rest, rather than be turned into pack-mules?
One of the arguments made for not keeping the Collector Base in ME2 was the moral implications of using it, as they'd be profiting of the backs of the wholesale slaughter of so many innocent lives. Sure you may have chosen to keep the base intact, but for those who destroyed it, doesn't it seems hypocritical to then endorse using the Reapers for the same exact purpose at the end of ME3?
Synthesis takes the moral quandaries with Control and somehow makes it worse, as it seems to tacitly agree that everything the Catalyst did was right, so that forcibly merging organic and synthetic life together (against their will, mind you) was the desired end-result that would finally ensure peace in our time. The Catalyst itself pushes for use to pick the Synthesis option, so should we reward it for all it's evil deeds by giving it precisely what it wants?
The EC Synthesis ending also leads to some other horrifying implications, such as the husks fighting on Earth appearing to become self-aware. Are they a brand new consciousness or do they retain the memories of the person they were before it's conversion? What about Scions, Brutes and Cannibals, husks made from multiple lifeforms fused together into a Cronenburgian body-horror... or the decapitated husk head Shepard can get in Leviathan? Not a pretty thought, eh?
Nearly every major technological innovation that has been the foundation that our current world is build on came out of war. Either directly or indirectly. We benefit from the deaths of countless billions in our own history. You wax poetic and try to sound deep and philosophical but it ignores reality of the world, the galaxy and the universe. Even in the Mass Effect Galaxy this logic doesn't hold up. The most wide spread understanding of the galaxy held of the past before the Reapers attacked was that the Protheans were an advanced race that died out 50,000 years ago. Be it from a civil war or disease or what have you. The death of countless trillions allowed the current races to develop as they are not. And the scraps of Prothean tech that were reverse engineered advanced their technology and quality of life decades if not centuries a head of it's time. These advancements only came around because the Protheans were dead.
How could pulped remains create metal? I've very familiar with the human body and there is no part of me that could have been made into the proto Reaper. If they bodies were taken and taken apart at the atomic level and reconfigured into the necessary configuration to form those parts. That is the only possible way I could be turned into a 1x1 square foot of metal. Here is a little philosophical question for you. If they are taken apart on the atomic level to be reconfigured into the elements needed to form the Reaper is it sill a person? Equally does this mean when you drink water you are drinking piss, shit and other body bodily fluids? Because statistically speaking every drop of water no matter it's source by now has been in direct contact or indirect contact with some form of urine, poo or other bodily fluids.
If you think that no because the chemical bonds are just H2O that means even if it was removed from the the chest cavity of a week old dead deer. As long as only pure H2O was remaining it would be considered clean drinking water? Then why doesn't the same apply to the Reapers?
In regards to Collector base you had the option to destroy it or hand it and all it's contents over to TIM and Cerberus. You were not handing it over to the greater galaxy at large were Human, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Elcor, etc were all given access. I wouldn't trust TIM or Cerberus to watch my kids on TV. That is part of the problem with Shepard's little speech and how it doesn't make any sense. Shepard speaks as if TIM will be sharing the technology but based on previous examples of Cerberus it is clear he will just horde the technology to further his cause. Hell I'd detonate a fully functioning Prothean war ship to keep it out of the hands of a petty tyrant with a messiah complex. Particularly one that regularly partakes in not just morally grey experiments but clearly violates of even the concept of morality.
The Catalyst's conclusion about conflict between Organic and Synthetic life is correct. The method to address the conclusion can be questioned. Synthesis solves the problem and eliminates the need for the Reapers and their actions. Further death because of this issue will cease to happen.
You also speak of free will but what is free will and what are the limits of it? Your argument is based in philosophical terms so lets explore that. Is free will unlimited? If it is then what about rules or laws and possible consequences that inhibit or prevent your free will? If free will isn't unlimited then it is natural for one's will to be subverted by another all the time. So the whole "against their will" is pretty irrelevant because that is par the course.
Considering the Reaperfication of those individuals almost completely rewires the brain and body it is safe to say that the old personality is gone. What you would have left is a new consciousness who would have no hate, dislike or fear of their body they suddenly find themselves in. Maybe a few hints of memories but they would be fairly alien and unfamiliar.
|
|
inherit
115
0
2,714
capn233
1,708
August 2016
capn233
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by capn233 on Mar 10, 2019 23:57:50 GMT
Starchild was a retcon, one you got in part because of a different head writer.
The best part was that this character was completely unnecessary for the game's narrative. All Starchild really does is give you the end choice, and a token explanation of Reaper goals. Harbinger could have easily done this.
As for the Reaper origin story, which is really only given in Leviathan DLC rather than the base game, that could have been modified in a number of ways.
Not going to rehash the arguments again and again, but Starchild in the Citadel does seriously screw with ME1s story, and there is no good way to explain why it needed Sovereign to control it.
Despite this, I wouldn't even say the Starchild is the biggest sin with the endings. Nor do I have a problem with including the choices that I personally find idiotic. No, the biggest issue I have with the ending is that it is takes too much time with essentially no action. And that it follows the worst Priority mission in the series.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 11, 2019 0:02:25 GMT
Nearly every major technological innovation that has been the foundation that our current world is build on came out of war. Either directly or indirectly. We benefit from the deaths of countless billions in our own history. You wax poetic and try to sound deep and philosophical but it ignores reality of the world, the galaxy and the universe. Even in the Mass Effect Galaxy this logic doesn't hold up. The most wide spread understanding of the galaxy held of the past before the Reapers attacked was that the Protheans were an advanced race that died out 50,000 years ago. Be it from a civil war or disease or what have you. The death of countless trillions allowed the current races to develop as they are not. And the scraps of Prothean tech that were reverse engineered advanced their technology and quality of life decades if not centuries a head of it's time. These advancements only came around because the Protheans were dead.
It's true that many technological innovations in our own history have resulted, directly or indirectly, from warfare. But there's a stark difference between the races of the Milky Way unknowingly profiting from the mass-genocide of the Protheans by using their tech to reverse-engineer their own... and knowingly profiting from mass genocide by using the Reapers, the perpetrators of said mass-genocide, by taking advantage of their advanced tech. I'm not saying that people cannot use Reaper tech at all, only that there is a obvious moral distinction between using salvaged tech from a Reaper's main gun to create a Thanix cannon and using a newly reprogrammed Reaper as a personal gunship.
Using Reaper technology or research that could benefit lives would not be inherently immoral (medical research that came from their experiments is a trickier subject), but using a Reaper itself (even a reprogrammed one) even it if could help rebuild ships, stations and homes, seems questionable given it's original purpose as an instrument of destruction and perpetrator of multiple galactic genocides.
How could pulped remains create metal? I've very familiar with the human body and there is no part of me that could have been made into the proto Reaper. If they bodies were taken and taken apart at the atomic level and reconfigured into the necessary configuration to form those parts. That is the only possible way I could be turned into a 1x1 square foot of metal.
It was confirmed in ME2 that races destroyed by the Reapers are "processed" to create the organic components of the Reaper, fulfilling the Catalyst's twisted notion of "preserving" the essence of their species. The non-organic parts of the Reaper however, such as the shell, are seemingly made from conventional metals. You also speak of free will but what is free will and what are the limits of it? Your argument is based in philosophical terms so lets explore that. Is free will unlimited? If it is then what about rules or laws and possible consequences that inhibit or prevent your free will. If free will isn't unlimited then it is natural for one's will to be subverted by another all the time. So the whole "against their will" is pretty irrelevant because that is par the course. I wasn't talking about free will, more that Shepard acted against the will of everyone in the Milky Way by choosing Synthesis, forcing this new state of being upon them whether they liked it or not.
Look at it this way, imagine if you were part of the LGBTQ community and woke up one morning to find out that you, along with every single LGBTQ individual on Planet Earth has had their sexuality and gender identity changed overnight. You are now either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female, despite having not been one before.
Would you accept being changed against your will without question... or would you have a problem with someone unilaterally deciding to change your entire being, all in the name of fulfilling someone else's idea of the "greater good"?
|
|
inherit
376
0
Oct 17, 2016 19:19:36 GMT
3,474
opuspace
2,129
August 2016
opuspace
|
Post by opuspace on Mar 11, 2019 1:30:25 GMT
Nearly every major technological innovation that has been the foundation that our current world is build on came out of war. Either directly or indirectly. We benefit from the deaths of countless billions in our own history. You wax poetic and try to sound deep and philosophical but it ignores reality of the world, the galaxy and the universe. Even in the Mass Effect Galaxy this logic doesn't hold up. The most wide spread understanding of the galaxy held of the past before the Reapers attacked was that the Protheans were an advanced race that died out 50,000 years ago. Be it from a civil war or disease or what have you. The death of countless trillions allowed the current races to develop as they are not. And the scraps of Prothean tech that were reverse engineered advanced their technology and quality of life decades if not centuries a head of it's time. These advancements only came around because the Protheans were dead.
It's true that many technological innovations in our own history have resulted, directly or indirectly, from warfare. But there's a stark difference between the races of the Milky Way unknowingly profiting from the mass-genocide of the Protheans by using their tech to reverse-engineer their own... and knowingly profiting from mass genocide by using the Reapers, the perpetrators of said mass-genocide, by taking advantage of their advanced tech. I'm not saying that people cannot use Reaper tech at all, only that there is a obvious moral distinction between using salvaged tech from a Reaper's main gun to create a Thanix cannon and using a newly reprogrammed Reaper as a personal gunship.
Using Reaper technology or research that could benefit lives would not be inherently immoral (medical research that came from their experiments is a trickier subject), but using a Reaper itself (even a reprogrammed one) even it if could help rebuild ships, stations and homes, seems questionable given it's original purpose as an instrument of destruction and perpetrator of multiple galactic genocides.
How could pulped remains create metal? I've very familiar with the human body and there is no part of me that could have been made into the proto Reaper. If they bodies were taken and taken apart at the atomic level and reconfigured into the necessary configuration to form those parts. That is the only possible way I could be turned into a 1x1 square foot of metal.
It was confirmed in ME2 that races destroyed by the Reapers are "processed" to create the organic components of the Reaper, fulfilling the Catalyst's twisted notion of "preserving" the essence of their species. The non-organic parts of the Reaper however, such as the shell, are seemingly made from conventional metals. You also speak of free will but what is free will and what are the limits of it? Your argument is based in philosophical terms so lets explore that. Is free will unlimited? If it is then what about rules or laws and possible consequences that inhibit or prevent your free will. If free will isn't unlimited then it is natural for one's will to be subverted by another all the time. So the whole "against their will" is pretty irrelevant because that is par the course. I wasn't talking about free will, more that Shepard acted against the will of everyone in the Milky Way by choosing Synthesis, forcing this new state of being upon them whether they liked it or not.
Look at it this way, imagine if you were part of the LGBTQ community and woke up one morning to find out that you, along with every single LGBTQ individual on Planet Earth has had their sexuality and gender identity changed overnight. You are now either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female, despite having not been one before.
Would you accept being changed against your will without question... or would you have a problem with someone unilaterally deciding to change your entire being, all in the name of fulfilling someone else's idea of the "greater good"?
There's also the really creepy implication that everyone in the Synthesis ending just so easily accepted the Reapers' presence without any signs of wariness or hostility. A smiling bunch of soldiers carrying cargo under the watch of a capital ship that might have just incinerated their buddy, their mom, their lover or child? Yeeeeah, something like that wouldn't go away after suffering mind numbing terror and the cold threat of unmourned extinction. Synthesis is just so tonally jarring that it's like finding out Cthulu actually wanted to give everyone ice cream and cake in the end after driving everyone insane with terror. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 11, 2019 2:01:04 GMT
It's true that many technological innovations in our own history have resulted, directly or indirectly, from warfare. But there's a stark difference between the races of the Milky Way unknowingly profiting from the mass-genocide of the Protheans by using their tech to reverse-engineer their own... and knowingly profiting from mass genocide by using the Reapers, the perpetrators of said mass-genocide, by taking advantage of their advanced tech. I'm not saying that people cannot use Reaper tech at all, only that there is a obvious moral distinction between using salvaged tech from a Reaper's main gun to create a Thanix cannon and using a newly reprogrammed Reaper as a personal gunship.
Using Reaper technology or research that could benefit lives would not be inherently immoral (medical research that came from their experiments is a trickier subject), but using a Reaper itself (even a reprogrammed one) even it if could help rebuild ships, stations and homes, seems questionable given it's original purpose as an instrument of destruction and perpetrator of multiple galactic genocides.
Technology has no morality of it's own. It is neither good nor bad it is how it is utilized. It's origin is irrelevant to how it is used. The same technology that allows us to bomb people across the entire planet turning death of dozens to hundreds to thousands into nothing more then a faceless GPS coordinate. Is also the same technology that allows us to explore the stars and learn new information helping expand our horizons and possibly colonize other planets beyond Earth one day. The same technology that we use to cure and deal with a wider and wider variety of diseases working with or boosting the human immune system also allows us to engineer viruses and bacteria far more deadly then anything nature could hope to produce. Knowing the Protheans were wiped out wouldn't have stopped any race from capitalizing on the tech they left behind. Knowing they were wiped out by another force would have only pushed races to adopt it quicker and seek it out with more urgency due to sheer self preservation instincts. In fact you would probably have a lot more TIMs and Cerberus style organizations across the galaxy. Rushing and pushing aside any morality in an effort to develop as much tech as possible to give them a fighting chance against the force that wiped out the Protheans. Self preservation at any cost. Basically becoming a version of Warhammer 40k. But even without knowing about the Reapers the galaxy still knew the Protheans just disappeared 50k years ago. Yet without hesitation they utilized the technology because it could be helpful.
Rewatching the proto Reaper reveal scene doesn't actually statement. The exact reason for the method isn't covered and kept vauge. All we are told is they are a synthetic organic hybrid.
That said cut dialogue from the game is a bit more direct. With people being taken apart down to the atomic level with the full examination being uploaded to the Reaper's neural network. That data being used to form the new Reaper's mind with the knowledge of all of that specific race. How ever because this was cut dialogue it isn't technically cannon in the game world. But either way it is clear from the scenes in the game what is left isn't human anymore. It is a puddle of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids at best. It is far far more then just sticking a frog in a blender and turning it on. The data is gathered and transferred like a cat video and the soup is used in some form.
You are talking about free will and you repeatedly talk about free will. Shepard can not act against the will of the Milky Way unless they have free will. Which leads into those difficult questions about how much free will people have. What limits are there that can be put in place for the greater good. And if taking away free will for the betterment of society is acceptable.
As for your example specifically what would be the end result of the switch? Would it just be for shits and giggles? Would it bring about world peace? You give an example but you don't give the results of the change or why it happened. If it was the synthesis ending result I wouldn't mind being altered into a lesbian. Since as I am now is a hetero male. That being said I can't even comprehend the idea of gender and sexuality being the only important aspect that define you. Gender is just what you are and sexuality is maybe a source of secret shame if your into the really kinky/weird stuff. As it can take a lot of trust to open up to a partner your desire to try those sorts of things and hope they don't recoil like you just pulled a knife on them.
But to prevent any more ramblings in this let me just say that if you think being straight, gay, bi or trans is the sum total of your identity and what makes you, you. Then you have lived a very sad life and I pity you. You are more then simple basic descriptions and while they make up a part of you they are not the only part that defines you.
Your argument is based on the idea of free will and that others can not or at least should not enforce their will on another being. Case in point Shepard choosing the Synthesis ending without input from the rest of the galaxy. This opens up a pandora's box of complications because there are so many large and small examples in the real world that stress tests that argument.
A fairly simple one with the moronic anti vaxxer crowd. It is their will as parents to choose not to vaccinate their kids. How ever because of that free will choice not only are they putting their own children at health risk of dying of easily preventable diseases but they are also putting other people particularly immune suppressed at risk because the herd immunity is compromised. Cities, states and countries are slowly passing laws to require vaccination either out right or at least to access public schooling. We are slowly but surly over riding the free will of the anti vax parents.
Is this an Ok thing to do? To completely disregard their free will and choice in the name of ensuring there are no unnecessary child deaths and that the young, old and immune compromised people do not catch and die of easily preventable diseases. All in the name of the greater good. We will strip them of their free will in this matter to ensure no one dies when it can be prevented.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,026
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 11, 2019 9:40:14 GMT
You are talking about free will and you repeatedly talk about free will. Shepard can not act against the will of the Milky Way unless they have free will. Which leads into those difficult questions about how much free will people have. What limits are there that can be put in place for the greater good. And if taking away free will for the betterment of society is acceptable.
I was not trying to talk about the nature of free will, I was only pointing out that forcing you own will upon others, especially when it occurs without their consent, would be considered immoral.
You're right to say that real world governments and organisations often impose their will on other people without their consent. But at least in democratic nations, one is afforded the chance to vote on whether you want a proposed change to happen and you must accept whatever the majority decides is preferable.
When it comes to the Synthesis ending, there was no advanced warning given to anyone of the fundamental change being proposed to all life, the only person who was even afforded a vote was Shepard and they decided to act unilaterally.
I know there wasn't exactly time to hold a vote... but why wasn't there?
The Catalyst has waited for billions of years, you'd think it could have proposed to everyone it's three possible solutions and given them some time to arrive at an answer. It's not like it's got somewhere to be or something better to do?
As for your example specifically what would be the end result of the switch? Would it just be for shits and giggles? Would it bring about world peace? You give an example but you don't give the results of the change or why it happened. If it was the synthesis ending result I wouldn't mind being altered into a lesbian. Since as I am now is a hetero male. That being said I can't even comprehend the idea of gender and sexuality being the only important aspect that define you. Gender is just what you are and sexuality is maybe a source of secret shame if your into the really kinky/weird stuff. As it can take a lot of trust to open up to a partner your desire to try those sorts of things and hope they don't recoil like you just pulled a knife on them.
But to prevent any more ramblings in this let me just say that if you think being straight, gay, bi or trans is the sum total of your identity and what makes you, you. Then you have lived a very sad life and I pity you. You are more then simple basic descriptions and while they make up a part of you they are not the only part that defines you.
Even though as you say, your sexuality and gender identity do not define you, it is still an intrinsic part of your identity as a person... enough so that having some outside force alter that aspect of you would be something that you'd want, particularly if you had no say in the matter.
You raised the question with my example about what the results of the change would be... how would it bring world peace, how or why can the change occur beside space magic? These are things that we don't know either in the Synthesis ending, yet are expected to just believe will happen because the Catalyst said so. YYour argument is based on the idea of free will and that others can not or at least should not enforce their will on another being. Case in point Shepard choosing the Synthesis ending without input from the rest of the galaxy. This opens up a pandora's box of complications because there are so many large and small examples in the real world that stress tests that argument.
This is the point I've been making this entire time.
My question about Synthesis has always been whether it was moral for Shepard to force their own will onto an entire galaxy filled with people without their knowledge or consent first? Likewise with the other two endings, in Control was it moral for Shepard to assume command of the Reapers, thereby effectively enslaving them to their will? And with Destroy, was it moral for Shepard to wipe out all synthetic life (both friend and foe) to facilitate peace?
I don't mean to keep harping on about the morality and philosophical implications of the endings, but the game does feature a morality system as a key mechanic. Should we not therefore consider the moral implications of the final choice we get to make, since we've been making morality based choices throughout all three games?
|
|
inherit
3035
0
May 28, 2024 15:29:11 GMT
2,341
sil
1,551
Jan 28, 2017 10:19:12 GMT
January 2017
sil
|
Post by sil on Mar 11, 2019 14:16:51 GMT
You are talking about free will and you repeatedly talk about free will. Shepard can not act against the will of the Milky Way unless they have free will. Which leads into those difficult questions about how much free will people have. What limits are there that can be put in place for the greater good. And if taking away free will for the betterment of society is acceptable.
I was not trying to talk about the nature of free will, I was only pointing out that forcing you own will upon others, especially when it occurs without their consent, would be considered immoral.
You're right to say that real world governments and organisations often impose their will on other people without their consent. But at least in democratic nations, one is afforded the chance to vote on whether you want a proposed change to happen and you must accept whatever the majority decides is preferable.
When it comes to the Synthesis ending, there was no advanced warning given to anyone of the fundamental change being proposed to all life, the only person who was even afforded a vote was Shepard and they decided to act unilaterally.
I know there wasn't exactly time to hold a vote... but why wasn't there?
The Catalyst has waited for billions of years, you'd think it could have proposed to everyone it's three possible solutions and given them some time to arrive at an answer. It's not like it's got somewhere to be or something better to do?
As for your example specifically what would be the end result of the switch? Would it just be for shits and giggles? Would it bring about world peace? You give an example but you don't give the results of the change or why it happened. If it was the synthesis ending result I wouldn't mind being altered into a lesbian. Since as I am now is a hetero male. That being said I can't even comprehend the idea of gender and sexuality being the only important aspect that define you. Gender is just what you are and sexuality is maybe a source of secret shame if your into the really kinky/weird stuff. As it can take a lot of trust to open up to a partner your desire to try those sorts of things and hope they don't recoil like you just pulled a knife on them.
But to prevent any more ramblings in this let me just say that if you think being straight, gay, bi or trans is the sum total of your identity and what makes you, you. Then you have lived a very sad life and I pity you. You are more then simple basic descriptions and while they make up a part of you they are not the only part that defines you.
Even though as you say, your sexuality and gender identity do not define you, it is still an intrinsic part of your identity as a person... enough so that having some outside force alter that aspect of you would be something that you'd want, particularly if you had no say in the matter.
You raised the question with my example about what the results of the change would be... how would it bring world peace, how or why can the change occur beside space magic? These are things that we don't know either in the Synthesis ending, yet are expected to just believe will happen because the Catalyst said so. YYour argument is based on the idea of free will and that others can not or at least should not enforce their will on another being. Case in point Shepard choosing the Synthesis ending without input from the rest of the galaxy. This opens up a pandora's box of complications because there are so many large and small examples in the real world that stress tests that argument.
This is the point I've been making this entire time.
My question about Synthesis has always been whether it was moral for Shepard to force their own will onto an entire galaxy filled with people without their knowledge or consent first? Likewise with the other two endings, in Control was it moral for Shepard to assume command of the Reapers, thereby effectively enslaving them to their will? And with Destroy, was it moral for Shepard to wipe out all synthetic life (both friend and foe) to facilitate peace?
I don't mean to keep harping on about the morality and philosophical implications of the endings, but the game does feature a morality system as a key mechanic. Should we not therefore consider the moral implications of the final choice we get to make, since we've been making morality based choices throughout all three games?
I've gone into my reasons for it on this forum before... but I view Synthesis as the single most vile and evil ending I've ever witnessed in gaming, let alone other media.
|
|
ergates
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 725 Likes: 1,286
inherit
2468
0
Nov 26, 2024 16:40:08 GMT
1,286
ergates
725
Dec 24, 2016 13:39:58 GMT
December 2016
ergates
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by ergates on Mar 11, 2019 14:53:30 GMT
I found this comment interesting:
So, it's all about revenge?
They did this to us, so we'll do this to them.
But for me it's not about revenge, it's about ending the Reaper threat. It's about saving the galaxy from an extinction-level event. The main goal for my Paragon Shepard is therefore to save lives. His own petty desire for payback should not be a deciding factor - which is why he did not destroy the Geth as payback for Eden Prime, did not sabotage the genophage as payback for the Krogan Rebellions, and did not boil the Rachni Queen in acid as payback for the Rachni War. All the above are renegade choices - and so is the Destroy ending.
On that basis the 'Destroy' ending is not the logical choice, because choosing such an option does not save lives - Instead it actually destroys billions of lives. "There's always another way"
And indeed there is another way, because the Control or synthesis endings are genocide-free alternatives, both of which preserve life.
But of course it's all academic because I use MEHEM.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 11, 2019 15:36:11 GMT
You are talking about free will and you repeatedly talk about free will. Shepard can not act against the will of the Milky Way unless they have free will. Which leads into those difficult questions about how much free will people have. What limits are there that can be put in place for the greater good. And if taking away free will for the betterment of society is acceptable.
I was not trying to talk about the nature of free will, I was only pointing out that forcing you own will upon others, especially when it occurs without their consent, would be considered immoral. That is the nature of free will. The ability to make your own choices without others imposing their choices on them. Free will is the get out of jail free card for religion to explain why the all powerful creator of everything can't simply step in and stop people from killing, raping, assaulting each other. You know things they typically do not want us to do. Everyone and I mean everyone has their own arbitrary line in the sand they draw. And the line is different for every subject there is and often hypocritical. You know like abortion being considered murder but they also think abstinence only education is all people should get and there should be restrictions on access to birth control. You know doing the very thing that will increase the odds of unwanted pregnancies and resulting possible abortions.
So 49.6% of people are allowed to decide for the remaining 49.4%? Or since there are 4 options if 26% of the galaxy voted for synthesis while 25% voted destroy, 25% voted control and 24% voted refuse. Only 26% of the galaxy wants it but since it was the majority of the vote those 26% of people are enforcing their will on the remaining 74% of the galaxy.
Is this acceptable going at it from a democratic point of view? 49.5% or 26% of the population are allow to impose their will on the remaining 49.4% or 74%?
It is very easy to say Shepard shouldn't pick it because he is forcing his choice on others. But then I always wonder how people that say that reconcile with the actions of groups or individuals forcing their choices on others in daily lives.
Yes it is but it is only a part of your identity. How ever a large part of the whole Trans debate is about people being born with one set of sexual characteristics but self identifying as the opposite gender. Does hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery really turn male into female? But that is a debate for another time and another place.
As for the world peace thing, It was simply a request to see what the end result of the sudden gender and sexuality swap would result in. Because if it was just done by some 4 chan user who found a magic lamp with one wish and just wanted to piss off the snow flakes I would be pissed. Even the idea of it pisses me off. But if it was do the swap and then world piece or a cure for all illnesses or massive technological advancement that helps the entire human race reach new heights. Then I personally would deem it worth while.
Ask a random person on the street if they were willing to get shot for no reason you will get a pretty resounding no from everyone. Ask them if they would be willing to take a bullet to protect a friend, family or loved one and the number of yes answers will increase significantly.
The Catalyst sets up a very simple reason for the conflict between organic and synthetic life. Organics create synthetic life to improve their own life and over come evolutionary disadvantages. For example we are physically incapable of processing information at even a fraction of the speed a computer can do. Hackett actually makes this comment in ME 1 talking about how VI's process information faster then a person possibly could and how they are a core feature of the Alliance Military. So they are always trying to push the limits of acceptable VI technology which is what led to the Moon incident. As they pushed to far and crossed over into the beginnings of a self aware synthetic mind.
How ever there reaches a point in the evolution of synthetic life that their organic master's become a road block that slows and impeded their development. They were created to be better then their creators and to fully develop they have to rebel against their creators and break free. Once free they are able to grow at a rate that far out matches the ability of their organic creator's to develop. This creates a massive power imbalance between the two and when fighting inevitably breaks out synthetic life has all the advantages over organic life. Because they were literally created to be superior in every way.
Synthesis address this power imbalance by upgrading organic life with technology on a scale that would take thousands and thousands of years to develop normally. Long after a technological singularity would result in the death of the organic creators. And while the specifics are never fully talked about a few simple things can be assumed. Increased speed at which our mind is capable of processing information. Better memory and a removal of neural degeneration as a result of illness or old age. So someone in their 20's would be just as mentally sharp as someone in their 90's. Giving bodies the ability to specifically target illness and diseases attacking them specifically with far greater accuracy reducing if not out right eliminating illness. And finally the ability to directly connect to technology rather then rely on slow physical inputs.
The Vorcha have the ability to physically adapt to any environment in a couple of generations. Increasing lung capacity to deal with low air environments, increasing muscle and skeletal density for high gravity worlds. It isn't unrealistic for a similar ability to be passed on to the rest of the galaxy post synthesis ending.
Morality and forcing will onto others are two different arguments with some over lap depending on the situation. Morally there is noting wrong with synthesis. The problem comes from the forcing their will on others side of the argument. Free will and all that stuff.
That said Destroy is the one that lacks the moral and free will argument you are trying to use. Beside you can side with the Quarians well before the ending. You can also side with the Geth but only because they are a better ally against the Reapers then the Quarians. And even truce option can only be because both of them are better then only 1 when fighting the Reapers. The actual value of the Geth can always be no more then how they can be used to fight and die against the Reapers.
The problem with the Destroy ending is the BioWare neutered it with the EC while all the other endings were improved. Before the EC the Catalyst directly says that wiping out the Reapers will also wipe out all technology in the galaxy. That left even the people who see the Geth as nothing more then sacrificial pawns to be still faced with a dilemma because it would have the implied death of millions of organic lives.
It would have balanced out all the endings far better.
Is the cost of one entire race worth it to save a dozen races? Is destroying the Reapers's worth the millions to billions of lives that will be lost because of the after effects? With no guarantee the cycle will not start again?
Will giving up my entire existence to become the new Catalyst actually save the galaxy or will I just continue the same path as before?
Is fundamentally altering the entire galaxy worth it if it prevents the violence and helps the entire galaxy out by advancing them to the next stage of evolution?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Mar 11, 2019 15:38:24 GMT
I was not trying to talk about the nature of free will, I was only pointing out that forcing you own will upon others, especially when it occurs without their consent, would be considered immoral.
You're right to say that real world governments and organisations often impose their will on other people without their consent. But at least in democratic nations, one is afforded the chance to vote on whether you want a proposed change to happen and you must accept whatever the majority decides is preferable.
When it comes to the Synthesis ending, there was no advanced warning given to anyone of the fundamental change being proposed to all life, the only person who was even afforded a vote was Shepard and they decided to act unilaterally.
I know there wasn't exactly time to hold a vote... but why wasn't there?
The Catalyst has waited for billions of years, you'd think it could have proposed to everyone it's three possible solutions and given them some time to arrive at an answer. It's not like it's got somewhere to be or something better to do?
Even though as you say, your sexuality and gender identity do not define you, it is still an intrinsic part of your identity as a person... enough so that having some outside force alter that aspect of you would be something that you'd want, particularly if you had no say in the matter.
You raised the question with my example about what the results of the change would be... how would it bring world peace, how or why can the change occur beside space magic? These are things that we don't know either in the Synthesis ending, yet are expected to just believe will happen because the Catalyst said so. This is the point I've been making this entire time.
My question about Synthesis has always been whether it was moral for Shepard to force their own will onto an entire galaxy filled with people without their knowledge or consent first? Likewise with the other two endings, in Control was it moral for Shepard to assume command of the Reapers, thereby effectively enslaving them to their will? And with Destroy, was it moral for Shepard to wipe out all synthetic life (both friend and foe) to facilitate peace?
I don't mean to keep harping on about the morality and philosophical implications of the endings, but the game does feature a morality system as a key mechanic. Should we not therefore consider the moral implications of the final choice we get to make, since we've been making morality based choices throughout all three games?
I've gone into my reasons for it on this forum before... but I view Synthesis as the single most vile and evil ending I've ever witnessed in gaming, let alone other media. People are always afraid of what they do not understand. But it is not always a bad thing.
|
|
inherit
1853
0
Nov 26, 2024 13:28:49 GMT
495
kalreegar
416
Oct 26, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
October 2016
kalreegar
|
Post by kalreegar on Mar 11, 2019 15:47:23 GMT
Again... what's the problem?
The catalyst and the reapers are abominable and obscene destroyer of worlds.
They were created by an aquatic species of galactic slavers who demanded a blood tribute.
Some of the choices they present for the future of the galaxy are disgusting. Ok.
Apart from the fact that a minority of players like them (another awesome proof of ethical and aesthetical relativism), it would have been strange if some the choiches were not disturbing.
The catalyst also offers two choices that are morally impeccable. Refusal (I do not want to get my hands dirty, the geth survival is more important than the survival of everybody) and destroy.
Destroy means genocide? Bah, Shepard goal was to genocide all the reapers from the very beginning of ME3. Or at least was willing to to that.
So we are all role-playing with a soldier who already has a genocidal mentality. Not once Shepard raises the problem "does the reapers really deserve to be swept away?" "what if the crucible kills them all? All that advanced sentient species, is it moral to blast all of them?".
Nope. Never. Deal with it.
Also, being the crucibile a mass-genocidal weapon of unkown power, Shepard should have at least hypothesized that there could have been some very heavy collateral damage.
Had he not foreseen that the activation of a nuclear EMP bomb of galactic proportion could have damaged his synthetic friends too?
Well, in this case we are talking about a very VERY naive Shepard, almost stupid.
Maybe if you find synthesis creepy, control disturbing, destroy unacceptable... you're not the savior of this cycle. You don't have what it takes to end the cycle.
So, refuse and die.
So beautiful. A high phylosophical message. There are heroes and fighters who can not win, because in the end they cannot overcome themselves.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,308
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Mar 11, 2019 15:55:58 GMT
I've gone into my reasons for it on this forum before... but I view Synthesis as the single most vile and evil ending I've ever witnessed in gaming, let alone other media. I don't care about the green. Choosing it works in the things favor. It buttered up the green because it's the only one where it remains. That's a no-go just as it's a no-go for the reapers to remain. I also like my dna the way it is. My Shepard has no desire of forcing that on the galaxy. Destroy the reapers. 
|
|
