Reblogged
you and your faves art trend!
Reblogged
I still remember when I first watched the last of Time Lords I was so upset that 10 wouldn't let Francine shoot the Master. Like SHE DESERVED THAT. And then I was confused why the heck 10 wanted to travel with a freak. Then I realized he loved him in the most heartbreaking way.
I'm sorry but this scene totally broke me and gave me this thoschei brainrot forever
Reblogged purpleenjoyer
handers sketch about love
Reblogged
Thoughts about Mass Effect
So, I've just finished my run of the Legendary Edition. For context, I was 18 when ME3 launched, and I'll be 30 this year; the last time I had played the whole trilogy was WAY BEFORE the LE was launched lol.
So. All this time between gameplays and a lot of things in my life made me reflect a lot on the games and conflicts presented, the end and so on. Bear with me, this will be long.
Catalyst says that the root of the problem it has to solve is "organic versus synthetic"; this causes whiplash, because it is NOT something heavily shown in the games as "the root".
On the contrary, what is SHOWN is "control and order versus free will and self-determination": it's shown in the genophage - created because the Salarians COULDN'T control the Krogan -, in the Quarians versus Geth, the Collectors - so heavily indoctrinated they can't chose by themselves again -, Saren, The Illusive Man since ME2, the Reapers, and in ALL companions to some extent. Miranda, EDI and Jacob are the most glaring ones, but all of them bring this. Most of them in the oldest conflict regarding Created versus Creator to ever exist: Children versus Parents. Children test boundaries and once old enough, when they gain awareness and notice that Parents aren't as perfect as they thought, conflict arises. It can either end very badly, coldly, or they find new common ground.
And all this involves HEAVILY Control versus Free Will, some parents see children as extensions and something to control, others understand it's not like this. Most companions have this to some extent, usually from the children POV; Thane, I think, is the only one we see from the other side, a parent trying to reconect and fix his mistakes - Heck, even when we take away the Child vs Parent, we still have the concept Control vs Free Will, in that he was only a Weapon for the Hanar to control. (Edit: for some fucking reason I forgot Samara is a Mother and also her whole point is also about control vs free will. Go Brain 🤦🏻♀️)
But the Catalyst does not see any of this. It appears to disregard ALL other forms of conflict that can and have lead to annihilation of others - Javik himself says about how the Protheans would annihilate the species that don't conform and how there was this people that "found the secret for eternal peace" and then another came and decimated them. Conflict is a result of existence, usually because one wants to control others, but the Catalyst only sees "Organics versus Synthetics".
Why? I say the root for this is because The Catalyst was created by Leviathans, and as such, in their likeness of thought. And what we see about the Leviathans? The origin for indoctrination, focused on organics as far as we can see, in a more aggressive way - the miners had lost all awareness for ten years, the assistant lost all sense. The examples we see from Reaper Indoctrination are more insidious, if they aren't outright converting you on being a soldier for them; they make you think it's your choice, that they are right and so on. It's not outright stripping someone from all agency, not from the get go if it's not something that serves them. And, from what is implied, the Leviathans can't exercise the same control on synthetics, while the Reapers can.
The fact that the Leviathans can control others in such a way makes me think that, for whatever reason, they don't have conflicts between themselves. Maybe they are a hive mind or they have a queen-like controlling all of them, we don't have enough to say with certainty either, but the concept of conflict in itself is alien to them. It's very possible that they controlled all species that were under their thrall to not fight amongst themselves because, as they said, dead people don't pay tribute - I risk saying that when control was more spread amongst numerous individuals, there was more conscious thought going on in the controlled, or in the past it wasn't as heavy a hand as it's seen in the present. We don't have enough information for either. Again lol
Then the organics they controlled created AIs. And they couldn't control the AIs to not attack their organics. And, I would even risk, the root of their problem was probably because these organics also didn't have the tools to solve conflicts without controlling and stripping someone away of free will. They were controlled by the Leviathans, it was all they knew. But the AIs and synthetics created questioned, tested boundaries and so on.
As a consequence, the Leviathans assumed that the root of the problem was Synthetics versus Organics, and created an AI to solve this. And probably, considering that the Reapers can indoctrinate both organics and synthetics, they only wished or thought for the AI to control synthetics so they wouldn't attack organics. But the AI, at being in the likeness of the Leviathans, concluded that control was indeed necessary, that the conflict was inevitable; as a consequence, the solution it came with was to preserve the organics in Reaper form, being able to control both organics and synthetics, and guide civilizations in such way.
But since the Leviathans didn't have conflict amongst themselves, the AI Catalyst was biased. It didn't have examples of conflicts being solved by anything beyond control. That's why it was the only solution it could envision, because it assumed that Organics would always try to control Synthetics, and that Synthetics would always try to control Organics, and thus ending in annihilation. It couldn't envision cooperation of their own free will because the Leviathans couldn't envision so.
Which is fine. Being biased is understandable. It was created in the likeness of the Leviathans, the same the Geth were created in the likeness of the Quarians - eco-symbiothic, resulting in an AI that gains processing the more they are - and EDI in the likeness of humans. Heck, when we consider that in one of EDI conversations in ME3 she says that self-preservation is not her biggest directive anymore, but the people inside the Normandy, that she is not like the Reapers, we can compare to the Leviathan, that only created the AI because they needed tribute: it was about self-preservation, their OWN preservation was paramount, as it is shown in the fact that they have been hiding for who knows how long.
And the root of the problem of the talk with the Catalyst is that we can't say anything of the type to it. We can't say that conflict is natural and expected and that organics go through it ALL THE TIME between themselves but that it does not equal to annihilation. That compromise and common ground is possible and that children go through this all the time with their parents. That Control and stripping someone of Free-Will and Self-Determination is not the answer, because it usually only creates even more conflict, doesn't matter if between Organics and Synthetics, between Organics, between Synthetics, because at some point someone will fight against it. But cooperation is possible, and it is usually better (heck Javik says that this cycle is working because all species cooperate amongst themselves)
The whiplash and so many disliking the end, I risk, is more because we can't point any of this to the Catalyst. It's understandable its bias, even expected. It's frustrating that Shepard, a soldier that very much understands about how conflict is inevitable and how you solve it is what matters, can't say so, at least so the Catalyst would recognize "I'm not perfect. I was wrong."
Because even when we go along the lines of "this is Catalyst experiment to try and find the solution", I say that not all the data in the galaxy will help against deep-ingrained bias to interpret the data in this or that way. And that is what the Catalyst is: biased in a way of thinking where conflict in itself is unacceptable and a flaw, but is only being seen in one way because their creators couldn't see and experiment in other ways. But conflict is common and a part of existence, and it can be solved in ways where it reaches compromise, where it acknowledges free will, something constantly shown in the games. Just the Catalyst doesn't see it.
Reblogged
I'm still working out my feelings (sorry for all the discord spam @dykieran) about the ending of ME3. I think I'll be spinning it in my mind for a while. Because I don't think its the perfect ending (it is, for example, less satisfying than ME1 or ME2s endings) but I also don't think it's an awful ending (as in: I don't think the ending ruins the franchise, or doesn't even have merits on its own).
(Ramble under the cut)
Reblogged
Dragon Age commission no.2 for the lovely @ohmyarda of her lovely Hawke and Anders~
Reblogged
I am and will forever be a Martha Jones enjoyer/defender but not in a "she's a great character but I think she was underserved by the story" kind of way because I actually like her arch of constantly being epic and learning to value herself and put herself first and that can't happen without her complicated relationship with the Doctor. Her choosing to leave is one of the most powerful choices in all of Doctor Who for me. The way Freema was treated by the public is absolutely terrible. I cannot understand why anyone could dislike Martha and that is an opinion I will take to the grave.
