296 réponses à ce sujet

[Pottumuusi]

Baronesa wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...

So the omniscience part was to distinguish this hypothetical from real life, in which case I think that of course murderers should be imprisoned, because they will likely kill again, and imprisonment will prevent that. It however has nothing to do with punishing them.

And this is the problem.

I am for personal responsability, that means everyone should be held accountable for their actions, that can ONLY happen ex post facto.

What you are advocating is punishing people for actions they have not even performed, the difference is that you call it prevention. And it also seems that for you the past actions bear no weight as long as the future is different.

In your view, a person kills 10 people, but then due to many circumstance, you know that person will never kill again or commit any crime, according to YOUR criteria, such person should remain free.

In the other extreme, a person has never commited a crime, but you know for sure it will eventually kill 10 people, so you lock that person up so he does not kill those 10 people.


Do you see where the problem lies?


You are discarding personal responsability, people are not responsible for their actions, they can do as they please cause they are not held accountable for whatever they have done, however you do hold them accountable for what they MAY or may not do.

You can't fix the past, but you can make the future a better place.

Murderers can't be responsible. Murderers are not sensible people, they are mentally sick. If someone murders another person, I can't trust them ever again.


Of course I wouldn't extend this kind of thinking to things like tax fraud or other white-collar crimes because people who do things like that can be mentally healthy and pretty normal, so they are not neccesarily likely to repeat their offence. And if they do then it doesn't mean THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE!

[AngryFrozenWater]

Good OP, The Angry One.

According to the codex all intelligent life in a stellar system is killed when a mass relay that is part of it explodes. Because in all three endings we see all the relays explode that could mean the end of a large part of the galactic civilization. Whatever remains is thrown back to the dark ages. It will take time to recover, because technology was never "ours". That happens in any ending. Mass murder in any end. It feels like the reapers won after all. Let's see what the extended cut has to say about that.

And yes, synthesis is mislabeled. It is the best ending, not for us, but for the reapers. It's like a thank you for all the genocides. The reapers fly away unpunished. Uncountable genocides seem to be no problem. Control is very similar. It's even more weird. You die, but somehow you still have control? What have you become? A god-like immortal safeguard for when it goes wrong? Sigh. Destroying them is nonsensical too, because it destroys the geth and EDI. That may be an option for those who didn't get along with synthetics, but in my ME2 and ME3 runs, I got along with them just fine.

Synthesis also assumes some kind of genetic memory. Shepard's experiences, wishes and values have to be transferred to the DNA that will be shared by all which then magically propagates her morals. Synthetics do not have DNA, so that is a new problem. How is that supposed to work? Again, an interesting problem for the extended cut to explain that.

As a player none of these solutions work for me. Especially the synthesis and control variants, because Shepard will cease to exist. There is no victory for me when I die at the end of the game. No friendships. No romance. It's game over.

Synthesis is also not an option, because it changes who and what people are. In ME my Shepards fight for diversity and individual freedom. Synthesis turns these individuals into a indistinguishable grey pulp of sentient biotechnical beings that somehow should bring heaven to the galaxy. No thanks.

[nitefyre410]

jengelb1 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...
*snip*  

QFT.

That's exactly why I find the idea of freeing the Reapers from the Catalyst's control appealing. The species contained in them wouldn't have any reason to be hostile to the organics, and in fact the Synthesis ending shows that they aren't because they leave on their own.  In fact, you could reasonably argue that they could become allies. 

If that is true, they're most likely leaving to kill themselves.

Think about it, could you live with yourself if you had the blood of billions on your hands?:

I doubt many of us could. I'm not sure I'd want to know the people who could...

 

Maybe or maybe I go back the dark space and just disappear... or maybe i do a Doc Manhattan go to another galaxy and seed  life  instead of destroying it.. or maybe I just fly in a black hole.  I prefer the  Doc Mahattan approach myself. 
 

Really the problem  with this whole discussion is  that its all just shooting blind.  We can't really Synthesis makes everyone a  Reaper because that really does not pass the eye test.. You can't it  can't because that does pass the ear and what we know about the  Reapers already.   We are all just guessing the very nature of something that is never explained  in detail and its completely counter to the nature of  the  Reapers established in the fire 2 games.. 

I Really hate these damn endings. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 08 avril 2012 - 10:11 .

[firebladec]

DJBare wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

They're not Reapers.

-Synthesis races are individuals, synthetic and organic, who are perfected evolutionary hybrids.  They are the same people and things they were Pre-Synthesis, but "better."
-The Reapers are also perfected evolutionary hybrids, but are war machines doubling as space arks, created with the consciousness and DNA of millions and billions of a single race.  They're a twisted memorial and enslaved beings that execute a plan.

Okay, let me put this in a way that is more logical, I choose not to be merged, your argument against my choice is?

you might create a von neumann machine and destroy the universe

Modifié par firebladec, 08 avril 2012 - 10:08 .

[Varus Praetor]

I wanted a "Reapers win" ending because I thought that would be cool and ballsy of BW. I didn't want it to also make my character commit a crime of unthinkable proportions. Oh well. I guess I'm just not "artistic" enough.

[jengelb1]

soulprovider wrote...

SnakesSon wrote...

EvilMind wrote...

I have no idea what are you talking about, I think Synthesis is best option. So far I dont see any good argument against it in this thread. I'd love to hear facts why you think its bad, only facts, not vague assumptions

I swear I'm making the rounds against Synthesis today, but here goes.

1-You're rewriting the DNA of not just one species, but everyone in the galaxy without their permission. This is kind of a dick move.
    -not to mention that its almost impossible to make an evolutionary change and goes completely against the science of the game.

2-Homogenizing an entire galaxy is bad. This will curb different opinions, advancements in technology, or idealogies completely. Javik even says that's why his empire fell in the end.
         - absoluetely correct 
3-You're doing close to what Saren wanted in the first place; compromising with the Reapers to make sure they don't kill all of us, just enslave us. Nice.
       -I personally think bioware forgot about mass effect 1's story otherwise start child would have never been in the game it completely invalidates the first games story.

4-Synthetics weren't killing Organics because they weren't Synthetic. That makes no sense from a logical standpoint, and the Geth knew it. They were simply defending themselves from the bloodthirsty Quarians who couldn't handle having their creations become smart.
       -It almost seems like the catalyst is thinking from an irrational organic point of view but once again is contradicted by both harbringer and sovereign. "Mass efffect 1+2" we've dismissed those claims

5-There's no guarantee someone won't build another Synthetic race that decides it's time to kill the partly synthetic humans.
    - theres no garruntee about anything.

6-It's racist. It's racist. It's RACIST. This one needed a lot of emphasis.
    - agreed, it basically states that diversity will result in destruction and to be diverse will kill you all. I'm no fan of the word diversity because we've lost our culture here but to say that its an absolute evil is taking it too far.

7-It goes against key themes in the Mass Effect trilogy. One of the main themes is unification of all people despite, and indeed because of their differences. The differences of the species gives them powerful advantages used to win wars. If this wasn't a key theme, please explain to me why we spent half of the game forging alliances between the aliens.
     -agreed though I think your not taking it far enough, it destroys the entire franchise in 10 minutes.

8-What the hell is everyone going to eat now that EVERYTHING is partly synthetic? How far did you go in butchering the genetic code of an entire galaxy? How does anything work? How will people reproduce? How will EDI and Joker repopulate a planet? WHAT?!
                 -there synthetic hunger is not needed, basically your machine parts will supplement your organic parts........ I know it doesn't make sense but this is what biowares going to try anf go with. just watch.

I think that's quite enough. If you have any problems with my points, feel free to acknowledge them so I can counter-argue. I could do this all day.

Edit: Oh, and as Zix13 said right above me, Starchild, the 'god' who is imposing these horrific choices on you, is pretty jazzed about Synthesis. That's enough alone for most people to steer clear.

So many issues with the ending, apart from it destroying the frranchise story line, it doesn't even make sense on its own rules. which were established with 14 lines of dialogue. did a 5 year old write this what the hell.

I doubt a 5-year old wrote it.

The ending is filled with that unique brand of pretentious stupidity only the very intelligent can conjure up.

[Baronesa]

I'm speechless Pottumuussi...

I just cannot convey how morally repulsive your stance is to me... I'm simply to stunned.

EDIT:

Not every murderer is mentally usntable or ill... that statement is demostrably false.

Modifié par Baronesa, 08 avril 2012 - 10:12 .

[Pottumuusi]

Baronesa wrote...

I'm speechless Pottumuussi...

I just cannot convey how morally repulsive your stance is to me... I'm simply to stunned.

Same to you, mate.

Not every murderer is mentally usntable or ill... that statement is demostrably false.

Have at it.

Modifié par Pottumuusi, 08 avril 2012 - 10:13 .

[Ieldra]

jengelb1 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...
The Reapers were as much a victim of the Catalyst as any husk or banshee; they aren't culpable for any crimes they committed while under its influence. It's simple logic to assume that they're controlled in a similar manner to the aforementioned creatures, the star child doesn't have ethical qualms, it simply follows its directive to preserve organic life and it does so in the most efficient manner possible. That doesn't really allow for dissent, if a Reaper could choose whether or not to follow orders, not only would that reduce their overall military effectiveness, but it could endanger the Catalyst's project. It has been demonstrated through out the series, that the Reapers or whatever compels them have no respect for the sanctity of individuals' bodies or minds, there's no reason that this shouldn't apply to the Reapers themselves, now that they've been revealed to be merely subordinates. It is true that they're still allowed some measure of sapience, unlike the lesser creatures, in line with their role as the arks preserving species and civilizations, but it's likely limited.

I think the strongest argument for their not being in control of their own faculties, is simply that it would make little sense for them to do so. Reapers' intellects are constructed from the gestalt minds of billions of disparate individuals from many cultures, not only that, each individual ship is created from a different species, each with it's own idiosyncratic viewpoint. Does it make any sense that these heterogeneous creatures would all follow a uniform agenda? It is difficult enough to reconcile groups of humans together, let alone these bizarre beings. It's quite strange to imagine them even wanting to perpetuate that goal. We know from Chakwas and Chambers that the preamble to being harvested is horrific; given that it's likely that something of an individual survives liquefaction, why would an organism that has billions of copies of that memory wish to inflict that upon others? Some of the Reapers should have qualms, that they don't is indicative of control, whether in the Jesuit educational sense, or simple domination

QFT.

That's exactly why I find the idea of freeing the Reapers from the Catalyst's control appealing. The species contained in them wouldn't have any reason to be hostile to the organics, and in fact the Synthesis ending shows that they aren't because they leave on their own.  In fact, you could reasonably argue that they could become allies. 

If that is true, they're most likely leaving to kill themselves.

Think about it, could you live with yourself if you had the blood of billions on your hands?:

I doubt many of us could. I'm not sure I'd want to know the people who could...

That would be regrettable, but it would be their choice. I certainly wouldn't kill myself for doing things while mind-controlled.

[Balek-Vriege]

DJBare wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

They're not Reapers.

-Synthesis races are individuals, synthetic and organic, who are perfected evolutionary hybrids.  They are the same people and things they were Pre-Synthesis, but "better."
-The Reapers are also perfected evolutionary hybrids, but are war machines doubling as space arks, created with the consciousness and DNA of millions and billions of a single race.  They're a twisted memorial and enslaved beings that execute a plan.

Okay, let me put this in a way that is more logical, I choose not to be merged, your argument against my choice is?

That's not the issue. They're not Reapers physically, mentally or empathetically.

There is no argument against your choice because you do not have one in this ending, which is a different issue all together.  In the case of that issue you're correct. The problem with Synthesis isn't the ending itself (that all beings will be evil or abominations of some sort.  The result seems to be the best of all worlds), but the moral/ethical question of Shepard making a choice for the Galaxy on that scale.  A choice which ethically is similar to making people Reapers (deciding their fate) without actually killing anyone in the process.  See my post at the top of page 9.

jengelb1 wrote...

soulprovider wrote...

SnakesSon wrote...

EvilMind wrote...

I have no idea what are you talking about, I think Synthesis is best option. So far I dont see any good argument against it in this thread. I'd love to hear facts why you think its bad, only facts, not vague assumptions

I swear I'm making the rounds against Synthesis today, but here goes.

1-You're rewriting the DNA of not just one species, but everyone in the galaxy without their permission. This is kind of a dick move.
-not to mention that its almost impossible to make an evolutionary change and goes completely against the science of the game.

2-Homogenizing an entire galaxy is bad. This will curb different opinions, advancements in technology, or idealogies completely. Javik even says that's why his empire fell in the end.
- absoluetely correct
3-You're doing close to what Saren wanted in the first place; compromising with the Reapers to make sure they don't kill all of us, just enslave us. Nice.
-I personally think bioware forgot about mass effect 1's story otherwise start child would have never been in the game it completely invalidates the first games story.

4-Synthetics weren't killing Organics because they weren't Synthetic. That makes no sense from a logical standpoint, and the Geth knew it. They were simply defending themselves from the bloodthirsty Quarians who couldn't handle having their creations become smart.
-It almost seems like the catalyst is thinking from an irrational organic point of view but once again is contradicted by both harbringer and sovereign. "Mass efffect 1+2" we've dismissed those claims

5-There's no guarantee someone won't build another Synthetic race that decides it's time to kill the partly synthetic humans.
- theres no garruntee about anything.

6-It's racist. It's racist. It's RACIST. This one needed a lot of emphasis.
- agreed, it basically states that diversity will result in destruction and to be diverse will kill you all. I'm no fan of the word diversity because we've lost our culture here but to say that its an absolute evil is taking it too far.

7-It goes against key themes in the Mass Effect trilogy. One of the main themes is unification of all people despite, and indeed because of their differences. The differences of the species gives them powerful advantages used to win wars. If this wasn't a key theme, please explain to me why we spent half of the game forging alliances between the aliens.
-agreed though I think your not taking it far enough, it destroys the entire franchise in 10 minutes.

8-What the hell is everyone going to eat now that EVERYTHING is partly synthetic? How far did you go in butchering the genetic code of an entire galaxy? How does anything work? How will people reproduce? How will EDI and Joker repopulate a planet? WHAT?!
-there synthetic hunger is not needed, basically your machine parts will supplement your organic parts........ I know it doesn't make sense but this is what biowares going to try anf go with. just watch.

I think that's quite enough. If you have any problems with my points, feel free to acknowledge them so I can counter-argue. I could do this all day.

Edit: Oh, and as Zix13 said right above me, Starchild, the 'god' who is imposing these horrific choices on you, is pretty jazzed about Synthesis. That's enough alone for most people to steer clear.

So many issues with the ending, apart from it destroying the frranchise story line, it doesn't even make sense on its own rules. which were established with 14 lines of dialogue. did a 5 year old write this what the hell.

I doubt a 5-year old wrote it.

The ending is filled with that unique brand of pretentious stupidity only the very intelligent can conjure up.

There's a lot wrong with all of the above.  Logic jumps, major assumptions based off little and factual innaccuracies.  But to each their own.

Late Edit: Fixed a fix for a typo.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 08 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[kimuji]

The Angry One wrote...

kimuji wrote...

How do you expect to sue, put the Reapers on a trial or punish them? We are not even sure they have any free will. They're not even a civilization (they don't have cilvilians, citizens, art, culture, spirituality etc...). The Starchild basically says they are mere tools (though like everything he says it could also be just a lie). I'm not even sure they can feel guilt. I see them more like a huge technological disaster or natural predators than criminals. Even the Geth are by far a more advanced society than the Reapers.

Whether they're under control or not, Reapers like Harbinger have revelled in their actions. Reapers like Sovereign are full of contempt for anything that is not a Reaper. Even common Destroyers seek to condescend to organics.
They are essentially worthless creatures who's sole defining trait is unbelievable malice.

I think we can't reason with them. At least we can't do it with true Reapers like Sovereign and Harbinger, it is clear they spit on organics, especially Sovereign (his speech on Virmire is pretty eloquent). The Starchild... well I can't tell we really don't know enough about him, there are too many holes about him and he contradicts some of Sovereigns' statements. So really I don't know what to think about him besides that Sovereign and Harbinger were much more charismatic.

Reapers (let's put aside the starchild's particular case) can't be convinced and they are not open for any kind of negociations, that's what I think. They have their goal and won't accept anything else. I don't think there is room for "punishment" because they'll die trying or maybe operate a tactical retreat if we hit them hard enough and they realize they're losing, but in that case no wonder they'll be back to finish their job. They'll always try to pursue their goal no matter what.  They are not like facists officers you can put in a cell and judge, the punishment question is somewhat irrelevant, we can only stop them once for all.

Modifié par kimuji, 08 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[ticklefist]

I've been noticing that a lot of the discussion about the implications of each option is starting to go into that same area as those uncomfortable drunken debates you have with friends about politics and religion at 3am.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

DJBare wrote...

savionen wrote...

DJBare wrote...
The reaper do NOT leave in synthesis! "ALL ORGANIC AND SYNTHETIC LIFE IS MERGED"; the galaxy's population are now REAPERS.

And because of this, Reapers are still basically.... superior synthetic-organics. Maybe they'll be like "Well, the reign of terror is now over..... it's time for a new reign of terror not restricted by the Catalyst!"

They have no need for anymore reign of terror, their intentions were sincere whether we agree with it or not, to stop the chaos, their ultimate goal "ascension" is achieved through synthesis.

They're not Reapers.

-Synthesis races are individuals, synthetic and organic, who are perfected evolutionary hybrids.  They are the same people and things they were Pre-Synthesis, but "better."
-The Reapers are also perfected evolutionary hybrids, but are war machines doubling as space arks, created with the consciousness and DNA of millions and billions of a single race.  They're a twisted memorial and enslaved beings that execute a plan.

With synthesis the Reapers no longer have a purpose. I just cannot stomach the idea of The Synthesis Ending. The idea that this is presented as a sort of utopian ideal is sickening. What is "better" about them? And are they really the same people they were before? 

Say you were very creative because you had to think of ways to overcome a particular limitation of yours. Now that limitation no longer exists. Will you still be creative? Perhaps. But will you still be as creative? Perhaps not. All advancement due to overcoming limitations. Art. Science. Culture. Engineering. Communication. No limitations. No advancement.

[kimuji]

forsaken gamer wrote...
I disagree.  I don't believe that.  It's probably just miscommunication.  We just need to talk things out with them.

They gladly turn you into a husk and then they'll agree to speak with you. 

[Pottumuusi]

ticklefist wrote...

I've been noticing that a lot of the discussion about the implications of each option is starting to go into that same area as those uncomfortable drunken debates you have with friends about politics and religion at 3am.

Oh but those are the best.


-----------------------------------


Really Baronesa, come on, tell me how murderers can be normal and reasonable people.

I though you would have put up a stronger defence than this against my apparently reprehensible moral stance.

[Morph.hu]

well, since synthesis is a fusion of organics and synthetics, i always imagined that Joker will merge with the normandy, and so on. very much like the Master in Fallout 1:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Master

THAT would have been a real merge, and that would have been quite horrible indeed.

Still, we got space magic BS, which is FORCED on the whole galaxy by ONE man. Sounds COMPLETELY like the first Witcher game's main antagonist's intention. Which does not look good coming from Shepard, the hero of the galaxy.

[Balek-Vriege]

Morph.hu wrote...

well, since synthesis is a fusion of organics and synthetics, i always imagined that Joker will merge with the normandy, and so on. very much like the Master in Fallout 1:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Master

THAT would have been a real merge, and that would have been quite horrible indeed.

Still, we got space magic BS, which is FORCED on the whole galaxy by ONE man. Sounds COMPLETELY like the first Witcher game's main antagonist's intention. Which does not look good coming from Shepard, the hero of the galaxy.

Which is perfectly fine for you to think and why you can choose Destroy or Control.  However, saying that Synthesis has horrible implications for the future is most likely not true.  It's probably the exact opposite, but it takes throwing ethics and morality about freedom of choice out the window because of the scale of Shepard's forced evolutionary...  energy.

[nitefyre410]

 If this was some crapsack  dystopian   Galaxy where  everything was FUBAR beyond belief and the only way for like to  continue was to hit the gaint   Universal Creation Reset DNA  Button. Then Synsthesis would work - 

Problem is that   this is not some  crapsack dystopian galaxy where things are FUBAR   

[jengelb1]

nitefyre410 wrote...

 If this was some crapsack  dystopian   Galaxy where  everything was FUBAR beyond belief and the only way for like to  continue was to hit the gaint   Universal Creation Reset DNA  Button. Then Synsthesis would work - 

Problem is that   this is not some  crapsack dystopian galaxy where things are FUBAR   

This.

I feel like a stepped into the ending of an entirely different game.

And in that game, the ending I got may have been utterly brilliant.

But it wasn't Mass Effect.

[Balek-Vriege]

nitefyre410 wrote...

 If this was some crapsack  dystopian   Galaxy where  everything was FUBAR beyond belief and the only way for like to  continue was to hit the gaint   Universal Creation Reset DNA  Button. Then Synsthesis would work - 

Problem is that   this is not some  crapsack dystopian galaxy where things are FUBAR   

No it doesn't have to be that bad  like Warhammer 40K bad (where the Tau fill a similar moral/ethical hole as Synthesis does).  The things going in the Galaxy, especially when it comes to the Reapers, is more than enough to think about Synthesis.  You may disagree with the ethics about the choice, but it doesn't make the possible results any less valid.

[spartan5127]

Agreed. No way the reapers can get away with their unfathomable war crimes scott free. That would be like letting a murderer go because he killed someone but he uses some illogical argument to show that that person was the only person he will ever kill.

[killnoob]

the most horrible implication of synthesis is that within 14 lines of dialogue, Shepard becomes OK with Harbinger and Sovereign's hogwash and actually think it is a good idea to do so...


Sovereign: LOL LOOK AT YOU NOW....

Harbinger: I TOLD YOU THAT YOU CANNOT RESIST US...

Modifié par killnoob, 08 avril 2012 - 10:47 .

[kimuji]

killnoob wrote...

 the most horrible implication of synthesis is that within 14 lines of dialogue, Shepard becomes OK with Harbinger and Sovereign's hogwash and actually think it is a good idea to do so...

That's why we need a modified outcome for the red ending in the upcoming DLC, to dismiss the starchild and reapers claims. 

[mcsupersport]

How many people would accept an ending that starts out.....

All dark colored people will murder all non-dark skinned people and thus the only solution is to wipe out all people to save the rest of the world. Now you are here, we can offer to merge everyone into a new form and they will all me half-dark/half-light. Other than that, you can kill only the dark skinned, but they may come back later, or you can control the weapons that will be used to kill everyone.

Put like that it is extremely racist, and the forced merging goes against individuality and free choice. To even think to accept the racist statements of the Catalyst is repugnant to me, above and beyond the fact that Synthesis takes space magic to even make it possible.