897 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Klijpope wrote...
Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

[Iakus]

Cypher_CS wrote...
So what?
Was Shepard supposed to go all "Okay Kid, hold on a sec here, while I go discuss this with the rest of the fleet - got a Phone handy? Cause I gots to tell ya, reception be crappy around these here parts"?

And don't try to find justification for consequentialism right after you go all against it in the first place. Cause it's kinda self negating. If you're against consequentialism, there's no way you can find a justifiable way for it to work. Period.
Stick to your guns.

Why not?

The Crucible's up and running.  The Catalyst controls the Reapers.  Pull the forces back and figure out what the new "Solution" should be.

It's called a parlay.  And it's not just for pirates...

[Sisterofshane]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

And if consequentialism works so well, why isn't everyone allowed to around doing whatever they feel is "best" for everyone?  Oh, that's right - because it is impossible for any one person to truly know what would be best.  One person has limited perspective and experience, and Shepard isn't any different then the average person in this respect.  Considering this and the fact that Shepard is making what is essentially an uninformed decision based upon a five minute conversation (possibly less) had with a being that is showing a very hard bias toward the choice of synthesis, I believe that it would take a very egomaniacal person to make this choice believing that they were doing so for everyone's own good.

The only way that the Synthesis would be justified by consequentialism would be to show that the what happened thereafter was purely beneficial.  As the ending stands, there is not enough to base a decision on what "good" may happen.

So what?
Was Shepard supposed to go all "Okay Kid, hold on a sec here, while I go discuss this with the rest of the fleet - got a Phone handy? Cause I gots to tell ya, reception be crappy around these here parts"?

And don't try to find justification for consequentialism right after you go all against it in the first place. Cause it's kinda self negating. If you're against consequentialism, there's no way you can find a justifiable way for it to work. Period.
Stick to your guns.

First, the point of the last sentence is that there IS no justification for consequentialism, so it really isn't a valid moral standpoint when discussing the endings as they were presented.  I wasn't trying to make it justifiable - it never was.

And second, I wouldn't be calling anybody - these are the very reasons why I didn't make the choice for Synthesis, and would NEVER make the choice for synthesis.  I don't care if Bioware had given me thirty more hours to stand about and discuss these very topics with the Catalyst itself.  I believe Synthesis by it's nature to be wrong because you are guaranteed that you are taking away the free will and self-determination of somebody, somewhere.  The reason I chose destroy is because I believe that the Reapers did not have the right to decide how anybody's future should be determined, despite their hypothetical justifications.

[Cypher_CS]

Parleley, parlelellyleloooo, par le nee, partner, par... snip, parsley...

Anywho, Sister, please, I beg of you, your posts are halfway decent, please try to refrain from inserting unfounded claims in them (like taking away free will, in that last one) and basing your arguments on them.

Really, I'd love to reply to you, but I just can't repeat the same Absence of Evidence mantra time and time again.
Please...

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Parleley, parlelellyleloooo, par le nee, partner, par... snip, parsley...

Anywho, Sister, please, I beg of you, your posts are halfway decent, please try to refrain from inserting unfounded claims in them (like taking away free will, in that last one) and basing your arguments on them.

Really, I'd love to reply to you, but I just can't repeat the same Absence of Evidence mantra time and time again.
Please...

What we have here is nothing short of divine. It is inconceivable. Without clarification we can't reach a consensus. He has every right to speculate because that's what Bioware wanted him to do. It's his right.

It is also your right to disagree.

[Iakus]

Richard 060 wrote...

Here's a thought - might not have already been posted, but figured it was worth a mention:

What happens with non-sentient animal life, or 'primitive' (e.g., equivalent to anything from the Bronze Age to the Middle Ages on Earth) civilisations, all of which aren't really of a level to comprehend the notion of 'synthetic life', let alone 'synthesis', and are pretty well-established in their respective ways of life.

How do they cope with suddenly being turned into synth-organic 'hybrids' without their consent? Would they even understand what happened? Would animal life be crippled by such a sweeping forced change? And would primitive sentients be open-minded enough to accept change, or would their superstitions and beliefs (again, using both Earth's own history, plus that of the other races in Mass Effect, as examples) prevent them from dealing with it in a constructive manner?

It's just another reason why synthesis as a concept might have seemed like a 'cool' idea at the time of writing by Mac/Casey, but put in any thought and logical extrapolation beyond the scant depiction in the frankly piecemeal end cutscene, and it just doesn't hold together at all.

They'll take it and like it.

Because Shepard says so.

[DJBare]

Ieldra2
Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

You do not see a difference between making a choice regarding something like the rachni and changing the fundamental nature of the galaxy?

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Parleley, parlelellyleloooo, par le nee, partner, par... snip, parsley...

Anywho, Sister, please, I beg of you, your posts are halfway decent, please try to refrain from inserting unfounded claims in them (like taking away free will, in that last one) and basing your arguments on them.

Really, I'd love to reply to you, but I just can't repeat the same Absence of Evidence mantra time and time again.
Please...

What we have here is nothing short of divine. It is inconceivable. Without clarification we can't reach a consensus. He has every right to speculate because that's what Bioware wanted him to do. It's his right.

It is also your right to disagree.

I disagree 
About it being inconcievable. I think I've done a good job presenting several pseudo-scientific and grounded in very recent research theories about how it might go down (minus the Green Magic beam). 
Both in this topic and in Ieldra's.

[Iakus]

Here's a question: would there be any question at all that Synthesis might have been a Bad Idea if the crew stepped out of the Normandy looking huskified like TIM, rather than having glowing eyes and such?

[Cypher_CS]

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2
Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

You do not see a difference between making a choice regarding something like the rachni and changing the fundamental nature of the galaxy?

Are you familiar with the concept of Agency?

P.S.
IRT Taboo,
I object to the absoluteness with which some people use these wild assumptions that are based on the Absence of Evidence.
That's my problem.
Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence - and definitely not absolutely so.

[incinerator950]

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2
Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

You do not see a difference between making a choice regarding something like the rachni and changing the fundamental nature of the galaxy?

Depends on the situation.  In the case of this, it was their choice to make.  If it was me, I would have taken Control of the Reapers and ordered a retreat out of all theaters of war. 

[Cypher_CS]

iakus wrote...

Here's a question: would there be any question at all that Synthesis might have been a Bad Idea if the crew stepped out of the Normandy looking huskified like TIM, rather than having glowing eyes and such?

Probably no, because then there would be evidence of something sinister.
It won't be Absence of Evidence, it would actually be Evidence of something.

Right now, the ONLY bit of "Evidence" there is is the fact that apparently Joker and EDI still have feelings for each other (and yes, this can easily be inferred from the embrace).

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Parleley, parlelellyleloooo, par le nee, partner, par... snip, parsley...

Anywho, Sister, please, I beg of you, your posts are halfway decent, please try to refrain from inserting unfounded claims in them (like taking away free will, in that last one) and basing your arguments on them.

Really, I'd love to reply to you, but I just can't repeat the same Absence of Evidence mantra time and time again.
Please...

What we have here is nothing short of divine. It is inconceivable. Without clarification we can't reach a consensus. He has every right to speculate because that's what Bioware wanted him to do. It's his right.

It is also your right to disagree.

I disagree 
About it being inconcievable. I think I've done a good job presenting several pseudo-scientific and grounded in very recent research theories about how it might go down (minus the Green Magic beam). 
Both in this topic and in Ieldra's.

Pseudo-sciene.........you can't be serious. Are you? You are making large assessments about something from the same field that contains things like crystal healing and psychics? No one takes it seriously in the scientific community. It has no basis in anything in a series that was very realistic in it's setting or real life.

Please tell me you're joking.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 30 avril 2012 - 06:23 .

[Sisterofshane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Klijpope wrote...
Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

And I happen to agree that there are many different ways to interpret the choice in the end.  Maybe one person would choose control to gain the power of the reapers - another person might do it to send them away forever.  The ending is left open-ended enough to do that (they never do give an in-game justification about the end choice, like the did for the Collector Base).

[Kunari801]

iakus wrote...

Here's a question: would there be any question at all that Synthesis might have been a Bad Idea if the crew stepped out of the Normandy looking huskified like TIM, rather than having glowing eyes and such?

True, both ME1 and ME2 talk about how the Reapers are synthetic-organic hybrids.   So when I was present with the choice of Synthesis it sounded like the "Reapers win" ending to me --as did "Control"-- thus "Destroy" was all that was left to choose. 

I'd like to see "Control" split into two:   1- A way to just kick the Reapers out (even if it just reset the cycle) but have Shepard lives and 2- Shepard joins the Reapers for permanent control.  

I'd like to see "Destroy" split up too, with high enough EMS you can choose to kill the Reapers and yourself (Thus saving the Geth & EDI) or sacrifice the Geth & EDI to save yourself.  

Modifié par Kunari801, 30 avril 2012 - 06:30 .

[Klijpope]

Sisterofshane wrote...
And the problem I have with your last sentence is the sentence above that.  They can take the time, it seems, to hammer home the point that conventional victory is impossible, but couldn't possibly add any foreshadowing about the catalyst and the possibility of peace with the Reapers (and within that scope, synthetics), except for ONE line of dialogue that was delivered just one mission before we return to earth and deploy the crucible?  If that isn't story-fail then I don't know what is.

But there is some foreshadowing. Vendetta states that the pattern exists and that the Reapers are part of the pattern, not its instigators. That implies a creator - something we have not encountered yet. Also the very fact that no one knows what the Catalyst actually is means that we know that we will encounter something we've not met before.

Granted, it is not particularly strong foreshadowing, but it is certainly stronger than Vigil's was, which came out of nowhere on Ilos.

Maybe we're actually kind of mixing our metaphors. The story tells us to expect something unexpected at the end as a means of 'victory'. However, as gamers, we note the collection of war assets and the fact we have a score, and this sets up in our minds that bigger EMS = 'moar winning', to paraphrase another Sheen.

So is it just that here we have got stuck in a dichotomy between gameplay grammar vs story grammar?

These (semi) interactive fictions are still very much a work in progress, and squaring the circle of story progression versus gameplay mechanics hasn't been truly cracked yet. Even crafting a film which had several alternate routes through its narrative hasn't been done effectively. No one can say with any authority that "this is the way that you should do this". The books haven't been written yet - though the key issues may well have been identified on these boards these past weeks, if you can filter out all the noise.

Modifié par Klijpope, 30 avril 2012 - 06:31 .

[Sisterofshane]

Cypher_CS wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2
Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

You do not see a difference between making a choice regarding something like the rachni and changing the fundamental nature of the galaxy?

Are you familiar with the concept of Agency?

P.S.
IRT Taboo,
I object to the absoluteness with which some people use these wild assumptions that are based on the Absence of Evidence.
That's my problem.
Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence - and definitely not absolutely so.

With the information presented to us before the decision, all we have left is to make assumptions.  Some of these might appear "wild" but they are all equally valid concerns.

[Vox Draco]

Kunari801 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Here's a question: would there be any question at all that Synthesis might have been a Bad Idea if the crew stepped out of the Normandy looking huskified like TIM, rather than having glowing eyes and such?

True, both ME1 and ME2 talk about how the Reapers are synthetic-organic hybrids.   So when I was present with the choice of Synthesis it sounded like the "Reapers win" ending to me --as did "Control"-- thus "Destroy" was all that was left to choose. 

Not to forget that, as far as the dioalogue tells us, or rather not tells us, the half-synthetic Reapers are still around after synthesis has been chosen. Are they affected by the green light too? Will they just return to dark space? Fall from the sky? Open up exotic restaurants on each planet? Become the natural overlords of the half-synthetic galaxy?

Why does the kid only say: "The cycle will end" when Shepard asks if there will be peace? Because half-synthetics are still bound to fight each other, just like organics vs. organics did, and organics vs. synthetics, and synthetics vs. half-synthetics etc...?

Or because the entire galaxy must still be conquered by the still existing Reapers to avoid any kind of chaos? Lots of open questions, too many for my taste, if the galaxy's fate is at stake...

[Ieldra]

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2
Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

You do not see a difference between making a choice regarding something like the rachni and changing the fundamental nature of the galaxy?

There is - though not in the way you mean it. The difference is a matter of scope and results. I condemn a whole species to death, destroying any future it might have, or I effect a change in physical makeup - on the whole galaxy, but the effect is far less drastic than death and is even implied to be beneficial. I have much less trouble with the latter. I would prefer to give people a choice, but if all I have is a global on/off button, I'll use it.

I don't subscribe to the notion that our physical nature is sacrosanct. We live in a symbiosis with bacteria, and our evolved biology is a complete mess, as if you'd evolved a calculator program into an AI by applying a million patches. What's so special about that? I'm not turning anyone into a monster. The ending sequence implies people are still very much themselves. I have much less trouble making a physical change of that nature than with enslaving the Reapers for the foreseeable future or exterminating all synthetics.

Also the "final evolution of life" may be nonsense, but only because of the "final". It is implied that life will evolve in the same direction anyway, I'm just using a shortcut to pass a certain problematic stage with a risk of global extinction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 06:43 .

[Sisterofshane]

Klijpope wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
And the problem I have with your last sentence is the sentence above that.  They can take the time, it seems, to hammer home the point that conventional victory is impossible, but couldn't possibly add any foreshadowing about the catalyst and the possibility of peace with the Reapers (and within that scope, synthetics), except for ONE line of dialogue that was delivered just one mission before we return to earth and deploy the crucible?  If that isn't story-fail then I don't know what is.

But there is some foreshadowing. Vendetta states that the pattern exists and that the Reapers are part of the pattern, not its instigators. That implies a creator - something we have not encountered yet. Also the very fact that no one knows what the Catalyst actually is means that we know that we will encounter something we've not met before.

Granted, it is not particularly strong foreshadowing, but it is certainly stronger than Vigil's was, which came out of nowhere on Ilos.

Maybe we're actually kind of mixing our metaphors. The story tells us to expect something unexpected at the end as a means of 'victory'. However, as gamers, we note the collection of war assets and the fact we have a score, and this sets up in our minds that bigger EMS = 'moar winning', to paraphrase another Sheen.

So is it just that here we have got stuck in a dichotomy between gameplay grammar vs story grammar?

These (semi) interactive fictions are still very much a work in progress, and squaring the circle of story progression versus gameplay mechanics hasn't been truly cracked yet. Even crafting a film which had several alternate routes through its narrative hasn't been done effectively. No one can say with any authority that "this is the way that you should do this". The books haven't been written yet - though the key issues may well have been identified on these boards these past weeks, if you can filter out all the noise.

I think that the problem runs deeper then gameplay expectations.  While they surely have colored my overall review of the game, I think the story issues run deeper then just contradictory game mechanics.

To me, the "unexpected" twist was when the catalyst was revealed as the citadel (or at least that's all it should have been).  The information given to us by Vendetta felt cheap - like they couldn't be bothered to actually work the Catalyst (the strange being residing on the citadel) into the game.  What we have here is two separate plot twists - one that was foreshadowed properly through-out the trilolgy (the Citadel being the Key to defeating the Reapers) and another that was thrown in last minute to turn the Reapers into sympathetic villains (which they clearly were NOT forshadowed to be).

[Klijpope]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Klijpope wrote...
Anyhow, moving on, some folk are saying that Shepard had no right to decide on the Synthesis option. If that's the case, then she had no right to decide on the Rachni, or to decide whether the Council lived or died, or whether the Geth got rewritten or not, or whether the genophage was cured, or who surivived the Rannoch war.

Shep has the right to choose synthesis because the rest of the galaxy gave him that right, and responsibility, during the entire game. Hackett explicitly gives Shepard the agency to end the reaper threat. Being a Spectre gives her all the authority she needs. Her final words are: "Then there'll be peace?". That's her goal, not revenge against the Reapers (or it might be, if that's the way you roll). Destroy doesn't end the problem forever; Control keeps the reapers around like a sword of Damocles; Synthesis changes the rules of the entire game (the Reaper's game, that is) - its virtue is the fact that it is impossible to predict the outcome, which makes the future open, and returns hope to both organics and synthetics. That is why I personally like it. I don't need to understand the physics of it; the mass effect is already space magic even if it is wrapped up in plausible technobabble.

If you'd prefer death before 'dishonour', then it is possible to wait it out after the conversation with the Catalyst to get a 'critical mission failure', as a conventional victory was never possible, a point hammered home throughout the enitre game (just completed my second playthrough last night - this point is relentless).

In the end, these choices are a matter of taste, not story-fail. That comes from the abrupt presentation and garbled denouement.

Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

And I happen to agree that there are many different ways to interpret the choice in the end.  Maybe one person would choose control to gain the power of the reapers - another person might do it to send them away forever.  The ending is left open-ended enough to do that (they never do give an in-game justification about the end choice, like the did for the Collector Base).

Playing through the end again last night I was struck as to how simply they (BW) may have been able to provide, if not justification, at least insight into how Shepard actually feels about these choices. If Shep could raise some objections to each choice, even if they could be shot down and just be chewing the cud, at least it would allow the player to express Shepard's personality at the very end. I actually like the fact that the final choice comes down to a visual, symbolic action (try to control the pillars, shoot the widget, or leap into the unknown), but Shepard still needed a voice before that point to help the player empathise with her.

So maybe it is not about justifying the final decision, but empathising with the character making that choice, like we have with every difficult decision throughout the rest of the series. Some extra dialogue work could fix that aspect.

[Cypher_CS]

Sisterofshane, I can't argue with that - the information presented before the decision and explosion, you are absolutely right. It's up to you.

But, as Iedra stated in his post, there were many themes and foreshadowing - I personally had no such assumptions. But, again, that's okay, cause I think that's the beauty of the whole thing - our experiences were shaped differently - both by our choices and our attention, I guess.

Taboo said

Pseudo-sciene.........you can't be serious. Are you? You are making large assessments about something from the same field that contains things like crystal healing and psychics? No one takes it seriously in the scientific community. It has no basis in anything in a series that was very realistic in it's setting or real life.

Excuse me, but... what?

[PsyrenY]

If Synthesis sucks but everyone (including the Geth and Reapers) are still alive, it can one day be undone. That is much less possible if I'm going around committing genocide, or if Control doesn't work as advertised and the reaping continues unabated.

If Synthesis kicks ass - you're welcome.

So either way, Synthesis is the right choice for my Shepard.

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Sisterofshane, I can't argue with that - the information presented before the decision and explosion, you are absolutely right. It's up to you.

But, as Iedra stated in his post, there were many themes and foreshadowing - I personally had no such assumptions. But, again, that's okay, cause I think that's the beauty of the whole thing - our experiences were shaped differently - both by our choices and our attention, I guess.

Taboo said

Pseudo-sciene.........you can't be serious. Are you? You are making large assessments about something from the same field that contains things like crystal healing and psychics? No one takes it seriously in the scientific community. It has no basis in anything in a series that was very realistic in it's setting or real life.

Excuse me, but... what?

I'm going to assume that if you are going to use Pseudo-Science as a source you need to be aware of what that entails. With such claims you are lumped into the same catergory as Ancient Astronaut Theorists.

Read about it here. I can't take you seriously if you are using this area as a source for information because it doesn't really have any basis here.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 30 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[kookie28]

Ieldra2 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2
Thank you. That was another thing I wanted to say but was too pissed off to phrase properly. Shepard has that right because a combination of invested authority, skill, heroic determination and luck placed them at the fulcrum of events to decide where the galaxy will go. My goal was indeed to make peace if possible, not enact revenge. It may be different for others, but that was my Shepard's goal, and it - and the methods used - are just as valid as any other.

You do not see a difference between making a choice regarding something like the rachni and changing the fundamental nature of the galaxy?

There is - though not in the way you mean it. The difference is a matter of scope and results. I condemn a whole species to death, destroying any future it might have, or I effect a change in physical makeup - on the whole galaxy, but the effect is far less drastic than death and is even implied to be beneficial. I have much less trouble with the latter. I would prefer to give people a choice, but if all I have is a global on/off button, I'll use it.

I don't subscribe to the notion that our physical nature is sacrosanct. We live in a symbiosis with bacteria, and our evolved biology is a complete mess, as if you'd evolved a calculator program into an AI by applying a million patches. What's so special about that? I'm not turning anyone into a monster. The ending sequence implies people are still very much themselves. I have much less trouble making a physical change of that nature than with enslaving the Reapers for the foreseeable future or exterminating all synthetics.

Also the "final evolution of life" may be nonsense, but only because of the "final". It is implied that life will evolve in the same direction anyway, I'm just using a shortcut to pass a certain problematic stage with a risk of global extinction.

That phrase was my biggest problem with Synthesis.  If Casper hadn't said those words to me the first time I had a choice, I might have picked Synthesis.  That, and I wanted to live too.  If there was no chance to live in Destroy I may have picked Synthesis anyway.

Modifié par kookie28, 30 avril 2012 - 06:47 .