336 réponses à ce sujet

[M Hedonist]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

I don't think you understand what I'm implying. If people become smart enough to undo something as severe as changing the fundaments of life, there's no reason people couldn't learn to change the Catalyst's programming again as others have already done or learn to directly control the reapers. And the only thing you have to say to that is that people will have enough time to prepare for that?

But you can make that kind of fearmongering argument about anything. The Rachni might be controlled again, kill them! The Geth might be controlled again, kill them! The Asari might produce more Ardat-Yakshi, ban all pureblood pairings!

Comparing reapers to Rachni and Geth... Jesus christ, you really don't do any inferences at all. This... thing that I presume is supposed to be your argument is completely baseless as you seem to miss my complete point for some reason: reapers just are Lovecraftian horror creatures. The derelict reaper in ME2 shows us that they cannot be anything other than that. They cannot choose to be anything different. Literally, the very essence of their existence is "Lovecraftian horror creatures" and nothing can change that, even after death they continue to do atrocious thing to organics (indoctrination). They wouldn't have to be corrupted to become that, they simply are. Even just bringing them into contact with organics can be highly dangerous. They are a corruption in themselves. That's the quintessential problem with them, they cannot choose to be anything but that, it's their very existence.
That's why it's ridiculously idiotic to compare them to any other species.

Sauruz wrote...  

Or having the Lovecraftian horror creatures that are a corruption to everybody around them sitting around somewhere really is a potential problem and you just want to ignore it.

Control is also a potential problem. Destroy is not, but the price was too high for my Shepard; I can certainly understand if yours went with it though, I'm not condemning you for that.

As far as we know, you could just instantly order every reaper to directly fly into the next sun in 'Control'. Problem solved, no casualties.
It's just that this scenario is too good to be true since there's no reason why the Catalyst would allow Shepard to do that. Or the writers just didn't think it through. We will have to see in the Extended Cut, but I don't see any reason why you can just assume the 'best possible' for Synthesis, but not assume the same for Control.

Optimystic_X wrote...

Synthesis isn't Saren's vision, and it's not Padok's either.

It's Mordin's.

I... don't even....

Optimystic_X wrote...
"Mordin sent me a nicely crafted message. It seems he recalls our conversations about the Salarian equivalent of Transhumans.

Transhumanshave some of their brain's abilities, such as memory, supplemented or entirely replaced by cybernetics. Legal definitions vary from planet to planet; the Salarians embrace the concept. Humans have diverse and contentious opinions."

Well, that explains everything! Mording always wanted to turn every living thing in the galaxy into a cyborg!
I know I've asked before, but are you for real? It's like you don't even understand the quintessential moral and ethical dilemmas of 'Synthesis' and just talk about how awesome Transhumanism would be.

Modifié par Sauruz, 02 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[The Night Mammoth]

^

Good point.

Just get the Reapers to build the Mass Relays again, all across the galaxy, give Liara the blueprints for them, ferry stranded people home, genetically engineer Shepard an immortal synthetic super body, then fly into the nearest sun and die.

Solve ALL the problems!

[EricHVela]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

^

Good point.

Just get the Reapers to build the Mass Relays again, all across the galaxy, give Liara the blueprints for them, ferry stranded people home, genetically engineer Shepard an immortal synthetic super body, then fly into the nearest sun and die.

Solve ALL the problems!

My belief is that Shepard is able to give one command to the Reapers and, then, die.

That makes the most sense to me if one is trying to make it a moral choice (but that's based on sloppy work).

[Ieldra]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Good point.

Just get the Reapers to build the Mass Relays again, all across the galaxy, give Liara the blueprints for them, ferry stranded people home, genetically engineer Shepard an immortal synthetic super body, then fly into the nearest sun and die.

Solve ALL the problems!

Why shouldn't we imagine the best possible plausible outcome? Personally, I would propose a rule "No Reaper Actions!" because I think that would go against the spirit of the endings, but anything short of that is fair game. I think that yes, it is more in the spirit of Control to keep the Reapers around, but who am I to mess with others' interpretation?

As I see it, since every option ends the Reaper threat, the final choice is more about how you want the galaxy to develop than about solving a problem. There are countless possibilities, here are some:

(1) Destroy: you want a future without Reaper technology, because that appears desirable to you for various possible reasons mentioned in the games, even if it comes at the cost of resetting galactic civilization.
(2) Control: you want to keep galactic civilization intact, even if it means continuing reliance on Reaper technology. What happens with the Reapers is not necessarily of interest, as long as they stop their harvesting.
(3) Synthesis: You want a shortcut in artificial evolution, a first step to getting the species of the galaxy to the same level of understanding and power as the Reapers.

You choose how you are. I certainly choose how I am when I choose Synthesis or Control and utterly reject Destroy. And each ending is for you what you put into it. That's why I advocate to not criticize any ending you don't like based on *your* interpretation of it. Because usually people have a visceral dislike for something first and then look for reasons why that absolutely must be bad in a more objective sense. Look at all those accusations of "Synthesis destroys free will", "We're all turned into Husks", "We'll become like the Borg". That's nonsense. Nothing of that is actually presented or told in the game.

As a result, I see the only valid criticism of Synthesis is the one based on "It forces a physical change on all life in the galaxy, which is an ethical problem." Even then, it is hard to have a debate about it because the question if that's justified is bound up in the concrete results, which we don't know.

But I would propose the following rule when debating the endings: all endings are good within the parameters of the philosophy they're based on. There are no negative effects or problems other than those told to us by the game (synthetics destroyed in Destroy) or inherent in the decision itself (forcing that physical change in Synthesis). The endings are representative of different philosophies. You can't do them justice if you don't adopt those philosophies for debate's sake.

So, regarding the Synthesis, we can debate whether it is desirable to be some form synthetic/organic hybrid, we can also debate whether it is justified to make such a change for the whole galaxy, but we should first agree that the results are supposed to be beneficial in a general sense. Regarding Control, we should first agree that no, Shepard will not use the Reapers to continue the cycle and that he can continue to control them. Regarding Destroy, we should agree that no, not all mass effect-based technology will be destroyed in the high EMS-version. 

We all want a good future for the ME universe. Give those you don't agree with some credit for that. Nobody wants a future where everyone's turned into Husks or we're becoming like the Borg. Thus, since the game doesn't tell us this happens and it's not an inescapable conclusion, it doesn't happen.

Edit:
I think "the writers didn't think this through enough" is a major factor of all this confusion.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 mai 2012 - 02:48 .

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Synthesis isn't Saren's vision, and it's not Padok's either.

It's Mordin's.

"Mordin sent me a nicely crafted message. It seems he recalls our conversations about the Salarian equivalent of Transhumans.

Transhumans have some of their brain's abilities, such as memory, supplemented or entirely replaced by cybernetics. Legal definitions vary from planet to planet; the Salarians embrace the concept. Humans have diverse and contentious opinions."

Modifié par Sepharih, 02 mai 2012 - 02:58 .

[M Hedonist]

@Ieldra2: No matter what you say, I stand by my statment that any Shepard who picks Synthesis is a delusional villain. The Catalyst establishes and explains Synthesis within 21 words. We are given no more information than:
"[...] combine all synthetic and organic life into a new frame work. A new DNA. [...] Synthesis is the final evolution of life."
That can literally mean anything. We know nothing at all about the consequences. The only thing we do know is that it will change all life forever and the reaper god really likes this 'solution'. No rational being would make a decision that changes the very fundaments of life forever based on so little information. That is literally playing god, doing something that may advance science/the galaxy, but may also irreversibly doom all life forever, with no definite way to know what will be the consequences.
Doing that without thinking about the possible consequences is irresponsible. Ignoring the risks and thinking your judgement is for the good of all is villainous. Blindly making assumptions that everything will turn out to be perfect and everybody gets super powers etc. is nothing but delusional.

Modifié par Sauruz, 02 mai 2012 - 03:11 .

[Zhuinden]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Zhuinden wrote...


Actually, an even better example would be shoving that medicine down your throat forcefully and not asking whether you actually want it or not. And considering the great deal of information, that would happen without informing you about the side-effects of it, even though it might cause liver damage, but who cares - at least your brain rot stops, right?

If your brain is rotting, that seems like a pretty pressing concern. Stopping to worry about side-effects is foolish.

Honestly, if I tried to be a smartass, I could say it's doing so in every single second of living. But considering this wasn't my example to begin with and was too tired to come up with a better one, I just rolled with it.
It's a better example to say someone breaking into your house with a syringe, injecting you with some sort of liquid, and you'd ask, "What the heck is that?"
And he'd say, "Apparently you, or your descendants would have had a chance to get cancer, because all people will eventually get cancer. So I injected you with this vaccine that prevents that, without your consent. Of course, the side effect includes that you are no longer human, in fact, you are no longer a living, organic being. I hope you like it."
Your response would be, "WHAT"

So just because you assume 'something will probably happen in the future', you can't just validly force your opinion down others' throat. It has side-effects that are unknown, and you're picking this decision for every single living being (not just sentient, note the trees' leaves) without their consent.
You just don't have the right.

Zhuinden wrote... 

Forcing your views down the throat of others merely because you think it is right does not necessarily make it right. There is a chance they don't want it, they don't need it. Why is this so hard to understand?
As I've said before, following this logic, even the Reapers' intention is justified.

They may not want it, but the other options are even less palatable.

Who knows? Destroy ending with low enough EMS destroys all beings, note how the Crucible blast devastates humans, turns them into dust. That would imply that with higher EMS, it could even take only the Reapers down. It's a possibility.
Why is Control worse than Synthesis? Shepard becoming the new Catalyst and controlling the Reapers doesn't seem to be as wrong as rewriting every single living being from DNA to everything.

Modifié par Zhuinden, 02 mai 2012 - 04:59 .

[Ieldra]

Zhuinden wrote...
Why is Control worse than Synthesis? Shepard becoming the new Catalyst and controlling the Reapers doesn't seem to be as wrong as rewriting every single living being from DNA to everything.

Actually, I find Control the best option given what little information we have about what Synthesis really does. I think we can plausibly assume that the changes the Synthesis makes are beneficial, which is why I feel justified in taking it (the results determine the morality of the choice as I see it), the whole presentation points to that, but given the nonsensical and content-less information we get about it, there's enough uncertainty about it that Control looks better in the situation. It is my interpretation and my Shepard's transhumanism that makes me choose Synthesis in my primary playthrough, but there's too much headcanon involved to argue for it here. All I say is that Synthesis is open for an interpretation that makes it the best ending, while Control is the best ending with little interpretation necessary. Unless you believe "All Reaper tech is bad", of course. But I don't take that belief seriously.  

Edit:
I don't believe statements like "X is wrong". Moral statements are not facts, but assertions. There are certain things which would be impossible for any human to say, but beyond that it's all cultural conditioning and ideology.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 mai 2012 - 07:55 .

[Demoiselle]

...No. No it's not. It's missing the whole 'everyone but a few wiped out, and the ones left serving the reapers' part. Which was basiclly his entire plan.

[MrRag]

Synthesis was exactly what Saren wanted when he was indoctrinated. Just listen to what he says at the end of ME1.

[Shallyah]

"Let's become like them so they don't kill us".

It's exactly Saren's vision. Flawed vision too, since he sees where he went wrong in his reasoning at the end of the game and shoots himself thanking you for allowing him to snap out of it. Now imagine enforcing it in the whole Galaxy even if they don't agree with it or prefer to die before becoming synthetic or having their DNA and racial identity messed with.

Modifié par Shallyah, 02 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[M Hedonist]

Ieldra2 wrote...
[...]I think we can plausibly assume that the changes the Synthesis makes are beneficial[...]

I don't agree at all.
You never get any information during your conversation with the Catalyst on the consequences of Synthesis. It's never implied that it has beneficial changes apart from the vague, highly contradictory and nonsensical "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" statement. All we know is that it somehow stops organics and synthetics from killing each other and that the reapers really likes the idea. For all we know, it might be brain washing on a genetic level. Making any decision based on that knowledge is irresponsible.
And what we see afterwards doesn't give us any clue about its effects either. It's just some pseudo-intellectual imagery with no coherence. Even if it did show us the consequences of Synthesis, it wouldn't change the fact that Shepard just made a big, irresponsible gamble involving all life in the galaxy.