248 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

KingZayd wrote...

why would it include all races? well the only reason to do this synthesis was these singularities. if there wasn't going to be a singularity then this was all pointless wasn't it?

No, it was to stop a synthetic singularity wiping out ALL organics in the galaxy, presumably for all time.

KingZayd wrote...
when one race forms a singularity, what's to stop it from destroying everything else, like  a pure synthetic one supposedly would?

Because a synthetic race would see no purpose for organics; they do not need them for anything, and can only pose a threat. Following this logical (yet immoral) line of thinking could lead to galactice wide genocide. An organic singularity would presumably not reach this conclusion because of the fundamental differences between organics and synthetics.

[Meltemph]

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

I still don't see how Synthesis solves anything as even the cyborg people can still create synthetics and these synthetics can still fight back.

I find the solution is to get people to think differently.

Yes, but because the creators are partly synthetic, there won't exist that innate fear of a synthetic revolt that all organics seem to have.

What? Organics are mean to snythetics becaue they are racist? Umm... People are mean to people fo the same race all the time.

[Taboo]

GlassElephant wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I liked how the game showed us that organics and synthetics had more in common than we thought. Peace was possible through cooperation and understanding. Then the ending tells us that isn't true.

Quote for truth.

I am absolutely appalled that Bioware presented me with this logic at all. How could the person who wrote the beautiful Rannoch section be involved in any capacity at all?

I know, it bothers me too.  Here we see that coexistence is possible between two inherently different populations; organics and synthetics were given the opportunity to move past their differences.  And now we learn that the only way to maintain that peace is through merging our DNA and removing those differences that made synthetics and organics unique and special.

I am also absolutely apalled that they believe that one being has the right to play god in any sense. What synthesis suggests is that you change the way the universe works on a fundamental level. Who has this right? Who?

[InHarmsWay]

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

I still don't see how Synthesis solves anything as even the cyborg people can still create synthetics and these synthetics can still fight back.

I find the solution is to get people to think differently.

Yes, but because the creators are partly synthetic, there won't exist that innate fear of a synthetic revolt that all organics seem to have.

There will still be a superiority complex. As Saren said it, "I am a hybrid of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither."

This would have the cyborgs still likely treating the synthetics creations as lesser beings.

[CavScout]

Taboo-XX wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Straw man and red herrings detected!

Who's arguing the Reaper cycles are "ethical"?

Mass Effect is not about preserving food... it's about preserving the galaxy.

Who's condoning the Reaper's actions?

They are killing beings based upon an assumption that was made millions upon millions of years ago. How can they make this assumption without any evidence?

How does the age of the decision make the decision any less valid?

How do you know they have no evidence?

[111987]

Meltemph wrote...

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

I still don't see how Synthesis solves anything as even the cyborg people can still create synthetics and these synthetics can still fight back.

I find the solution is to get people to think differently.

Yes, but because the creators are partly synthetic, there won't exist that innate fear of a synthetic revolt that all organics seem to have.

What? Organics are mean to snythetics becaue they are racist? Umm... People are mean to people fo the same race all the time.

If you can't understand this point we cannot have any further discussion. In any case, you and I have discussed this many times and made zero progress. I would consider not even heading down this road.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
It complete sentient organic extinction that they are worried about. They have no problem killing some to let others live. Do you even bother to listen to what is said in game?

if you use synthesis on all these species, then you still have no organic species left. how is this better? especially given that war is inevitable.

Both are left, but as a whole. Organics are still around, just different.

but they're not.. there are organo-synthetics. These are not organics, nor are they synthetics. Even so, why is this organic element so precious?

They're some kind of hybrid. Why even argue that point?

because you're trying to stop the galaxy from one day not having organic species, by making that day today.

[CavScout]

GlassElephant wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I liked how the game showed us that organics and synthetics had more in common than we thought. Peace was possible through cooperation and understanding. Then the ending tells us that isn't true.

Quote for truth.

I am absolutely appalled that Bioware presented me with this logic at all. How could the person who wrote the beautiful Rannoch section be involved in any capacity at all?

I know, it bothers me too.  Here we see that coexistence is possible between two inherently different populations; organics and synthetics were given the opportunity to move past their differences and learn from one another.  And now we learn that the only way to maintain that peace is through merging our DNA and removing those differences that made synthetics and organics unique and special.

You do know there are two options you can select were you risk a peace.... you are not forced to select synthesis.

[111987]

InHarmsWay wrote...

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

I still don't see how Synthesis solves anything as even the cyborg people can still create synthetics and these synthetics can still fight back.

I find the solution is to get people to think differently.

Yes, but because the creators are partly synthetic, there won't exist that innate fear of a synthetic revolt that all organics seem to have.

There will still be a superiority complex. As Saren said it, "I am a hybrid of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither."

This would have the cyborgs still likely treating the synthetics creations as lesser beings.

I would agree with that, but superiority complex is better than irrational fear and attempted genocide wouldn't you say?

[KingZayd]

111987 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

why would it include all races? well the only reason to do this synthesis was these singularities. if there wasn't going to be a singularity then this was all pointless wasn't it?

No, it was to stop a synthetic singularity wiping out ALL organics in the galaxy, presumably for all time.

KingZayd wrote...
when one race forms a singularity, what's to stop it from destroying everything else, like  a pure synthetic one supposedly would?

Because a synthetic race would see no purpose for organics; they do not need them for anything, and can only pose a threat. Following this logical (yet immoral) line of thinking could lead to galactice wide genocide. An organic singularity would presumably not reach this conclusion because of the fundamental differences between organics and synthetics.

but you've made it so that there aren't any organics already.

why do you think synthetic singularities are more likely to commit galaxy-wide genocide than organic singularities? which fundamental differences contribute to this?

[Taboo]

CavScout wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Straw man and red herrings detected!

Who's arguing the Reaper cycles are "ethical"?

Mass Effect is not about preserving food... it's about preserving the galaxy.

Who's condoning the Reaper's actions?

They are killing beings based upon an assumption that was made millions upon millions of years ago. How can they make this assumption without any evidence?

How does the age of the decision make the decision any less valid?

How do you know they have no evidence?

They base their logic on the assumption that this will happen. They have no evidence, nothing is presented  by the star child. How would they have the foresight to know this if nothing at that scale happened in the past? I seriously doubt that a situation of that capacity appeared before. Hypothetical questions about ethics should not be answered by machines as they function without a conscience. They should not be able to make an assumption based upon something they cannot possibly know about  feelings and the right to life.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 avril 2012 - 03:31 .

[InHarmsWay]

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

I still don't see how Synthesis solves anything as even the cyborg people can still create synthetics and these synthetics can still fight back.

I find the solution is to get people to think differently.

Yes, but because the creators are partly synthetic, there won't exist that innate fear of a synthetic revolt that all organics seem to have.

There will still be a superiority complex. As Saren said it, "I am a hybrid of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither."

This would have the cyborgs still likely treating the synthetics creations as lesser beings.

I would agree with that, but superiority complex is better than irrational fear and attempted genocide wouldn't you say?

Actually it's just as bad. Superiority compelxes leads to segregation, slavery, ethnic cleansings. The same results from fear. The two both have the exact same potential for disaster so no, I do not agree.

[kalasaurus]

CavScout wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I liked how the game showed us that organics and synthetics had more in common than we thought. Peace was possible through cooperation and understanding. Then the ending tells us that isn't true.

Quote for truth.

I am absolutely appalled that Bioware presented me with this logic at all. How could the person who wrote the beautiful Rannoch section be involved in any capacity at all?

I know, it bothers me too.  Here we see that coexistence is possible between two inherently different populations; organics and synthetics were given the opportunity to move past their differences and learn from one another.  And now we learn that the only way to maintain that peace is through merging our DNA and removing those differences that made synthetics and organics unique and special.

You do know there are two options you can select were you risk a peace.... you are not forced to select synthesis.

I am aware of that, yes.  I'm just stating my issues with synthesis being presented as the "best" ending to solve the real conflict of the game that we learn about in the last five minutes.

[111987]

KingZayd wrote...

111987 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

why would it include all races? well the only reason to do this synthesis was these singularities. if there wasn't going to be a singularity then this was all pointless wasn't it?

No, it was to stop a synthetic singularity wiping out ALL organics in the galaxy, presumably for all time.

KingZayd wrote...
when one race forms a singularity, what's to stop it from destroying everything else, like  a pure synthetic one supposedly would?

Because a synthetic race would see no purpose for organics; they do not need them for anything, and can only pose a threat. Following this logical (yet immoral) line of thinking could lead to galactice wide genocide. An organic singularity would presumably not reach this conclusion because of the fundamental differences between organics and synthetics.

but you've made it so that there aren't any organics already.

why do you think synthetic singularities are more likely to commit galaxy-wide genocide than organic singularities? which fundamental differences contribute to this?

It's in my post...

[CavScout]

Taboo-XX wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Straw man and red herrings detected!

Who's arguing the Reaper cycles are "ethical"?

Mass Effect is not about preserving food... it's about preserving the galaxy.

Who's condoning the Reaper's actions?

They are killing beings based upon an assumption that was made millions upon millions of years ago. How can they make this assumption without any evidence?

How does the age of the decision make the decision any less valid?

How do you know they have no evidence?

They base their logic on the assumption that this will happen. They have no evidence, nothing is presented  by the star child. How would they have the foresight to know this if nothing at that scale happened in the past? I seriously doubt that a situation of that capacity appeared before. Hypothetical questions about ethics should not be answered by machines as they function without a conscience. They should not be able to make an assumption based upon something they cannot possibly know about  feelings and the right to life.

You could just save a lot of typing and just say you made it up that they have no evidence for making their decision.

And why do you keep trying to make it about ethics when it never has been about what was "ethical"? See their logic is not the same as supporting it.

[111987]

InHarmsWay wrote...

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

111987 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

I still don't see how Synthesis solves anything as even the cyborg people can still create synthetics and these synthetics can still fight back.

I find the solution is to get people to think differently.

Yes, but because the creators are partly synthetic, there won't exist that innate fear of a synthetic revolt that all organics seem to have.

There will still be a superiority complex. As Saren said it, "I am a hybrid of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither."

This would have the cyborgs still likely treating the synthetics creations as lesser beings.

I would agree with that, but superiority complex is better than irrational fear and attempted genocide wouldn't you say?

Actually it's just as bad. Superiority compelxes leads to segregation, slavery, ethnic cleansings. The same results from fear. The two both have the exact same potential for disaster so no, I do not agree.

Think things through. If more synthetics are created, you have the Geth around who would ensure if they gained consciousness, they would be free to choose their own path. Plus the galaxy has already learned from the Geth experience. Finally, the fear that led to rash decisions in the Morning War won't be there.

[CavScout]

GlassElephant wrote...

CavScout wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I liked how the game showed us that organics and synthetics had more in common than we thought. Peace was possible through cooperation and understanding. Then the ending tells us that isn't true.

Quote for truth.

I am absolutely appalled that Bioware presented me with this logic at all. How could the person who wrote the beautiful Rannoch section be involved in any capacity at all?

I know, it bothers me too.  Here we see that coexistence is possible between two inherently different populations; organics and synthetics were given the opportunity to move past their differences and learn from one another.  And now we learn that the only way to maintain that peace is through merging our DNA and removing those differences that made synthetics and organics unique and special.

You do know there are two options you can select were you risk a peace.... you are not forced to select synthesis.

I am aware of that, yes.  I'm just stating my issues with synthesis being presented as the "best" ending to solve the real conflict of the game that we learn about in the last five minutes.

How was it presented as the "best" solution? The best solution, requiring the most EMS and have Shep live is not synthesis.

[KingZayd]

111987 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

111987 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

why would it include all races? well the only reason to do this synthesis was these singularities. if there wasn't going to be a singularity then this was all pointless wasn't it?

No, it was to stop a synthetic singularity wiping out ALL organics in the galaxy, presumably for all time.

KingZayd wrote...
when one race forms a singularity, what's to stop it from destroying everything else, like  a pure synthetic one supposedly would?

Because a synthetic race would see no purpose for organics; they do not need them for anything, and can only pose a threat. Following this logical (yet immoral) line of thinking could lead to galactice wide genocide. An organic singularity would presumably not reach this conclusion because of the fundamental differences between organics and synthetics.

but you've made it so that there aren't any organics already.

why do you think synthetic singularities are more likely to commit galaxy-wide genocide than organic singularities? which fundamental differences contribute to this?

It's in my post...

where? i don't see it? which fundamental differences between organics and synthetics lead to this difference in probabilty of galactic genocide between a  synthetic singularity and an organic singularity?

Modifié par KingZayd, 22 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[Taboo]

CavScout wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Straw man and red herrings detected!

Who's arguing the Reaper cycles are "ethical"?

Mass Effect is not about preserving food... it's about preserving the galaxy.

Who's condoning the Reaper's actions?

They are killing beings based upon an assumption that was made millions upon millions of years ago. How can they make this assumption without any evidence?

How does the age of the decision make the decision any less valid?

How do you know they have no evidence?

They base their logic on the assumption that this will happen. They have no evidence, nothing is presented  by the star child. How would they have the foresight to know this if nothing at that scale happened in the past? I seriously doubt that a situation of that capacity appeared before. Hypothetical questions about ethics should not be answered by machines as they function without a conscience. They should not be able to make an assumption based upon something they cannot possibly know about  feelings and the right to life.

You could just save a lot of typing and just say you made it up that they have no evidence for making their decision.

And why do you keep trying to make it about ethics when it never has been about what was "ethical"? See their logic is not the same as supporting it.

I do not believe that the star child can be trusted unless he can present proof of his statements based upon past cycles. This is simple scientific question to ask and I know you're clearly smart enough to appreciate it.

I base the argument upon ethics because that's the only real world application I have. I apply the coldness of the Holocaust, the mass deaths under communist regimes etc.upon the same logic. All those were for the "greater good" as well

[111987]

CavScout wrote...

How was it presented as the "best" solution? The best solution, requiring the most EMS and have Shep live is not synthesis.

I believe the devs in their notes referred to it as the 'best ending'.

[Taboo]

111987 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

How was it presented as the "best" solution? The best solution, requiring the most EMS and have Shep live is not synthesis.

I believe the devs in their notes referred to it as the 'best ending'.

The only thing has created is the best discussion. How dissapointing. Still a fun discussion though............

[CavScout]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You could just save a lot of typing and just say you made it up that they have no evidence for making their decision.

And why do you keep trying to make it about ethics when it never has been about what was "ethical"? See their logic is not the same as supporting it.

I do not believe that the star child can be trusted unless he can present proof of his statements based upon past cycles. This is simple scientific question to ask and I know you're clearly smart enough to appreciate it.

I base the argument upon ethics because that's the only real world application I have. I apply the coldness of the Holocaust, the mass deaths under communist regimes etc.upon the same logic. All those were for the "greater good" as well

What evidence do you have that the Catalyst can't be trusted? Why do you think it is lying? Other than not liking what it says that is.

It has nothig to do with ethics. The Catalyst didn't state an ethical reason for doing what it did. You're simplying appealing to emotion since you have no facts with which to counter.

Modifié par CavScout, 22 avril 2012 - 03:40 .

[CavScout]

111987 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

How was it presented as the "best" solution? The best solution, requiring the most EMS and have Shep live is not synthesis.

I believe the devs in their notes referred to it as the 'best ending'.

It is not the ending requiring the most EMS points...

[111987]

CavScout wrote...

111987 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

How was it presented as the "best" solution? The best solution, requiring the most EMS and have Shep live is not synthesis.

I believe the devs in their notes referred to it as the 'best ending'.

It is not the ending requiring the most EMS points...

I never said it was...that's just what the devs' notes said.

I don't personally think it is the best ending.

[kalasaurus]

CavScout wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

CavScout wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

GlassElephant wrote...

I liked how the game showed us that organics and synthetics had more in common than we thought. Peace was possible through cooperation and understanding. Then the ending tells us that isn't true.

Quote for truth.

I am absolutely appalled that Bioware presented me with this logic at all. How could the person who wrote the beautiful Rannoch section be involved in any capacity at all?

I know, it bothers me too.  Here we see that coexistence is possible between two inherently different populations; organics and synthetics were given the opportunity to move past their differences and learn from one another.  And now we learn that the only way to maintain that peace is through merging our DNA and removing those differences that made synthetics and organics unique and special.

You do know there are two options you can select were you risk a peace.... you are not forced to select synthesis.

I am aware of that, yes.  I'm just stating my issues with synthesis being presented as the "best" ending to solve the real conflict of the game that we learn about in the last five minutes.

How was it presented as the "best" solution? The best solution, requiring the most EMS and have Shep live is not synthesis.

Starchild tells you that the peace won't last with destroy.  The only option that Starchild, this all-knowing AI, says peace can last is with synthesis.  You also need a higher EMS to unlock synthesis, the "new solution" that was unlocked with the most work on the Crucible.

The reason the reapers reap is because synthetics will always kill organics, and peace isn't possible to last.  Synthesis solves this problem, apparently.