779 réponses à ce sujet

[vertibird1]

Nefelius wrote...

ye, but why couldn't i just toss dead Anderson in the beam?

Thats disgusting you should feel bad

[jlb524]

TudorWolf wrote...
Yes, it's pretty damn damn morally ambiguous that you're making this choice for all life without their consent, but the payoff seems worth it.

That argument has always been odd to me considering no one had a choice of which type of life they were before synthesis either.

[Beregar]

Tecumseh420 wrote...

Synthesis.......as in Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The Hegelian Dialectic. Being given the illusion of choice. A sucker born every minute. You have bought a transhumanist agenda. Lemme guess, you also thought the Genophage ( eugenics ) was a good thing.

I'm a transhumanist and I resent that comment. I picked the synthesis option because it was the choice that appealed me most but it's not agenda of the transhumanists to change everyone against their will. Regardless of the path chosen it's almost certain that humans eventually stop being humans as we understand the term. It may take a few million years but thinking we remain the same sounds foolish.

Even if we don't evolve through technology directly we will evolve through natural selection and cultural change - the latter which is heavily influenced by technology. I'm just sad I'm not there to see this change as our level of tech is not high enough to sustain someone forever and I have a hard time believing in any sort of magical afterlife.

I chose the synthesis because it was the middle ground. Was it a fair choice? Not any more than the others. There was no fair choice, no "right" choice. Just a choice and that's why it was all darkly beautiful. It made it feel more real because while all choices led to victory you also sacrificed something in all of them.

[General User]

RVallant wrote...
I think it's touched upon in an earlier conversation. The unanswered question of 'what is the meaning of life' and 'purpose' leads to a logic error that results in war regardless of how unlikely it is to happen. Combined with AI and synthetic creation possibilities they would always have infinite resources to wipe out organics if they were in a position to gain suitable power (which, the geth would be since we'd be at peace...)

The way I see it, synergy is basically a combination of logic and AI benefits such as memory storage and fast learning tempered with organic emotions and capabilities to love et al in a natural way. A synthetic (in theory) won't see the need to kill another synthetic (I assume because they're identifiable whereas organic life is not) and a synergy between the two defeats the need to ever create AI or synthetics because its entwined within their dna

Why not?  Orthodox geth fought Heretic geth.  EDI fought both geth and Reapers.  People, be they "carbon or silicon" or some weird combination thereof, will never cease finding reasons to fight one another.  Often genocidally (is that even a word?).

RVallant wrote...
It doesn't close of all possibilities, but it does merge the concepts and ideas to in theory - present clearer understanding and synergy between two polar opposites.[...]

But they aren't polar opposites.  Organic and synthetic life are quite similar on some very basic levels, just as they are quite different on others.  Like YNation913 said, true unity arises from acknowledging our differences and co-existing despite them, not eliminating them.

RVallant wrote...
[...]The thing to keep in mind is that in the ME universe this 'pattern' of synthetic uprising and wiping out organics repeat every single time for over 40 million years.

The trilogy's cycle implies that it's the first time thus far that the opposite has happened and even then, speak to the Prothean and you'll see what the Geth do to the Quarians is particularly similar to what synthetics did to an organic race (just, it got worse eventually.)

I dont think that's accurate.  In the previous cycle, the Protheans defeated the synthetics.  In this cycle, the quarians and the geth have reached a sort of accomodation.  How long that lasts is up to the people involved.

Modifié par General User, 13 mars 2012 - 03:45 .

[goodventure]

I have to agree that the Synthesis ending is probably the "least" sucky and makes more sense out of Shepard's sacrifice. How could you now love EDI and Joker in the Synthesis ending?!

I had a friend who finished the game for the first time and he picked Synthesis. I was waiting for his reaction... and he said he liked it because he thought he started a new Garden of Eden. ... then we replayed the ending to choose Destroy and he was pissed that all the endings were the same.

[General User]

TudorWolf wrote...
Synthesis at least actually gives some possibility of lasting understanding.

You have that without synthesis too.

[Beregar]

jlb524 wrote...

TudorWolf wrote...
Yes, it's pretty damn damn morally ambiguous that you're making this choice for all life without their consent, but the payoff seems worth it.

That argument has always been odd to me considering no one had a choice of which type of life they were before synthesis either.

I think the root of that argument is that it's another human lording over others, and that someone could decide to take away something that many view integral to human being. We are used to our bodies as they are - you would be hard pressed to find people who would willingly accept cybernetic substitutes for their own bodies. Even if you could find a person willing to accept cybernetic body it's almost certain they would want it to look human. We associate certain things with humanity both physical and psychological. I'm not really surprised that people see synthesis as the evil choice. It's a choice they would most likely not take given free will, and who really wants to be forced to become something they fear or find abhorrent?

As things are currently we can always fall to "but it's the natural state of universe", "it's how god/chance/cosmic laws/whatever meant it to be", "it's against human nature", "it is how it has always been" (which in my opinion is not true), and other similar arguments.

[Madecologist]

The moral ambiguity comes from the fact we choose for everyone else. We know we make that choice. Sure no one knows for sure why life is the way it is before. This is why a lot of cultures develop theologifcal or scientific explainations, or just say if a theological source did do it it did via natural laws that the scientific explainations put forth. Most people are just content to accept the randomness of it all.

However in the synthesis ending we know (at least people who are part of the battle for Earth can figure out what caused the new 'paradigm of life'). But more importantly, you as Shepard knows exactly what causes it. You. You make that choice and the rest of the Galaxy has to take it.

Now don't get me wrong, the transhumistic theme is a very interesting one. The two problem is that it came from left field. You would expect this from a Deus Ex ending or a Star Trek episode where since the teaser you had the theme of transhumanism strongly present. Though ME had slight hints of this, not enough to justify it to be taken into third gear at the ending.

The second problem is the way it was executed... the moral implication of choosing it for everyone is not stressed... it all seemed so casual and 'go lucky' about it. Taking this choice for all life is a big deal... it is not one made lightly. I remember a Doctor Who episode where the Doctor was faced with a similiar delimna, it was just for one culture, he looked at that 'button' for 5 minutes and sparked a massive ethical debate with his companion.

Short version, interesting concept, bad execution that raises serveral questions on moral ambiguity and to some even outright plotholes. As such I think it renders a disservice to both the ME franchise and the theme of transhumanism as a whole.

[VerdantSF]

Megachaz wrote...

I thought the synthesis option was pure evil. You just essentially altered the intrinsic nature of every living being. You took away the free will of every being in the galaxy.

This.

[nitefyre410]

Tecumseh420 wrote...

Synthesis.......as in Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The Hegelian Dialectic. Being given the illusion of choice. A sucker born every minute. You have bought a transhumanist agenda. Lemme guess, you also thought the Genophage ( eugenics ) was a good thing.

 

I was waiting for someone to get that whole set up... glad I'm not the only who caught it .

[Beregar]

Madecologist wrote...

The moral ambiguity comes from the fact we choose for everyone else. We know we make that choice. Sure no one knows for sure why life is the way it is before. This is why a lot of cultures develop theologifcal or scientific explainations, or just say if a theological source did do it it did via natural laws that the scientific explainations put forth. Most people are just content to accept the randomness of it all.

Agreed. It's not necessarily a question of whether it is a good choice or bad choice. You can make a good choice on bad premises. It's a question about ethics. It's not an ethical choice because you force it on others no matter how good the results may end up being.

That being said none of the choices are fair or obviously good because Shepard has no way of knowing what are the consequences of any of the choices. He could merely trust the star child told the truth and pick the choice he thought might be the best for everyone. Any of them could end up into catastrophe. All of them could have been lies. That's the beauty of it all for me. They are all equally unfair. I think that's *partially* source of all the rage - you can't truly win.

Modifié par Beregar, 13 mars 2012 - 04:20 .

[Kloborgg711]

Um because there's absolutely no reason given as to why Synthesis would work beyond "everyone's the same.. pinnacle of evolution.. uh... no more war!"

[Wattoes]

The synthesis option was the most ridiculous thing ive heard in my entire life and is one of the many reasons I hate the ending. I actually burst out laughing when the kid said it and officially stopped giving a f*** what happened.

Mass Effect went from being a believable sci-fi universe to god damn space magic.

[Beregar]

Tecumseh420 wrote...

Synthesis.......as in Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The Hegelian Dialectic. Being given the illusion of choice. A sucker born every minute. You have bought a transhumanist agenda. Lemme guess, you also thought the Genophage ( eugenics ) was a good thing.

Also about this. Genophage may not have been ethical choice but it may have been good for the galaxy. It stopped Krogan from destroying everyone else. I don't like it - in fact I loathe the idea and had it lifted, but I've also trust the salarians knew what they did when they did. No one has ever said right choices are easy to make or ethical.

One of the hardest decision in the ME3 for me was the Rachni queen that had been infected by reapers. I chose to save the Rachni in original ME playthrough because I felt they deserve a second chance but lost the savegame. When it came to decision I spent minutes flicking back and forth because I wanted to save her but didn't think she could be saved. I chose to let her die and it still bothers me.

Another hard decision was to decide between Quarians and the Geth. I initially went with letting Geth destroy Quarians, then loaded back and saved Quarians. Entire species got destroyed either way. It felt bad.

As for eugenics. What about the reapers? If you choose the destruction path you have chosen the path of eugenics. You choose to destroy a form of life that has existed millions of years. Synthetic life which only purpose is to preserve other life - through amazingly horrible methods. Yet do they deserve to be wiped out?

[Kloborgg711]

Beregar wrote...
Synthetic life which only purpose is to preserve other life - through amazingly horrible methods. Yet do they deserve to be wiped out?

Usually I don't give second thoughts as to whether or not mass galactic genocide is "justified".

Also, we're not committing genocide on the Reapers, we're killing them one-by-one through self-defense on an individual basis. If there was a single Reaper who didn't go around killing millions, and we killed him, then you might have a point. 

[Tallestra]

Beregar wrote...

As for eugenics. What about the reapers? If you choose the destruction path you have chosen the path of eugenics. You choose to destroy a form of life that has existed millions of years. Synthetic life which only purpose is to preserve other life - through amazingly horrible methods. Yet do they deserve to be wiped out?

I wanted the ending where I could make peace with Reapers...

[Beregar]

Kloborgg711 wrote...

Usually I don't give second thoughts as to whether or not mass galactic genocide is "justified".

Also, we're not committing genocide on the Reapers, we're killing them one-by-one through self-defense on an individual basis. If there was a single Reaper who didn't go around killing millions, and we killed him, then you might have a point.

Destruction choice wipes them all out. It's a genocide regardless of what people think. Why is it morally better than choosing to save Krogran when there's an alternative? This is most likely why the blue choice is to control reapers (which is incidently the synthesis ending but for reapers alone - you take away their free will if they ever had one).

Based on your judgment any Krogan who ever killed member of another species should be killed as well. Hell, any human who killed members of another species should be killed. Krogan rebellion had potential to lead deaths of entire species - same as reapers albeit perhaps not on as large scale.

Obviously people are going to emphatize with Krogans because the game gives no first hand indication of the horrors of Krogan rebellion while we get to experience them as living, breathing species with mothers and young. Their war is a thing of the past. Reapers are present, they are alien looking monsters with horrible inhuman method to approach a noble agenda. Of course most people want revenge on them. It's very human after all but that was not the point of my argument anyway.

Modifié par Beregar, 13 mars 2012 - 04:57 .

[Bigdoser]

As garrus said as long as 1 person is standing after the war thats a win everyone set out to destroy the reapers and not doing that to me is betrayal. If there is a heaven and you picked control or synthesis I bet javik would be really pissed off at shepard and everyone else who died fighting.

I followed legion advice at the end of me2 when I destroyed the collector base. As legion said "An interesting choice shepard commander. Your species was offered everything geth aspire to. True unity, understanding and Transcendence. You rejected it.. you even refused the possibility of using the old machines gifts to achieve it on your own species terms. You are more like us than we thought.

This is why I support the indoctrination theory because the catalyst implies that the destroy ending will kill Shepard yet he/she is alive lying in rubble and the background looks like london. As my renegade Shepard said "Trying to comprimise or understand the reapers is a sure fire way to get yourself indoctrinated!, I am going to send the reapers straight to hell!".

I don't know why some people would want to comprimise with the thing that kills civilisations and if everyone dies on earth? so be it as long as the reapers are gone that means future cycles don't have to live in fear of the reapers. Remember crucible means severe test or trial and I think the ending is a test of shepard's resolve does shepard faulter and comprimises with the thing she/he has been fighting all this time or attempt to control them?(remember how that turned out for TIM and Saren) Or does he/she keep pushing to the original goal?

This is just my opinion you are free to disagree.  

[General User]

Genocide is an emotionally loaded term. While it technically does apply to wiping out the Reapers, it should only be used in context and with explanation. Namely that the Reapers choose to wage a war of extermination against the rest of the galaxy.

Also consider: since the Reapers were under the control of the StarKid, they arguably did not have the ability to surrender. If they could not make their own decisions than they really were nothing more than machines (albeit machines with an unusual manufacturing process). Thus wiping them all out is morally nothing more than destroying all the enemy's ships or weapons.

Bottom line: wiping out the Reapers is either perfectly justifiable genocide, or not genocide at all.  Either way, "destroy" is the correct choice.

Modifié par General User, 13 mars 2012 - 05:34 .

[Sonashi]

Bigdoser wrote...

As garrus said as long as 1 person is standing after the war thats a win everyone set out to destroy the reapers and not doing that to me is betrayal. If there is a heaven and you picked control or synthesis I bet javik would be really pissed off at shepard and everyone else who died fighting.

I followed legion advice at the end of me2 when I destroyed the collector base. As legion said "An interesting choice shepard commander. Your species was offered everything geth aspire to. True unity, understanding and Transcendence. You rejected it.. you even refused the possibility of using the old machines gifts to achieve it on your own species terms. You are more like us than we thought.

This is why I support the indoctrination theory because the catalyst implies that the destroy ending will kill Shepard yet he/she is alive lying in rubble and the background looks like london. As my renegade Shepard said "Trying to comprimise or understand the reapers is a sure fire way to get yourself indoctrinated!, I am going to send the reapers straight to hell!".

I don't know why some people would want to comprimise with the thing that kills civilisations and if everyone dies on earth? so be it as long as the reapers are gone that means future cycles don't have to live in fear of the reapers. Remember crucible means severe test or trial and I think the ending is a test of shepard's resolve does shepard faulter and comprimises with the thing she/he has been fighting all this time or attempt to control them?(remember how that turned out for TIM and Saren) Or does he/she keep pushing to the original goal?

This is just my opinion you are free to disagree.  

thank you sir, I agree with you 100%

ALSO interesting theory:

"Also, another "Tree" pic from after the Harbinger blast. Although, my
trees were in the middle of the battlefield not left or right."

kent80082006 wrote...

For those who missed it, let me bring up something that is probably buried under about a hundred pages.

If you have a low EMS, the starchild says in an angry tone "Why are you here"
If you have a high EMS, the starchild says in a less intimidating tone "Wake up"

My
explanation is if Shepherd could only gather a small fleet (low EMS)
then he obviously didn't live up to the reapers' expectation, they will
deem him unworthy of indoctrinating, which is why the starchild said
'why are you here' (assuming the whole choices thing is an attempt to
indoctrinate him). In this scenario, Shepherd is expandable to the
reapers.

However if shepherd could gather a strong fleet (high
EMS), then the reapers will deem Shepherd as a potential threat, they
see power in Shpeherd that they can't comprehend, it's only natural that
they would want to posses his powers to ensure successful harvest in
future cycles, which is why they presented him with the control and
sythesis option, since those two choices will allow the reapers to fully
indoctrinate him.

Makes sense?

Modifié par Sonashi, 13 mars 2012 - 05:25 .

[Texhnolyze101]

IsaacShep wrote...

Forgetting about all the plotholes why did the Normandy ended up on the jungle planet, I'm REALLY liking the synthesis ending. it requires Shep to sacrifice himself completely (in control ending it's just the body), yet seeing EDI and Joker smile and how life got trasformed was just beautiful.

Its fake don't believe that for a second that's what harbinger and that kid want you to think.

[Beregar]

General User wrote...

Genocide is an emotionally loaded term. While it technically does apply to wiping out the Reapers, it should only be used in context and with explanation. Namely that the Reapers choose to wage a war of extermination against the rest of the galaxy.

Also consider: since the Reapers were under the control of the StarKid, they arguably did not have the ability to surrender. If they could not make their own decisions than they really were nothing more than machines (albeit machines with an unusual manufacturing process). Thus wiping them all out is morally nothing more than destroying all the enemy's ships or weapons.

How about complete and total extinction of entire species?

Anyhow, I can accept that argument. Yet based on Shepard's interaction with them and the way how the reaper tech uplifted Geth to true AI status you could get the impression they are true artificial intelligences. I guess it's potentially even worse for them. They might be slaves of the Star Kid. Still I'd consider the destruction path if it also didn't wipe out EDI and Geth (though ironically my earlier choice ended up wiping them out anyway) because in this instance I might be ready for reaper genocide. Still at the same time I would wipe out the last remnants of species that came before. Their extinction would be truly complete then.

My argument was mostly centered around Krogan genophage anyway. People feel it was unjustified yet based on all I've seen in the lore they could have ended up wiping out other species as well. Not an ethical choice but could have been a right one.

[General User]

Beregar wrote...
Still I'd consider the destruction path if it also didn't wipe out EDI and Geth (though ironically my earlier choice ended up wiping them out anyway) because in this instance I might be ready for reaper genocide.

In that case, have no fear and destroy away!  The StarKid was wrong about the destroy ending killing Shepard, why should it be right about it killing EDI or the geth?

Beregar wrote...
Still at the same time I would wipe out the last remnants of species that came before. Their extinction would be truly complete then.

I think Shepard put it best when talking to the Reaper on Rannoch: "Whatever species you were made from died a long time ago.  Now they can finally rest in peace."

Or like they used to say on Buffy the Vampire Slayer (edited for Mass Effect of course:)), "when you fight a [Reaper] you're not fighting that [species they were made from], you're fighting the thing that killed them."

Modifié par General User, 13 mars 2012 - 05:50 .

[Tecumseh420]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Tecumseh420 wrote...

Synthesis.......as in Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The Hegelian Dialectic. Being given the illusion of choice. A sucker born every minute. You have bought a transhumanist agenda. Lemme guess, you also thought the Genophage ( eugenics ) was a good thing.

 

I was waiting for someone to get that whole set up... glad I'm not the only who caught it .

Its hard to miss. I'm sure theres more than a few who picked up on this.