296 réponses à ce sujet

[UrgentArchengel]

Pottumuusi wrote...

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.

Let me help...It depends on context.  If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to kill them in self defense, you are a killer but not mentally unstable.  I will agree that if somebody tries to inadvertently kill somebody under first degree and what not, must have a problem somewhere.

[nitefyre410]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

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.

 

I could care less about the Ethics...  the choice itself does not belong or fit the tone of the game..  All the endings are a forced reset button ending a story universe where they don't belong... thats why the Mood Whiplash  is as bad as it is.   

Starscraft universe is more dsytopian than the Mass Effects and there was not reset button ending there. 

Edited. 
 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 08 avril 2012 - 11:04 .

[AtlasMickey]

The Angry One wrote...

I've been thinking about this, and we already know the moral implications of forcing a new paradigm on trillions of beings along with basically following Saren's vision.

Aside from that, we have the fact that the Reapers get away with it.
Now, I'm of the opinion that the Reaper agenda succeeds in any end, but at least in destroy and control you can at least think that the Reapers are held to account.
In destroy, the Reapers are dead. In control, you can reason that Shepard will have them all kill themselves, or use them as a force for good or whatever.
With synthesis they just leave. Presumably as "free" as any one else. That doesn't sit  right with me.

Controlled or not, indoctrinated or not, they are mass murderers. They revel in cruelty and torture.
Harbinger alone is a war criminal of such appalling scope that he'd make any human war criminal in our entire history shriek in terror. Yet with synthesis presumably he flies off to live his life. So long, good luck?

The Reapers win ending is in the game alright, it's just mislabelled as the "best" ending.

Good on you to admit that you are presuming. Who is to say that Harbringer is not tried as a war criminal? Synthesis even allows him to be tried by a jury of his peers. That's not possible in any other ending. A war crimes tribunal is only possible in Synthesis. 

I'm usually defending the Synthesis ending against the claim that it robs the entire galaxy of their free will, a claim for which I see utterly no merit, but you make a different claim here. You say that the galaxy is "forced into a new paradigm," something wtih which I can agree. We may not agree on the specifics (e.g. does this new paradigm mean no one can choose to be purely organic? I say no whereas you might say yes) but genreally speaking, yes. This is a new way of life, with new choices, and radically more options.

New technological paradigms are "forced" on civilizations as a matter of course. Once a new more efficient means of computation is discovered, it can't be ignored. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. We can't go back to using vacuum tubes, even if we wanted to, because it's not sustainable en masse. Maybe there are some hobbyists who choose to do it for fun, but as a practical way of life that integrates with modern civilization, it's not possible. So too will this be with purely organic intelligence someday. New discoveries and inventions, which in Mass Effect 3 are depicted by the Crucible, will one day cause an intelligence revolution which cannot be undone. 

Who is forcing these new paradigms on us? Is it Shepard? No, not really. New paradigms come and go because they are not sustainable. Nature and the raw economics of life drives people to look for new options and smarter ways of doing things. People can slow this process down through destructive or coericive force. In the real world that's war and communism. In ME3 Shepard can choose destroy or control (i.e. coercion) to slow this down, but someday technologies like the ones used in the Crucible will be rediscovered and rebuilt. 

That's right, I just implied that the other two endings are far more forceful than Synthesis. By not choosing Synthesis, you are forcing an old paradigm on a thousand different islands of civilization for who knows how many years. You are robbing them of the potential for new intelligence, extended lives, greater freedom, better health, and all the positive things that come from new technological paradigms, including greater justice.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 08 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[Pottumuusi]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...

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.

Let me help...It depends on context.  If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to kill them in self defense, you are a killer but not mentally unstable.  I will agree that if somebody tries to inadvertently kill somebody under first degree and what not, must have a problem somewhere.

I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about murder and not justifiable homicide or some such.

[ManiacalShen]

EvilMind wrote...

Noone is playing god, you got three options from which you have to choose. Like it or not, all 3 options affect all organic life in the galaxy.

I don't see how someone can put those two sentences next to each other in any seriousness.

On a separate note: The ME universe has addressed the question of forced evolution before.  I recently read the Evolution comic series, where an artifact evolves people to their physical pinnacle while indoctrinating their minds.  It doesn't go well.

Much like how previous ME content tells us that homogenizing people is bad... and how synthetics and organics can work together... and that questioning authority is good.  Good gravy, it's like they were trying to break as many themes as possible at once.

[flexxdk]

Every time I see the Synthesis ending, I hear Mordin saying "No soul. Replaced by tech."

That said, I went with Destroy. (Though my first ending was "The Crucible was destroyed!" because I was confused about where the Destroy option was.)

I believe that Synthesis is unethical. Or something.

[Orthodox Infidel]

Pottumuusi wrote...

I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about murder and not justifiable homicide or some such.

It was clear to me that you were saying anyone capable of murder, the crime we know it as, must be mentally ill. This is demonstrably false. Mentally ill people are dramatically less likely to commit murder or any other violent crime. But I understand that such delusions are comforting to some people.

Modifié par Orthodox Infidel, 08 avril 2012 - 11:18 .

[mrderp27]

zou vill do az ze star baby vants!

Modifié par mrderp27, 08 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[mcsupersport]

AtlasMickey wrote...



That's right, I just implied that the other two endings are far more forceful than Synthesis. By not choosing Synthesis, you are forcing an old paradigm on a thousand different islands of civilization for who knows how many years. You are robbing them of the potential for new intelligence, extended lives, greater freedom, better health, and all the positive things that come from new technological paradigms, including greater justice.

Since when does being partly synthetic prevent disease, and add longer life, since germs are now synthetic as well and hardware wears out just like it always does.  You also assume the shift is painless and works perfectly, sort of like a magic wave of a wand to make everything perfect.  To me that is an incredibly lame "just because" statement.  It also doesn't address the issue of a pure synthetic being created and destroying the hybrids.  If you mean the synthesis adds intelligence then it changes the basic brain operating properties of the organics instead of merging them with synthetic parts only.  How far did the upgrades go??  What level of being got upgraded??  Did germs get upgraded to the point they can think??  Will army ants now be a major issue since the hive mind works so much better??  Assumptions are the mutherF----  if you take them to the fullest extent of thinking.


Plus as a side note:  Geth are SOFTWARE, how do they gain a combined dna on electronic pulses of 1s and 0s.  If you are only talking merging the HARDWARE, then it doesn't change the basic issue with the Geth since they are still pure AI, but they just happen to run on a different hardware platform.  If you are stating or believing that humans are now similiar to Geth and thus are only programs that run on hardware then they have fundamentally changed even more and taken away more from orgainics.

[savionen]

@AtlasMickey

Sudden evolution is generally considered disastrous. Not to mention, I'm sure many of the races would rather have died than become half-machine.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Agreed with the OP, and the sentiments that it violates the free will of life in the galaxy.

ALL life in the galaxy.

[Computron2000]

AtlasMickey wrote...
By not choosing Synthesis, you are forcing an old paradigm on a thousand different islands of civilization for who knows how many years. You are robbing them of the potential for new intelligence, extended lives, greater freedom, better health, and all the positive things that come from new technological paradigms, including greater justice.

You cannot force an old paradigm when there was never a new one in the first place. This is called the status quo.

No change != change.

Also, do keep in mind that many of the worst atrocities are all in the name of helping people, such as the Japanese invasion in WW2 was to help other countries economically in their "Co-prosperity sphere". Then there was that german guy in WW2, who wanted to give postive things to the germans.

[Pottumuusi]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...

I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about murder and not justifiable homicide or some such.

It was clear to me that you were saying anyone capable of murder, the crime we know it as, must be mentally ill. This is demonstrably false, if anything, mentally ill people are dramatically less likely to commit murder or any other violent crime. But I understand that such delusions are comforting to some people.

So let me make sure I understand you correctly: In your opinion murderers are reasonable and normal people who can function in society?

I find it pretty hard to believe that you would think that someone who thinks "Yeah, I imagine killing a person might be fun, I'll just go ahead and eviscerate my buddy Bob tomorrow..." is mentally stable.

Remember I'm not talking about justifiable homicide or even killing someone in a fit of rage, I'm talking about first degree murder.


You seem to think that mental illness equals some sort of retardation or incompetence.
First degree murder pretty much requires a lack of empathy which is a mental illness, ask any psychologist.

Murderers are not fit for society, this is something you would think would be pretty easy to get most people to agree on.



Oh, look at the time. Good night for now and thanks for the though provoking discussion.

Modifié par Pottumuusi, 08 avril 2012 - 11:43 .

[TheMerchantMan]

As much as the Reapers rightfully should be admonished, it is worth remembering that inside each of these Reapers is an entire civilization. While they have appeared evil, it's entirely possible that released from the Catalyst's control, the Reapers would actually go back to the cultural values and behaviours of the race they were created from, in essence, the Reapers were just as much slaves to the system as organics were, all under the Catalyst's insane control schemes.

It's a dubious ending, and in all honesty, I would say the Reapers still deserve punishment, whether they were in control or not. Yet I don't think it's necessarily letting them off the hook, if peace is made.

If anything control is the most worrisome, given that we are meant to trust the Reaper's own master that Shepard can indeed control them, but the implication leaves the chance that the Reapers could immediately betray him. If they did, then the cycle repeats all over again. Not only do the Reapers win, the cycle continues.

That said, synthesis doesn't even promise an end to the cycle. Just has the catalyst imply that it won't be needed anymore, the Reapers however are still there, and still quite likely capable of harvesting the galaxy, we assume they won't because it's supposed to be a "good ending" but the reality is the Reapers just should not be trusted.

So. Tl;dr. Yeah. We're pretty much all screwed no matter what ending.

[Skull Bearer]

Pottumuusi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Pottumuusi wrote...


You still didn't answer if you thought we should get revenge on criminals.
In my opinion the only reason to imprison murderers is to keep them from killing people.
You can even give them real food and show them a movie every weekend. It's not like anyone who is ****ed up enough in the head to become a murderer is going to be scared out of it by the possibility of punishment.

It is not a question of revenge. You cannot let someone who's commited crimes on that scale to spend their lives free. It is a disservice to all of their victims.

I don't think there are any good reasons to go after murderers if you know they wont commit any more crimes.
Of course this isn't of relevance in real life, since there is always the possibility that even an old and pathetic Pol Pot will pick up a gun and shoot someone.

However, this kind of thinking is relevant in both my hypothetical and the synthesis ending.

In my hypothetical, you are omniscient and you know this guy wont do anything ever again.

In the syntesis ending it makes sense that the reapers wont attack anyone ever again since the starchild said that this will end the cycle.

So if you think that the reapers should be punished somehow, or that they are getting away with it, it is a question of revenge.

Apologies for the Godwin's violation, but one of the reasons Hitler felt so confident about the whole Final Solution thing was that Turkey in WW1 had gotten away with genocide without repercussion.

[esollus]

I like how everyone is making synthesis out to be something like this:

[LolaLei]

... Well at least they all had a hearty green glow to them. If they'd ended up looking like something out of the movie Virus I would've shat my pants!

Modifié par LolaLei, 08 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Zix13]

TheMerchantMan wrote...

As much as the Reapers rightfully should be admonished, it is worth remembering that inside each of these Reapers is an entire civilization. While they have appeared evil, it's entirely possible that released from the Catalyst's control, the Reapers would actually go back to the cultural values and behaviours of the race they were created from, in essence, the Reapers were just as much slaves to the system as organics were, all under the Catalyst's insane control schemes.

It's a dubious ending, and in all honesty, I would say the Reapers still deserve punishment, whether they were in control or not. Yet I don't think it's necessarily letting them off the hook, if peace is made.

If anything control is the most worrisome, given that we are meant to trust the Reaper's own master that Shepard can indeed control them, but the implication leaves the chance that the Reapers could immediately betray him. If they did, then the cycle repeats all over again. Not only do the Reapers win, the cycle continues.

That said, synthesis doesn't even promise an end to the cycle. Just has the catalyst imply that it won't be needed anymore, the Reapers however are still there, and still quite likely capable of harvesting the galaxy, we assume they won't because it's supposed to be a "good ending" but the reality is the Reapers just should not be trusted.

So. Tl;dr. Yeah. We're pretty much all screwed no matter what ending.

We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. They aren't geth or collectors, they may be servants of the starchild, but ultimately, they are entities confined to each reaper. "Harbinger speaks of you" Would have no meaning if they were controlled directly by starchild. 

[nightsinger]

Zix13 wrote...

We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. They aren't geth or collectors, they may be servants of the starchild, but ultimately, they are entities confined to each reaper. "Harbinger speaks of you" Would have no meaning if they were controlled directly by starchild. 

Might make more sense if the starchild actually IS harbinger. Maybe he is just using the image of the child to disguise his real nature. If that would be the case, Harbinger/starchild might not be the creator of the Reapers but instead just something like their leader (maybe simply the first Reaper).

[Swordfishtrombone]

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'll quote myself from another thread (on the synthesis ending):

An energy wave propagating through the universe, turning every organic and synthetic into an organic/synthetic hybrid? 

HOW? How does a wave of ill-defined "energy" (what form of energy? does this energy have structure?) carry the impossibly complex wealth of information necessary to make the changes in all the variety of organic and synthetic life in the universe?

When the wave meets, say, your average banana plant, where does the synthetic material to make it half synthetic come from, and how is this synthetic material, in practice, incorporated into the genetic and cellular structure of the banana plant to make the cyborg banana?

And the same with synthetics, that don't even have cellular structure and genes - when the wave meets a Geth, what actually happens? How does the energy wave conjure up organic, living material, that is somehow compatible with the Geth synthetic architecture, and then how is it incorporated into that structure?

What about, say, toaster ovens. Do toaster ovens count as "synthetics", and how does the wave differentiate between a toaster oven and a geth? What about computers? Or VIs? How does the wave "judge" which synthetic items should be convereted, and which should be left asis?

There simply is no way that sounds remotely plausible to answer these questions, because the synthesis option is a FANTASY solution, not a science fiction solution. It is *magic*.

This is what's become perhaps my major annoyance with the endings we got, and I don't see how you can drag it back into being science fiction with any explanation, no matter how creative. I HOPE I'm wrong, and Bioware flex their true writing muscles in explaining this away.

This is why the synthesis ending is the worst one. It's a fantasy ending to a scifi game. It's an insult to the intelligence of the player.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 08 avril 2012 - 11:41 .

[esollus]

It is a wave of pure energy nanobots!

[The Father of Shepard]

Second post on the forums!

Also, I completely hate the synthesis ending with a fire that burns like a thousand suns.
Hate it when people label it as "Best ME3 Ending" on youtube.

[Zix13]

nightsinger wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness. They aren't geth or collectors, they may be servants of the starchild, but ultimately, they are entities confined to each reaper. "Harbinger speaks of you" Would have no meaning if they were controlled directly by starchild. 

Might make more sense if the starchild actually IS harbinger. Maybe he is just using the image of the child to disguise his real nature. If that would be the case, Harbinger/starchild might not be the creator of the Reapers but instead just something like their leader (maybe simply the first Reaper).

If that is the case, then it wouldn't present Shep with the option to destroy it. It would be all like " Your extinction is inevitable, gg mutha****a " 

I do suspect that it is harbinger however, but no matter how you look at it the Starchilds motivations make no sense. Unless indoctrination, but..... that's obviously not what was intended, since they weren't backing it up with additional content. 

Modifié par Zix13, 09 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[Pelle6666]

Rather red than dead! Kill the reapers and let Shepard survive! That's the only way I can end this game. Still allot of things I have a problem with though.

[Eyeshield21]

EvilMind wrote...

Noone is playing god, you got three options from which you have to choose. Like it or not, all 3 options affect all organic life in the galaxy.

I see synthesis as: Organics are now immortal (they dont age), they communicate at the speed of light, no diseases and etc. Are those things bad? If you dont wanna be immortal, kill yourself in ~80 years, i'm sure majority would love immortality. No wars / hate crimes / religious dispute and so many more. Who wouldn't want to learn at the speed of light? Whats there not to like?

So what you are saying its ok to turn EVERYONE into Terminators(in a sense) without asking them about it?

oh, and *looks at join date*(its a possibility)

Modifié par Eyeshield21, 09 avril 2012 - 12:28 .