561 réponses à ce sujet

[Cypher_CS]

Bfler wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...



Why are people assuming Synthesis has someone Controlling everyone?
That there is no Free Will?

The problem is that it ignores the right to decide for yourself, because with synthesis you force the transformation on everyone. I could bet a great majority of the people would be against such a transformation. Therefore it ignores the free will of each individual.

That's HUGELY different from saying that the end result of Synthesis is no free will.
Yes, the choice is forced. The choice might even be genetic rape, if you wish, but even rape victims (and I know I'm getting into touchy territory) have Free Will after the event.

[Meltemph]

First of all, yes it is. Especially if some of you claim that apparently the ME3 writers wanted us to pick it as the Best Ending...

I'm not sure why anyone would argue that, seeing as that the good destroy requires the highest EMS.

Secondly, it doesn't matter.
Discuss on the evidence, not the lack of it.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence!
And if nothing else, the EDI-Joker thing might just be the ONLY available evidence to the contrary. Yet you still choose Absence of Evidence AS Evidence. Go figure.

EDI and Joker isnt evidence of anything but edi and joker. I'm not one of the people arguing free will. There are tons of other questions other then free will, synthesis changes quite a lot... I'm claiming that with control and synthesis you have no clue what happens. Essentially you are objecting to my idea that you cant know what happens.

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[Cypher_CS]

Meltemph wrote...


It also bothered me a lot that with synthesis you literally look like a husk before your body goes bye bye and with control and synthesis you get TIM's eyes...  I dont think BW did that on accident.

Dude, you aren't getting this.

He doesn't look like a Husk, he looks the SAME as in Control.
Not a HUSK.

He looks burned.
And there's a trick here. You see, the reason he looks burned, in stages, is because he gets burned - either by the Electricity in Control or by the Control Beam in Synthesis.

It's a burned body, not a husk body.

[Cypher_CS]

Sorry, Melt, must have confused your statements with others.

[Meltemph]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Meltemph wrote...


It also bothered me a lot that with synthesis you literally look like a husk before your body goes bye bye and with control and synthesis you get TIM's eyes...  I dont think BW did that on accident.

Dude, you aren't getting this.

He doesn't look like a Husk, he looks the SAME as in Control.
Not a HUSK.

He looks burned.
And there's a trick here. You see, the reason he looks burned, in stages, is because he gets burned - either by the Electricity in Control or by the Control Beam in Synthesis.

It's a burned body, not a husk body.

 

That isnt burning.

[DJBare]

Cypher_CS wrote...
That's HUGELY different from saying that the end result of Synthesis is no free will.
Yes, the choice is forced. The choice might even be genetic rape, if you wish, but even rape victims (and I know I'm getting into touchy territory) have Free Will after the event.

Yup, and with that free will and the bitterness from being genetically raped they can now go on and build more sophisticated AI's with better weapons, the garden of eden is being sucked into hell.

[julio77777]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Julio,
Has evolution progressed since we reached ****** Sapiens?
Yes, it has. Lots. And still does.
There's a difference between Final Stage and Final State.

And, again, it's the final stage in the Catalyst's limited imagination. Which is fine.
Can you, as Julio, imagine the next stage past ****** Sapiens?

So let me get this straight, you (as Shepard on the moment to make your choice) assume Starkid is right that synthesis will do what he says *except* the final stage part ? That's convenient...

So let's work with the parameters we're given and assume it is the final stage, and yes I understood what you meant from the beginning, so let's assume you're right and there is many many states of evolutions for tens of thousands of years (yeah evolution works slowly) it WILL stagnate eventually. You put an end to evolution albeit a very slow end but an end nonetheless. That is frightening.

Then again we can argue that to death and still not reach a definite answer since, as you and I said, we have no information to work with.

[Shermos]

Forcing a hybrid state on all life in the galaxy isn't very ethical. They might as well be harvested for Reaper form. Control is the way to go imo.

[Cypher_CS]

Sorry, but I don't see it as an end to evolution.

Again, it's not about not believing him, it's about understanding that this kid is not the one and only true God or prophet who can see into the entirety of the future.
He's a being - a limited being.
Just like Leto II who couldn't not see past Duncan Idaho.

Why would it stagnate?
Read: http://io9.com/59032...-the-real-thing

[Anduin The Grey]

Meltemph makes a great point in my view that based on facts, we have a clearer picture on ME3 as it stands right now if the Destroy option is chosen, unless Reapers get ordered to play dead, they fall down dead at the end. With Synthesis and Control we can only make assumptions about what could happen.

That doesn't mean that Destroy is the ideal solution either, for all we know someone comes up with an AI that does indeed go rampant throughout the cosmos killing any spacefaring as soon as they become aware of them.

What it does mean is, the endings are far from clear and nobody wants to have a playthrough where their character handed over the universe to Reapers/AI's/Husks etc etc.

With the clarification/Extended DLC being worked on we can hope for some proper answers, unfortunately we won't be getting our hands om it till the summer.

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 24 avril 2012 - 09:49 .

[Muhvitus]

I think modifying sentient beings without their consent is some form of rape. This somewhat excludes modifications done to save people's lives in emergencies but still. If i would have been catalyst, i'd have called truce, then we could have discussed all options. Generally the whole ending creates question why all the theatrics with the reapers, as soon as catalyst noticed "OH THEY HAVE MADE A CRUCIBLE" he could've stopped the killing and started talking or withdraw.

[Cypher_CS]

A. It's not about the Crucible, it's about Shepard being the first sentient being to reach him there.

B. You can't really assume what you would do, were you the Catalyst. It's like saying you know how God thinks or how a Geth thinks (remember Javik's words on the difference between an organic and a synthetic thought).

C. While I agree that you might consider Synthesis as a form of rape, but then again so was the Genophage, Shepard's choice of Lying about Curing it (if that choice is made), disseminating the Reaper code throughout all Geth, all the Cerberus experiments on those refugees, and so is the Destruction of all Technology in the Galaxy.

Just a point...

[WandererRTF]

Synthesized DNA is not what synthesis yields (ability to use other nucleic acids is wee bit different from being amalgam of organic and synthetic life) so the article you linked has no relevance to the issue at hand.

I didn't really see anything that bad with control ending TBH, assuming the space kid is truthful and you gain control of Reapers when you turn into near-omnipotent shade of blue. Self-sacrifice is not exactly new or novel theme in the series (see Mordin). Its pretty much a question if you are petty enough to sacrifice some one else (or whole lot of them) or do you sacrifice yourself.

While I agree that you might consider Synthesis as a
form of rape, but then again so was the Genophage, Shepard's choice of
Lying about Curing it (if that choice is made), disseminating the Reaper
code throughout all Geth, all the Cerberus experiments on those
refugees, and so is the Destruction of all Technology in the Galaxy.

Genophage and even Reaper code issues are both events that are very limited in scope. Synthesis is not. Just in same way i would have no objections to some one doing synthesis on himself - inflicting it on others is however totally different.

Genophage was evil, on the other hand the alternative to genophage would have been genocide of the same group. If the options were full galactic genocide or synthesis there would be a bit fewer complaints however as it stands there only exists speculation from an AI - who is hellbent of wiping galaxy clean of advanced organic life every 50k years - that AIs wipe organic life out. The crime of wiping single species out does seem to be rather insignificant to inflicting something on every lifeform in the galaxy.

Modifié par WandererRTF, 24 avril 2012 - 11:23 .

[jupppez]

I love how the catalyst avoids the question when shepard asks "will it bring peace?" because catalyst knows synthesis won't bring peace.

Modifié par jupppez, 24 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Fyurian2]

Norrax wrote...

lazy story telling and if i wanted sythesis of organic and machines i'd go watch star trek: the next gen

Nah, just watch Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Dekker/V'Ger merging is the Synthesis ending of ME3.

[TheWerdna]

It takes away free will and says "Hey, people who are different cannot coexist peacefully. The only way for there to be peace is if everyone is the same"

[Phategod1]

Shermos wrote...

Forcing a hybrid state on all life in the galaxy isn't very ethical. They might as well be harvested for Reaper form. Control is the way to go imo.

There a big difference between and addition of some synthetic or biological parts and being turn into a paste. 

Modifié par Phategod1, 24 avril 2012 - 12:02 .

[Phategod1]

WandererRTF wrote...

Synthesized DNA is not what synthesis yields (ability to use other nucleic acids is wee bit different from being amalgam of organic and synthetic life) so the article you linked has no relevance to the issue at hand.

I didn't really see anything that bad with control ending TBH, assuming the space kid is truthful and you gain control of Reapers when you turn into near-omnipotent shade of blue. Self-sacrifice is not exactly new or novel theme in the series (see Mordin). Its pretty much a question if you are petty enough to sacrifice some one else (or whole lot of them) or do you sacrifice yourself.

While I agree that you might consider Synthesis as a
form of rape, but then again so was the Genophage, Shepard's choice of
Lying about Curing it (if that choice is made), disseminating the Reaper
code throughout all Geth, all the Cerberus experiments on those
refugees, and so is the Destruction of all Technology in the Galaxy.

Genophage and even Reaper code issues are both events that are very limited in scope. Synthesis is not. Just in same way i would have no objections to some one doing synthesis on himself - inflicting it on others is however totally different.

Genophage was evil, on the other hand the alternative to genophage would have been genocide of the same group. If the options were full galactic genocide or synthesis there would be a bit fewer complaints however as it stands there only exists speculation from an AI - who is hellbent of wiping galaxy clean of advanced organic life every 50k years - that AIs wipe organic life out. The crime of wiping single species out does seem to be rather insignificant to inflicting something on every lifeform in the galaxy.

TSK TSK What did Yoda tell you about dealing in absolutes I find The Genophage fascinating in and old addage of sci-fi That old rule of the prime directive never uplist an under developed race. I wonder if the genophage idea was bithed out a prime Directive discussion. 

[Muhvitus]

Cypher_CS wrote...

A. It's not about the Crucible, it's about Shepard being the first sentient being to reach him there.

B. You can't really assume what you would do, were you the Catalyst. It's like saying you know how God thinks or how a Geth thinks (remember Javik's words on the difference between an organic and a synthetic thought).

C. While I agree that you might consider Synthesis as a form of rape, but then again so was the Genophage, Shepard's choice of Lying about Curing it (if that choice is made), disseminating the Reaper code throughout all Geth, all the Cerberus experiments on those refugees, and so is the Destruction of all Technology in the Galaxy.

Just a point...

A. By his logic what is the difference? If we are in same solar system with crucible, what does physical presence on Citadel itself prove anymore. That is just stupid. I understood the situation so that by catalyst's experience this current solution cannot work anymore as organic life has demonstrated that it is able to fight against reapers and progress as far as they did. So the 50k year culling isn't enough anymore. I don't see how it matters greatly in this perspective if the person is able to reach citadel or not. The presence of huge battlefleet + crucible are the deciding points.

B. that is the truth, but i'm just saying that if the crucible is intelligent, killing stuff on earth if unnecessary as the current solution is not viable anymore. Why continue?

C. I Agree that Shepard does ****ty things to get the things done. But the one shining goal has been that the good of the galaxy overrides the needs of people, races or such. But to rape all lifeforms in galaxy seems to be opposite of his objective. The price for victory is few dead races with destroy, none with control and synthesis means raping all lifeforms in galaxy. Why is it even option?

I think that BW writers didn't think it through, i think the synthesis is best option by their view, but just thought that after synthesis everybody is one happy new lifeform and edi gets to shag with Joker. They didn't think what it would mean to people who dislike the change. They didn't think that there are people that are not ready to sacrifice their being just to be able to exist in future. I think the writers were naive or in hurry, and probably the latter.

[Cobra's_back]

Cypher_CS wrote...

A. It's not about the Crucible, it's about Shepard being the first sentient being to reach him there.

B. You can't really assume what you would do, were you the Catalyst. It's like saying you know how God thinks or how a Geth thinks (remember Javik's words on the difference between an organic and a synthetic thought).

C. While I agree that you might consider Synthesis as a form of rape, but then again so was the Genophage, Shepard's choice of Lying about Curing it (if that choice is made), disseminating the Reaper code throughout all Geth, all the Cerberus experiments on those refugees, and so is the Destruction of all Technology in the Galaxy.

Just a point...

I know it just a game. So pick what you want. I wouldn't touch this option with a ten foot pole.
 


It violates the individuals rights “the Bill of Right”. Reapers are the enemy and civilians are not. Killing reapers is not covered under civilian rights. The only really hard bad move Shepard made against civilians was Arrival. He tried to warn them but it was too late. This is why Shepard was in detention and stripped of his command.
 
I try to stay alway from immortal or illegal acts. There really wasn’t a real threat of the crazy AI and this really isn’t going to solve it. It also stated it would be the FINAL evolution of organics. I’m sorry I respect natural evolution and think it does a better job.
This option is not a medical solution being proposed to save lives. It is not even a proven improvement. I know I said this before, was the Africanize Honey Bee a good idea? No it was not, we still have to deal with the mess it created. Does this mean I don’t appreciate Tech ? Not even, my background is engineering. Love new electronics. This just doesn’t belong.
 

[Cobra's_back]

WandererRTF wrote...

Synthesized DNA is not what synthesis yields (ability to use other nucleic acids is wee bit different from being amalgam of organic and synthetic life) so the article you linked has no relevance to the issue at hand.

I didn't really see anything that bad with control ending TBH, assuming the space kid is truthful and you gain control of Reapers when you turn into near-omnipotent shade of blue. Self-sacrifice is not exactly new or novel theme in the series (see Mordin). Its pretty much a question if you are petty enough to sacrifice some one else (or whole lot of them) or do you sacrifice yourself.

While I agree that you might consider Synthesis as a
form of rape, but then again so was the Genophage, Shepard's choice of
Lying about Curing it (if that choice is made), disseminating the Reaper
code throughout all Geth, all the Cerberus experiments on those
refugees, and so is the Destruction of all Technology in the Galaxy.

Genophage and even Reaper code issues are both events that are very limited in scope. Synthesis is not. Just in same way i would have no objections to some one doing synthesis on himself - inflicting it on others is however totally different.

Genophage was evil, on the other hand the alternative to genophage would have been genocide of the same group. If the options were full galactic genocide or synthesis there would be a bit fewer complaints however as it stands there only exists speculation from an AI - who is hellbent of wiping galaxy clean of advanced organic life every 50k years - that AIs wipe organic life out. The crime of wiping single species out does seem to be rather insignificant to inflicting something on every lifeform in the galaxy.

I agree. I was glad there were other choices.

[Cobra's_back]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Meltemph makes a great point in my view that based on facts, we have a clearer picture on ME3 as it stands right now if the Destroy option is chosen, unless Reapers get ordered to play dead, they fall down dead at the end. With Synthesis and Control we can only make assumptions about what could happen.

That doesn't mean that Destroy is the ideal solution either, for all we know someone comes up with an AI that does indeed go rampant throughout the cosmos killing any spacefaring as soon as they become aware of them.

What it does mean is, the endings are far from clear and nobody wants to have a playthrough where their character handed over the universe to Reapers/AI's/Husks etc etc.

With the clarification/Extended DLC being worked on we can hope for some proper answers, unfortunately we won't be getting our hands om it till the summer.

With knowledge we increase our communication skills and become better negotiators. I have more faith that we could solve it diplomatically, or combine forces and wipe out a rogue AI. Also, we don’t hire trusting military officers and intelligences units. I have a really hard time that any human government would let an AI have access to its entire military. This concept may work better with “Terminator Salivation”.

[ArchDuck]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

This is where the current argument got confused, at least for me. Now I like your posts a lot, several times you've asked for clarification on where someones ideas came from exactly where within the games and no-ones had an answer to them.

Now I'm not disputing that the Catalyst may well be delusional and a liar however the term Apex took over and led the argument in the wrong direction. Apex means no evolution, as in cannot be improved upon, which led to the catalyst being said delusional liar. Neither of which is for certain at this point.

There are scant few details as it is, ergo the constantly revolving arguments on definitions and semantics but the words used by the writers are of paramount importance as they are the only leads and clues we have. The characters may lie but the writers have a duty to tell the truth, even if they employ misdirection to mislead us from what will happen.

Otherwise if the writers words cannot be trusted then there's no point to constructive argument at all, because they would clearly have carte blanche to make up anything as they went a long.

I guess its the difference of trusting the writer (ie: a narrator) vs. trusting a character written by the writer.

The catalyst, as currently presented, is either a liar or delusional. There is at least three examples where it can either not be right or has proven to be wrong. Destroy doesn't neccesarily kill Shepard (and possibly synthetics as some people have reported EDI in the Normandy cutscene), Evolution doesn't have a final stage and another one is the lie about this solving the problem of organics and synthetics. Thats even ignoring the 'created will always rebel' stuff.

Just to explain what I mean about the synthetic vs. organic; what is stopping the organic/synthetic hybrids from making more pure synthetics and/or pure organics? The synthesis ending does not actually stop the reason that the reapers say they are doing this for. After all, pure synthetics and pure organics can be made in the future and eventually pure organic life will evolve again.

They may have meant the best, and maybe the catalyst was supposed to be 100% trustworthy, but they did a miserable job of showing that. It is not unexpected as some of the catalyst's statements are less then convincing but then again he does only have 14 lines of dialogue. Hopefully with the Extended Cut they will explain more (more dialogue, more questions) so that we as players and our avatar can be better informed as to what these choices really mean and how they will affect the galaxy. Maybe we will get lucky and they will make them a bit ethically sound too.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 24 avril 2012 - 02:27 .

[Cypher_CS]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Killing reapers is not covered under civilian rights.

And Killing EDI?
Killing all Geth?
Destroying pretty much all AI, VI and all technological advances?
Cause, again, it's not just the Reapers that will be Destroyed.

ghostbusters101 wrote... 

It also stated it would be the FINAL evolution of organics. I’m sorry I respect natural evolution and think it does a better job.

Already discussed and explained. Read back.

[Kajan451]

I am not getting involved in the discussion about what exactly the catalyst said, because, quite frankly unless its an allknowing and omnipresent being, frequently called a deity, it is failable and even though if it might believe something to be true i don't think that it has to be true.

So mind you, i don't play at semantics and as i already said i think the catalyst is wrong with what he says synthesis would be, but actually the whole endings being on a level where you actually have advanced knowledge (which i don't assume everyone has, nor should have) in either biology, philosophy and or sociology to fully comprehend the impact of the decisions which then again boils again down to having to take the catalysts statments at face value, even though our day to day life is proving him wrong already...

Even though i have no interest in that part of the conversation i'd like to adress this. I'd say real quick, but i probably will slip into a more exhaustive answer anyway, so feel free to skip it.

ghostbusters101 wrote...

I hope you know I don't mine Bone marrow transplants if needed. The wording the game used a new DNA framework. It was the Apex evolution.
 
First I don't see the real need for green.
 
Two changing someone's DNA without their consent is illegal.
 
Three it does interfere with natural evolution.
 
 
If you want green please pick it. Still from the data we have, it interferes with the natural evolution. That will concern some player but not all.

Well, see i could agree with you... if we wouldn't have done this for the last .... well basically we did that for ever. Ever since the first caveman figured it might be easier to tame that animal to get its milk or butcher it when needed, ever since that point humanity has interfered with natural evolution.

We have done so in order to get the best crops, the most beautiful flowers, the best herd animals and the fastest security and hunting dogs. We have interfered in natural evolution by our advances in medicine, enabling the crippled and defect to life and we at this point deem it inhuman to kill a defected baby. We actually deem it so inhuman that many countries and subgroups of our society even consider it absolutely inhuman to abort a human being if its still by far nothing more than the equivalent to a cancer tumor or a cecum.

Humanity has infered in natural evolution ever since its existance. We are protecting our week, instead of letting them fall prey to predators. We feed our ill, instead of letting them die, and we nurish the malnurished. We do everything in our power to defy natural selection and we deem it the moral high road to do so.

Of once over 100 types of rice, humanity has for commercial purposes eradicate almost all strands of rice but only a small selection of 5 or 6 strands. Why? Because they simply replaced the other strands with the "deemed" superior ones. Because they yielded more harvest. Same goes for crops.

Even the Amish and co, at least to my knowledge buy grain from companies, because of over 1000 strands of grain we have finally "evolved" grain to a point where you actually have one bountyful harvest and then the grainstrand has to be removed, because it takes 3 to 5 years until said grain will again have a normal harvest. Its easier and more effective to buy new grain from the company and have the tripple yield of harvest compared to having stuck to your old type of grain that your forefathers used. This type of agriculture is wide spread and if you want to stay competitive you have to buy the "evolved" ones.

Now mind you this isn't some hightech Jurressic Park DNA repair thing where they mix in frog DNA to repair enhance things. We are still talking about the same thing people like Mendel, a everyone ever going to a biology class should have heard, talked about. By splicing and mixbreeding of plant types.

Sheeps today and alot of our other herd animals can't even life on their own anymore. You might remember that one sheep that ran away for 5 years in australia. It kinda got some worldreknown fame because when they found it it could barely move anymore, thanks to its inability to shed its wool on its own. Natural Evolution didn't create sheeps that will end up being unable to really move after 6 years of their lives. Thats the kind of animal that gets selected out by natural evolution.


Its a mistake to believe we, even today, have something left like natural evolution. Not if it comes to humans and the animals they use. Yes there is still natural evolution in about everything we don't need and even there we could make a case for it being hardly natural evolution that the Rhinos are dying out or Elephants getting more scarce. Not to talk about whales. I don't think said Whales, who have been pretty much at the apex of their evolution, were quite ready to go extinct just yet.

Yet here he is, our friend human, conqueror of natural evolution. Making a case for how "wrong" it is to force evolution on things is rather funny, considering each and every time you open your fridge to get some food, you are actually looking at thousands of thousands of years of forcing evolution on things.

Each time you step into a bus and look at other humans you see people defying natural selection. I certainly would have been selected out. I have been born with a chronic brochitis and a bad back. Without medical threatment, out in "the wild", i would have fallen prey to predators because i can't run for extended periods of time without starting to cough blood... and i can't fully use my strength because of my back. If there would still be natural evolution thats applicable to me... i'd be dead before i even met my wife. Yet here i am, writing this post.

So, actually... if you are honest and really look around you.. humans have pretty much done away with Natural Evolution. The remainants of it, are rather insignificant, but still right at this very moment, somewhere in some lab, someone is working on making sure we "evolve", to find better medicine to make sure that nature doesn't win.


And i admit, all of this sounds pretty much like back to nature stuff, but i am one of those people who don't mind gentechnology, because.. quite frankly.. we did that for thousands of years. Only differance between the petridish and the previous versions of "gene gambling" is.. with the petri dish we actually get the results in a matter of day or weeks and don't need to wait years of mixing and combining different "families" of plants or animals to get the desired results by breeding it into them.


Forcing evolution on things and preventing natural selection / evolution has been the human way for a long time. 

That of course, and this is my final comment on the matter, doesn't make it more right to have Shepard be the one to decide it for everyone, but i still believe it beats genocide on a moral level.