897 réponses à ce sujet

[adneate]

nuculerman wrote...
Actually, as someone brought up in another thread and I elaborated on, Shepard has every right to make that decision.  The galaxy gave their consent.  They all agreed to help build the crucible, not understanding what it's function was, only knowing it was preferrable to extinction, which was the only other logical option they had.  The ethical onus does not lie solely on Shepard's soldiers.  The galaxy signed up for this, and even, more or less, elected Shepard as their representative.

That's not the same as having the moral right to perform such a drastic and far reaching action, that's having the technical right to do something. Like being elected President and then launching a nuclear strike because they gave you the office and the launch codes.

Shepard may have the authority but without knowing all the consequences to fundamentally changing the entire natural order of the galaxy and every living thing in it Shepard can not morally make that choice since Shepard does not know what the long term consequences or risks are. Shepard cannot even gaurantee the people of the Galaxy that the Reaper threat is over since they are not physically destroyed in the Synthesis ending and we can't say definitively that they won't come back or will never harm anyone ever again for any reason. Shepard is told by someone who you have no reason to trust someone that has orchestrated an endless cycle of misery and death in the fraudulent pursuit of "order".

[Ashilana]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Are you serious Bioware? By removing the undesirable elements we can achieve peace? Do you understand the political undertones in this? 

Clearly they did not.

Sometimes people make fun of artists for "just making stuff up", what they don't get is that when you make something up and call it art...that means people get to poke holes in it, analyze it, react to it.  And if what you made is horrific, if it supports genocide or forced assimilation or something else that is horrible...you don't get to hide from what you have made.

Along wth artistic integrity comes artistic responsibility.

[Taboo]

I hope they read this thread.

I started a fire. Oops.

[RShara]

lol yeah....what undesirable elements are in the geth and how exactly are they removed?

No free will for everyone!

[nitefyre410]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I hope they read this thread.

I started a fire. Oops.

 

Na - you just  threw the match on the powder keg that was already there... it was bound to happen. 

Honestly its about time someone just straight up call Bioware out on this.. 

[nuculerman]

Taboo-XX wrote...
An argument that could be described as fallacious. The atomic bomb was set off even though scientists didn't know what it would do. We technically consented with our tax dollars.

No one consented to anything other than stopping the Reapers. They did NOT agree to lost everything in the process. Furthermore the Synthesis option is provided by the Catalyst as his new solution NOT his old one.

The argument is not fallacious.  And the atomic bomb is not comparable.  At all.  It's a bomb.  It was meant to murder people.  Everyone understood that.

The crucible was built as the only solution to the Reapers.  No one had any idea what it did.  The fact they assumed it magically destroyed all the Reapers and let everyone else live happily ever after does not recuse them for their decision to build it and use it.  Ignorance does not imply no responsibility.  It was equally likely Shepard wouldn't be given a choice, and when they activated it, the only thing that was ever going to happen was synthesis.  In fact, as far as they all know after the fact, that's EXACTLY what happened.

You people especiall should understand this.  You all claim control or synthesis was the option Star Child wanted you to pick.  In which case, were there no you, one of those two options would have been picked anyway.

[Taboo]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I hope they read this thread.

I started a fire. Oops.

 

Na - you just  threw the match on the powder keg that was already there... it was bound to happen. 

Honestly its about time someone just straight up call Bioware out on this.. 

I was fed up. Tired. I just want answers or at least acknowledgement.

I'm not dumb Bioware and neither are your users. We know you messed up and will forgive quite a bit if you just say so.

[Taboo]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
An argument that could be described as fallacious. The atomic bomb was set off even though scientists didn't know what it would do. We technically consented with our tax dollars.

No one consented to anything other than stopping the Reapers. They did NOT agree to lost everything in the process. Furthermore the Synthesis option is provided by the Catalyst as his new solution NOT his old one.

The argument is not fallacious.  And the atomic bomb is not comparable.  At all.  It's a bomb.  It was meant to murder people.  Everyone understood that.

The crucible was built as the only solution to the Reapers.  No one had any idea what it did.  The fact they assumed it magically destroyed all the Reapers and let everyone else live happily ever after does not recuse them for their decision to build it and use it.  Ignorance does not imply no responsibility.  It was equally likely Shepard wouldn't be given a choice, and when they activated it, the only thing that was ever going to happen was synthesis.  In fact, as far as they all know after the fact, that's EXACTLY what happened.

You people especiall should understand this.  You all claim control or synthesis was the option Star Child wanted you to pick.  In which case, were there no you, one of those two options would have been picked anyway.

The bomb was built to stop a problem. As was the crucible. The general consensus about the crucible was that it would provide the ability to kill the Reapers. HACKETT MENTIONS THE ATOM BOMB IN THE DIALOUGE. IT'S THERE.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

MisterJB wrote...
In the scenarion I presented, in which way is humanity dead?
We maintain sentience, consciousness, free will, individuality...
Synthesis gives us amazing physical benefits and, to stop the war, maybe the ability to communicate at the speed of tought or maybe it will allow humans to choose which values they  wish to uphold much like EDI is capable of doing. Duty, love, altruism.
In this scenario, how is humanity dead? Hell, EDI rests her head on Joker's shoulder. She seems more alive than before.

We simply do not know what "Synthesis" entails.  We haven't been given nearly enough information on how it would work, what exactly would be synthesized, which entity is controlling the synthesis process, whether any elements of synthetic or organic life would be discarded in the process, etc.  There are simply far too many variables that we really cannot predict with any reasonable certainty what the ramifications would be.

Choosing Synthesis is nothing more than a gamble, a roll of the dice, in which you are hoping it will work out the way you want it to.

[nuculerman]

adneate wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
Actually, as someone brought up in another thread and I elaborated on, Shepard has every right to make that decision.  The galaxy gave their consent.  They all agreed to help build the crucible, not understanding what it's function was, only knowing it was preferrable to extinction, which was the only other logical option they had.  The ethical onus does not lie solely on Shepard's soldiers.  The galaxy signed up for this, and even, more or less, elected Shepard as their representative.

That's not the same as having the moral right to perform such a drastic and far reaching action, that's having the technical right to do something. Like being elected President and then launching a nuclear strike because they gave you the office and the launch codes.

Shepard may have the authority but without knowing all the consequences to fundamentally changing the entire natural order of the galaxy and every living thing in it Shepard can not morally make that choice since Shepard does not know what the long term consequences or risks are. Shepard cannot even gaurantee the people of the Galaxy that the Reaper threat is over since they are not physically destroyed in the Synthesis ending and we can't say definitively that they won't come back or will never harm anyone ever again for any reason. Shepard is told by someone who you have no reason to trust someone that has orchestrated an endless cycle of misery and death in the fraudulent pursuit of "order".

I think you misunderstand my intention.  My intention is not to argue synthesis is a moral choice.  My intention is to argue the rest of the galaxy is not innocent in the event Shepard chooses synthesis.  They are at least equally morally culpable for the outcome of jumping into the green light.

[Madecologist]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I hope they read this thread.

I started a fire. Oops.

 
Na - you just  threw the match on the powder keg that was already there... it was bound to happen. 

Honestly its about time someone just straight up call Bioware out on this.. 

Exactly.

I think most of us assumed they atleast deep down knew the 'considerations' and 'implications' of Synthesis but decided to still go with it. Plenty of writers write stuff like this. It was just a question of bad execution or rushed writing (or simply bad writing).

But when you realise that even in real life they didn't consider these... a certain feeling of digust is felt. It makes you question the very nature of the writers themselves. Even after this long they still don't see it, you can forgive missing it at first... but even now they don't see it....

Modifié par Madecologist, 26 avril 2012 - 08:44 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Mr.House wrote...

EDI outright tells you she is ready to die to defeat the Reapers. If EDI and the Geth do truly die in Destroy then it sucks but through their sacrifice, they have rid the Galaxy of a race of evil machines.

It's not their sacrifice. They don't choose to die with Destroy. EDI is ready to actively sacrifice herself, the Normandy, if it means victory, but it is her choice, not Shepard's, to make. Same with the Geth, but then you can't say that for all of them, some may not want to die.

[Taboo]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
In the scenarion I presented, in which way is humanity dead?
We maintain sentience, consciousness, free will, individuality...
Synthesis gives us amazing physical benefits and, to stop the war, maybe the ability to communicate at the speed of tought or maybe it will allow humans to choose which values they  wish to uphold much like EDI is capable of doing. Duty, love, altruism.
In this scenario, how is humanity dead? Hell, EDI rests her head on Joker's shoulder. She seems more alive than before.

We simply do not know what "Synthesis" entails.  We haven't been given nearly enough information on how it would work, what exactly would be synthesized, which entity is controlling the synthesis process, whether any elements of synthetic or organic life would be discarded in the process, etc.  There are simply far too many variables that we really cannot predict with any reasonable certainty what the ramifications would be.

Choosing Synthesis is nothing more than a gamble, a roll of the dice, in which you are hoping it will work out the way you want it to.

Humanity no longer exists as a whole. It's something else entirely. Fueled by Shepard's essence.

[nitefyre410]

Taboo-XX wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I hope they read this thread.

I started a fire. Oops.

 

Na - you just  threw the match on the powder keg that was already there... it was bound to happen. 

Honestly its about time someone just straight up call Bioware out on this.. 

I was fed up. Tired. I just want answers or at least acknowledgement.

I'm not dumb Bioware and neither are your users. We know you messed up and will forgive quite a bit if you just say so.

 

Yeah I can understand that feeling, its one the reasons why I reject all three endings. I just simply refuse to even entertain any of these choices as  being right.. as far as I'm concerned they are all wrong.  

 The issue Bioware is under the preception or shall we say  delusion that they have done  no wrong here and they believe it whole heartedly. I doubt they are going to big enough  come out and say... "Opps our bad?"   

They believe some much their own hype that they can't see massive errors in thinking they have made in the name "Art"    Pride and Ego  will do that to a person or persons in this case.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 26 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[Skull Bearer]

nuculerman wrote...

adneate wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
Actually, as someone brought up in another thread and I elaborated on, Shepard has every right to make that decision.  The galaxy gave their consent.  They all agreed to help build the crucible, not understanding what it's function was, only knowing it was preferrable to extinction, which was the only other logical option they had.  The ethical onus does not lie solely on Shepard's soldiers.  The galaxy signed up for this, and even, more or less, elected Shepard as their representative.

That's not the same as having the moral right to perform such a drastic and far reaching action, that's having the technical right to do something. Like being elected President and then launching a nuclear strike because they gave you the office and the launch codes.

Shepard may have the authority but without knowing all the consequences to fundamentally changing the entire natural order of the galaxy and every living thing in it Shepard can not morally make that choice since Shepard does not know what the long term consequences or risks are. Shepard cannot even gaurantee the people of the Galaxy that the Reaper threat is over since they are not physically destroyed in the Synthesis ending and we can't say definitively that they won't come back or will never harm anyone ever again for any reason. Shepard is told by someone who you have no reason to trust someone that has orchestrated an endless cycle of misery and death in the fraudulent pursuit of "order".

I think you misunderstand my intention.  My intention is not to argue synthesis is a moral choice.  My intention is to argue the rest of the galaxy is not innocent in the event Shepard chooses synthesis.  They are at least equally morally culpable for the outcome of jumping into the green light.

What about the pre-spaaceflight species who haven't a word or stake in any of this? They're going to be changed as well, against their will.

[IanPolaris]

Here is something else about "Synethesis". There is absolutely no guarantee that the now independant Reapers won't go slaughtering the rest of the galaxy. Shepard even asks, "...but will there be peace" AND THE STARBRAT NEVER ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

-Polaris

[Seryl]

MisterJB wrote...
I'm a practical person.
In the scenario I presented, all life in the galaxy; and I mean ALL life, Sythesis doesn't leave anyone behind regardless of financial status; gained so much with Synthesis and lost nothing. I find it selfish to attempt to deny them all of this good based on moral implications.

Then quite honestly we don't have anything else to talk about. The majority of people that have ever tried to deny those pesky "moral implications" have, traditionally, been in favor of some of the grossest human rights violations in recorded history.

MisterJB wrote...
In the scenarion I presented, in which way is humanity dead?
We maintain sentience, consciousness, free will, individuality...
Synthesis gives us amazing physical benefits and, to stop the war, maybe the ability to communicate at the speed of tought or maybe it will allow humans to choose which values they  wish to uphold much like EDI is capable of doing. Duty, love, altruism.
In this scenario, how is humanity dead? Hell, EDI rests her head on Joker's shoulder. She seems more alive than before.

You're missing the point here. Humanity isn't dead, but a part of what made Humanity Human is gone. Mordin actually gave a speech about it in ME2 when he was discussing the collectors. We are, as beings, defined by our limitations and what we do to adapt and overcome them. By using this Synthesis idea to artificially remove all limitations, then the maturity that comes along with the struggle to overcome those limitations is gone. In short, you are not who you would have been. Something intangible and unmeasurable, but ultimately very important, is gone.

Even the rest of the game agrees with me. Again, Mordin discusses this and ends by saying that meddling in the development of the Krogan was wrong because it robbed them of the chance to develop on their own. The true Geth differed from the heretics because they wanted to achieve their end goal on their own, rather than take the shortcut offered to them by the Reapers. Even other sci-fi works came to the same conclusion (ie. Star Trek's Prime Directive).

In short, the journey to maturity, knowledge and enlightenment is worth just as much, if not more, than the end result. Taking the shortcut, offered by the luminous brat, disrupts what makes all life worth saving.

[OneDrunkMonk]

Off all the endings it's the synthesis one that pretty much forks dead the future of the Mass Effect universe. I always felt there was a million stories left to be told in Mass Effect, just as the universe has existed. Now what? But as for logic...How does this magical universe wide synergy even happen? For that matter, if the Reapers or "Star Child" is/are so concerned about war between organics and synthetics why didn't they evoke this synergy a few 100,000 years ago?

Again, I cannot logically see the ending given as being the intended ending BioWare had planned since ME1. For that matter, much of ME3 seems adulterated.

[Taboo]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I hope they read this thread.

I started a fire. Oops.

 

Na - you just  threw the match on the powder keg that was already there... it was bound to happen. 

Honestly its about time someone just straight up call Bioware out on this.. 

I was fed up. Tired. I just want answers or at least acknowledgement.

I'm not dumb Bioware and neither are your users. We know you messed up and will forgive quite a bit if you just say so.

 

Yeah I can understand that feeling, its one the reasons why I reject all three endings. I just simply refuse to even entertain any of this choices as  being right.. as far as I'm concerned they are all wrong. 

 The issue Bioware is under the preception or shall we say  delusion that they have done  no wrong here and they believe it whole heartedly. I doubt they are going to big enough  come out and say... "Opps our bad?"   

They believe some much their own hype that they can't see massive errors in thinking they have made in the name "Art"    Pride and Ego  will do that to a person or persons in this case.

Quite a bit of stress would go away if they just made more contact. I think the EC can do quite a bit of good if it is done properly but they need to be aware of what people DON'T want. It's frustrating to me to be railroaded like this.

If they announced a rewrite or something I'm sure fans would GIVE them money.

[AtlasMickey]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Mr. Gamble seems to find it a confusing concept that we already considered synthetics as equally valid forms of life.

I get this impressoin as well. 

[Baa Baa]

Are all the BioWare writers like him now? I pray they aren't. This guy sounds like a ******

[Taboo]

IanPolaris wrote...

Here is something else about "Synethesis". There is absolutely no guarantee that the now independant Reapers won't go slaughtering the rest of the galaxy. Shepard even asks, "...but will there be peace" AND THE STARBRAT NEVER ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.

-Polaris

Polaris........do I know you from......MUBI?

Anyway.....that's a big problem you raise.

Ugh. The lack of information just makes it worse.

[nuculerman]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The bomb was built to stop a problem. As was the crucible. The general consensus about the crucible was that it would provide the ability to kill the Reapers. HACKETT MENTIONS THE ATOM BOMB IN THE DIALOUGE. IT'S THERE.

Yes.  Because Hacket was one of the many who assumed the crucible was a Reaper off switch, that magically killed the Reapers, only the Reapers, and nothing but the Reapers.  No one understood the technology.  The technology of the atom bomb was very well understood.  A neutron breaks up an atom.  That process releases more neutrons.  The release of neutrons is exponential, and so much heat gets built up, we have ourselves a bomb.  Place it here, people die.  Place it here, we get constructive interference from the shockwaves, and more people die.  Radiation is released, so the long term consequences to the area are probably not ideal.

And that is exactly how the bomb functioned.  Anyone who agreed to detonating the bomb was morally culpable for the resulting loss of life.

The only way the situation would be analagous is if the scientists creating the A-Bomb said, "so, there's a lot of energy, but we have no idea how that energy is going to get used.  Like, at all.  No seriously."  And then they said, oh great, lots of energy.  Let's throw it at Japan.  And then China, along with Japan, dissolved.  And in that scenario, would not everyone who agreed to use the bomb be morally culpable for the loss of life in China?  The answer is yes.  Ignorance does not recuse you of moral responsibility.

[shnellegaming]

I would just like to point out that it only rewrote our own galaxy.  And it only rewrote the DNA that is already current in the galaxy.  It did not change any laws of physics.  Meaning the galaxy itself will go on as normal and keep creating regular organic stuff which creates synthetic stuff.  So in effect we have only created a THIRD side which will war with other other two sides.  Its not a solution in the long run in any sense.  More then likely within a few cycles all the synthesized DNA will die out and everything will be back to the way the laws of physics dictates.

[adneate]

nuculerman wrote...
I think you misunderstand my intention.  My intention is not to argue synthesis is a moral choice.  My intention is to argue the rest of the galaxy is not innocent in the event Shepard chooses synthesis.  They are at least equally morally culpable for the outcome of jumping into the green light.

They are not they placed their trust in someone who they believed would destroy the Reapers and end the war, they empowered Shepard to that purpose. They did not empower Shepard to play God with the Galaxy and alter the natural course of life while at the same time not destroying the Reapers. By that same logic if I was given Supreme Command over an Army with the intent of defeating the enemy who was killing your family and destroying your home and instead I used it to march on the capital then surrender our nation to that enemy and denounce everything we are, it would be your fault since you gave me the power in the first place. By giving it to me you agreed ahead of time to anything I'd do and any decision I'd make. So I'm no more a traitor than all of you for trusting me.

They are innocent since they did not count on being betrayed by the person they placed so much trust in. Shepard was given that power to Kill The Reapers, not to alter the fabric of life and not kill the Reapers.