561 réponses à ce sujet

[Unit-Alpha]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's just an excuse. If you want to explore, choose Control and check. *Then* you can fly those Reapers who don't want to exist anymore in a black hole. Or chosse Synthesis and set them free. Maybe some will fly into the next star.

But that's just it; they don't want anything.  They have no free will.  Legion even told us this in ME2; he described Sovereign as being many programs (presumably former people) controlled by a single will.  If the Catalyst had really preserved anything, wouldn't the Reapers display more free will?  That little punk had used them to destroy their own civilizations after all, wouldn't one or two of them have maybe told him to go jump in a lake or something?  At best, those people are just data, no longer sentient.  At worst, they're slaves.

And if you choose synthesis, and the Reapers just leave, where do you think they'll go?  What do you think they'll do?  I'd wager they'd just sit there and do nothing for the next ten billion years.  Given that they are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy I think destroy is exceedingly charitable.

Then Destroy is a valid choice for you. Good. But isn't for me. I'm just saying Synthesis is another valid choice.

Besides, disgust is not a category of a rational morality.

No, but wrong is. And synthesis is wrong, morally and ethically, not to mention scientifically or logically.

What is it about synthesis that is wrong, morally and ethically not to mention scientifcally or logically?

Genetic rape isn't morally/ethically wrong? YOU ARE FORCING A CHANGE ON EVERY LIVING THING.

Also, please tell me you are joking about it not being scientifically wrong. Please.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 23 avril 2012 - 03:43 .

[stysiaq]

Anduin The Grey wrote...


It's certainly different, so was the lack of boss ending. How many flops became cult classics 20 years later? We'll only know then.

1. you apply the movie logic to games industry, which is at most 25 years old (were not talking Pong here) ?

2. I don't want to wait 20 years for ME3 ending to gain cult following for its siliness and dumbness

3. Lack of the boss fight is something different that, please excuse my language, a brutal rape on intelligence. The first one is an interesting design choice, and it fits ME, the other not so much.

4. The movie flops which gain cult following are mostly bad movies which gain the cult following because they feature some old sex symbol in a fancy outfit, or they are just so dumb they become entertaining. Its not the path ME should follow.

[Gogzilla]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

I chose the transhumanist endings in all three Deus Ex games, but in those games that was the central theme, and only in Invisible War was it forced on anyone.

In Deus Ex, merging with Helios to produce a benevolent dictator was justifiable because the world was already a dystopia, controlled by the Illuminati, and the only other alternative was a dark age. What's more, it was JC Denton's choice to merge.

Mass Effect 3 not only forces a similar merge on every living being in the decidedly non-dystopian galaxy without their consent, it does so AS WELL AS condemning the galaxy to a dark age!

Utterly insane.

True that,  Having played the Deus Ex games i had a lot more background when thinking about synthesis .
But not everyone has been exposed to those kind of ideas or really thought about them in depth.

ME3 just can't do the topic justice. If you did'nt know what it was before playing ME3 you certainly wont learn anything about it at the end either.

ME was never about evolution and transhumanism.
No one talks about it , no one says how they feel about it.
They just kind of shoe horn it in at the end along with everything else.

[Cypher_CS]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

There was a famous real life villian who said that we should accept a homogeneous race back in the 1940's. For the betterment of humanity, of course.

/me thinks you got your history a bit mixed up.
Your World Famouse YouTube Comic never wanted a homogeneous race, he wanted separation of races.

And that's enough about that midget, please.

[WandererRTF]

No, I am open to the idea of co-existence instead of destruction or enslaving. And you're judging the Reapers by human standards again, which is - recall the rewrite/destroy heretics comment from Legion - misplaced.

Exactly, since synthesis imposes both destruction (of evolution) and enslaving (of free will) on all living beings (not excluded just to sapient beings) it is the wrong choice both on moral and ethical basis. For me - like many others - it is the worst option you could pick. The other options are bad as well but not nearly as horrible as synthesis.

EDIT: And for the record, i have nothing against transhumanism, however that is not what synthesis is.

Modifié par WandererRTF, 23 avril 2012 - 03:45 .

[matthewmi]

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Oh my, can you stop making unfounded assumptions? How is the Synthesis *anything* like making Reapers? By making everything part Synthetic, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that. Well, then I say humans are like bacteria because both are organic. There was actually a famous movie villain who said that back in 1996.

They are not Reapers, but they are the same type of life form as Reapers, based on a combination of organic and synthetic.
The point is, the Reapers can only co-exist with us if we become this specific type of life form. That is not co-existence, that is domination.

Exactly, the reapers if still around after synthesis, would by far be more powerful than any other species, heck they are spaceships with giant laser beams, looks like they could impose their newfound "freewill" and order us around quite easily.

[The Angry One]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jeez....

No, you aren't getting this.

It's not about Destroying the Reapers, it's about the Life in the ENTIRE Galaxy.
If you're a damn Xenophobe and just Renegade everything (don't be nitpicky here, just an extreme example) - then Destroy is your obvious choice.
Screw everybody. Let Dog sort them out.

If you're power hungry, then Control is the obvious choice for you. Isn't it?

It's not about the decisions Shepard made when faced with Reapers only, it's the overall themes.

Why are you thinking one dimensionally?
It's not about mirroring all your former choices against Geth on the next Geth choice. Or vs Asari on your next Asari related choice, and vs Reapers on your next Reaper related choice.
It's about all those decisions coming together.

It's about saving that life FROM the Reapers.
Synthesis compromises that life permanently, it violates and mutates that life into something the Reapers tolerate, hence they leave it alone.
That is a complete betrayal of every theme in the game.

Control is not so much a betrayal as it is poorly set up. It could work as an ultra renegade choice, but it comes out of the blue, mere minutes after Shepard argues that control is impossible due to being far too much of a gamble.

[YNation913]

wright1978 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What about Joker and EDI?

Okay, really. What about them? What do we see in 10 seconds that tells us whether they've been changed or not?
How does that change that synthesis is what the Reapers want?

Then again you seem to be okay with war criminals winning so nevermind.

Yeah show me a 10 second clip of a collector and a 10 second clip of Javik.
One's a pale imitation of life but 10 seconds isn't enough to tell the difference.

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

[Unit-Alpha]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

There was a famous real life villian who said that we should accept a homogeneous race back in the 1940's. For the betterment of humanity, of course.

/me thinks you got your history a bit mixed up.
Your World Famouse YouTube Comic never wanted a homogeneous race, he wanted separation of races.

And that's enough about that midget, please.

He wanted a homogeneous race by wiping out the other ones. Just a different means to the same end.

[Terraforming2154]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ah....the voice of reason. Many thanks. Indeed, it was never my Shepard's goal to destroy the Reapers, that's what makes the "Destroy is the only option" people so disgusting to me.

Wow, you are far more benevolent than I am then.

I thought the idea of the reapers was interesting, but I never personally felt anything for them but disdain and maybe disgust. Sovereign said everything I needed to know about the reapers, and Harbinger just confirmed what I felt for them. Additionally, I figure that if they really are just tools for some AI to manipulate, then maybe eradication is a mercy for them. I know that's supposition, but much of the ending is.

Modifié par Terraforming2154, 23 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[Ieldra]

Cypher_CS wrote...
No, you aren't getting this.

It's not about Destroying the Reapers, it's about the Life in the ENTIRE Galaxy.
If you're a damn Xenophobe and just Renegade everything (don't be nitpicky here, just an extreme example) - then Destroy is your obvious choice.
Screw everybody. Let Dog sort them out.

If you're power hungry, then Control is the obvious choice for you. Isn't it?

It's not about the decisions Shepard made when faced with Reapers only, it's the overall themes.

Why are you thinking one dimensionally?
It's not about mirroring all your former choices against Geth on the next Geth choice. Or vs Asari on your next Asari related choice, and vs Reapers on your next Reaper related choice.
It's about all those decisions coming together.

Thanks yet again. Indeed, your choice should be a culmination of the choices you made throughout the game(s). The endings are so badly written that this is easy to overlook. 

[Anduin The Grey]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Genetic rape isn't morally/ethically wrong? YOU ARE FORCING A CHANGE ON EVERY LIVING THING.

Also, please tell me you are joking about it not being scientifcally  wrong. Please.

Actually my point is, as it has the whole way through not just this argument but every argument I've involved myself in is that that no discussion involving assumption of the facts is going to get us anywhere constructively.

We have no idea what synthesis actually does, it might just be an advanced form of augmentation, giving us a massive edge over any purely synthetic life that is created.

Wha\\t are you actually basing genetic rape on? And, if we have indeed been raped would you justify a DLC with a flush option?

[lordnyx1]

For the longest time in the history of man a round earth was pretty much inconceivable.

Thats rather iffy, the ancient greeks for sure knew the world was round. Columbus had such trouble getting his funding more because he understated how far it was from Europe to Asia and would have infact died if there was just ocean instead of north america blocking his way.

Modifié par lordnyx1, 23 avril 2012 - 03:50 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's just an excuse. If you want to explore, choose Control and check. *Then* you can fly those Reapers who don't want to exist anymore in a black hole. Or chosse Synthesis and set them free. Maybe some will fly into the next star.

But that's just it; they don't want anything.  They have no free will.  Legion even told us this in ME2; he described Sovereign as being many programs (presumably former people) controlled by a single will.  If the Catalyst had really preserved anything, wouldn't the Reapers display more free will?  That little punk had used them to destroy their own civilizations after all, wouldn't one or two of them have maybe told him to go jump in a lake or something?  At best, those people are just data, no longer sentient.  At worst, they're slaves.

And if you choose synthesis, and the Reapers just leave, where do you think they'll go?  What do you think they'll do?  I'd wager they'd just sit there and do nothing for the next ten billion years.  Given that they are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy I think destroy is exceedingly charitable.

Then Destroy is a valid choice for you. Good. But isn't for me. I'm just saying Synthesis is another valid choice.

Besides, disgust is not a category of a rational morality.

Valid, yes, but no less ethically troubling that what you're saying about destroy, if not more so.  I know what happens if I destroy the Reapers, and I know why I'd choose it.  I have no idea what synthesis would even do, nor the long term ramifications, which is what threads like this are all about.

[The Angry One]

YNation913 wrote...

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

If Kai Leng can send trololo emails while fully indoctrinated, Joker and EDI can't embrace?
Indoctirnation does not erase personality and desire.

[Darth Asriel]

@Leldra2- studying them is reckless and stupid. All evidence points towards even dead reapers wing capable of indoctrinating people. They must be destroyed utterly.

Allowing them to survive in synthesis and control is dangerous. You have no evidence that Shepard will be able to maintain control over them. For all we know Harbinger was once like Shepard and is now a slave to the catalyst. Destroy is the safest and wisest course of action.

[d-boy15]

synthesis is one of the best choice, yes.

but I'm sure as hell that I won't rape all species just to let cripple coward have fun with his sexbot.
also, I found it's concept a little recist and unreasonable, why make all organic to become partly
synthatic can stop them from killing each other?

I think the big reason why many people prefer this choice becasue they can't just sacrifice geth,
they hold geth and edi as a cost in destroy so, we won't choose it.

[Unit-Alpha]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Genetic rape isn't morally/ethically wrong? YOU ARE FORCING A CHANGE ON EVERY LIVING THING.

Also, please tell me you are joking about it not being scientifcally  wrong. Please.

Actually my point is, as it has the whole way through not just this argument but every argument I've involved myself in is that that no discussion involving assumption of the facts is going to get us anywhere constructively.

We have no idea what synthesis actually does, it might just be an advanced form of augmentation, giving us a massive edge over any purely synthetic life that is created.

What are you actually basing genetic rape on? And, if we have indeed been raped would you justify a DLC with a flush option?

You are thinking too narrowly, rape doesn't just mean physical rape. But can you deny you are forcing this change on everyone? And it is evident, look at the freaking trees in the end sequence.

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

Synthesis is not only incredibly stupid and anti-scientific....

The rest is a bit dramatic, but I agree with this^

In a game that prided itself so much on it's lore and sciences... To have a magical beam that can transmit DNA across an entire galaxy, but furthermore can chemically and genetically alter any being it touches...

Yea... Not happening....

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 23 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[wright1978]

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What about Joker and EDI?

Okay, really. What about them? What do we see in 10 seconds that tells us whether they've been changed or not?
How does that change that synthesis is what the Reapers want?

Then again you seem to be okay with war criminals winning so nevermind.

Yeah show me a 10 second clip of a collector and a 10 second clip of Javik.
One's a pale imitation of life but 10 seconds isn't enough to tell the difference.

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

Sorry i see no evidence of higher intelligence in that scene. Collectors aren't husks but they are a pale imitation of life, not something i'd ever subject life to in order to ensure its survival.

[Jackal7713]

Gogzilla wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

I chose the transhumanist endings in all three Deus Ex games, but in those games that was the central theme, and only in Invisible War was it forced on anyone.

In Deus Ex, merging with Helios to produce a benevolent dictator was justifiable because the world was already a dystopia, controlled by the Illuminati, and the only other alternative was a dark age. What's more, it was JC Denton's choice to merge.

Mass Effect 3 not only forces a similar merge on every living being in the decidedly non-dystopian galaxy without their consent, it does so AS WELL AS condemning the galaxy to a dark age!

Utterly insane.

True that,  Having played the Deus Ex games i had a lot more background when thinking about synthesis .
But not everyone has been exposed to those kind of ideas or really thought about them in depth.

ME3 just can't do the topic justice. If you did'nt know what it was before playing ME3 you certainly wont learn anything about it at the end either.

ME was never about evolution and transhumanism.
No one talks about it , no one says how they feel about it.
They just kind of shoe horn it in at the end along with everything else.

Agreed. Since ME was never about evolution and transhumanism, using it does not fit the story. Plus adding it after Deus EX HR, just makes it seem that the writers got uber lazy trying to think of a ending.

[legion999]

What does Synthesis do exactly? Does it make everyone smarter? Or stronger? Maybe both?
If so where does it stop? Will bacteria become sentient? What about locusts? Will we have talkng pyjak?

Too many questions with no answers for a decision of this magnitude. And that's not even considering the other issues with Synthesis.

[YNation913]

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jeez....

No, you aren't getting this.

It's not about Destroying the Reapers, it's about the Life in the ENTIRE Galaxy.
If you're a damn Xenophobe and just Renegade everything (don't be nitpicky here, just an extreme example) - then Destroy is your obvious choice.
Screw everybody. Let Dog sort them out.

If you're power hungry, then Control is the obvious choice for you. Isn't it?

It's not about the decisions Shepard made when faced with Reapers only, it's the overall themes.

Why are you thinking one dimensionally?
It's not about mirroring all your former choices against Geth on the next Geth choice. Or vs Asari on your next Asari related choice, and vs Reapers on your next Reaper related choice.
It's about all those decisions coming together.

It's about saving that life FROM the Reapers.
Synthesis compromises that life permanently, it violates and mutates that life into something the Reapers tolerate, hence they leave it alone.
That is a complete betrayal of every theme in the game.

Control is not so much a betrayal as it is poorly set up. It could work as an ultra renegade choice, but it comes out of the blue, mere minutes after Shepard argues that control is impossible due to being far too much of a gamble.

But what if Shepard's decision to change all life extends to the Reapers themselves? It would be interesting to see if the extended cut addresses whether the Reapers gained or lost anything as a result of this decision.

[Cypher_CS]

 

WandererRTF wrote...

No, I am open to the idea of co-existence instead of destruction or enslaving. And you're judging the Reapers by human standards again, which is - recall the rewrite/destroy heretics comment from Legion - misplaced.

Exactly, since synthesis imposes both destruction (of evolution) and enslaving (of free will) on all living beings (not excluded just to sapient beings) it is the wrong choice both on moral and ethical basis. For me - like many others - it is the worst option you could pick. The other options are bad as well but not nearly as horrible as synthesis. 

EDIT: And for the record, i have nothing against transhumanism, however that is not what synthesis is.

 

Where does it say or show that it imposes destruction of evolution?
Genetic algorithms exist today. AI can evolve, Nueral Networks can evolve. Hell, I'm working on one.
Where does it say or show that it ensalves free will?

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jeez....

No, you aren't getting this.

It's not about Destroying the Reapers, it's about the Life in the ENTIRE Galaxy.
If you're a damn Xenophobe and just Renegade everything (don't be nitpicky here, just an extreme example) - then Destroy is your obvious choice.
Screw everybody. Let Dog sort them out.

If you're power hungry, then Control is the obvious choice for you. Isn't it?

It's not about the decisions Shepard made when faced with Reapers only, it's the overall themes.

Why are you thinking one dimensionally?
It's not about mirroring all your former choices against Geth on the next Geth choice. Or vs Asari on your next Asari related choice, and vs Reapers on your next Reaper related choice.
It's about all those decisions coming together.

It's about saving that life FROM the Reapers.
Synthesis compromises that life permanently, it violates and mutates that life into something the Reapers tolerate, hence they leave it alone.
That is a complete betrayal of every theme in the game.

Control is not so much a betrayal as it is poorly set up. It could work as an ultra renegade choice, but it comes out of the blue, mere minutes after Shepard argues that control is impossible due to being far too much of a gamble.

Yes, it does violate life as we know it. Permanently.
But what if it does it for the better, like with the symbiosis of Geth and Quarian enviro-suits?
We aren't shown anything to deny that or contradict that, are we?

What's the problem with Reapers tolerating it?
This statement seems like your bias towards the must-have destruction of Reapers. Which is fine, cause it's your choice, and your view of Shepard based on the choices you've made throughout the three games.
That's the whole point.

[Ieldra]

Terraforming2154 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ah....the voice of reason. Many thanks. Indeed, it was never my Shepard's goal to destroy the Reapers, that's what makes the "Destroy is the only option" people so disgusting to me.

Wow, you are far more benevolent than I am then.

I thought the idea of the reapers was interesting, but I never personally feltanything for them but disdain and maybe disgust. Sovereign said everything I needed to know about the reapers, and Harbinger just confirmed what I felt for them. Additionally, I figure that if they really are just tools for some AI to manipulate, then maybe eradication is a mercy for them. I know that's supposition, but much of the ending is.

As I said, to each his/her own. But I hoped for something like this ever since I met Sovereign. Why? Because I never wanted the ME trilogy to be a cosmic horror story about "abominations" trying to kill everyone for no comprehensible reason. I always wanted them to be just super-powerful enemies we could come to understand one day, after we found some way to prevent them from destroying our civilizations.

The ending of ME3 gives me that. And that's why I like the final choice, if not the nonsensical logic of some stuff and the lack of closure.