267 réponses à ce sujet

[Kroguard]

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

Oh? In what way?

You destroyed a synthetic race on the basis that you would protect all other synthetic races from destruction and war. 

[Peranor]

Kroguard wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

111987 wrote...


Have you ever heard of Rousseau's concept of the General Will? Basically he talks about how that sometimes, what is best for the community (or in this case, the galaxy) isn't always what the majority wants. Sometimes leaders (in this case, Shepard) have to make the decision that is best, rather than what is most morally acceptable, or what the majority wants, etc...

So what? Yes, I am familiar with Rousseau's concept of the "general will" and I reject it. It's basically a justification for most of the worst that humanity's greatest monsters have forced upon society in the name of the nebulous concept of the "Greater Good." It all sounds very noble until you're the one that gets sacrificed by someone else for that concept.

So you are are sacrificing the geth for everyone else? Hmm... and you don't believe in this concept? Your argument seems circular. 

Well, let's look at the scale of genocide here.

Synthesis -> Sacrifice ALL organic life in the galaxy right down to the smallest fragments of DNA/RNA, so that there is no more organic life and never will be. Funny how in saving everyone from the fear of the Star Brat, we bring about what he was worried about - the end/destruction of all organic life. Also, you can't forget that we will also be sacrificing all synthetic life in this option, too. EDI and the Geth? They won't exactly be EDI and the Geth when this is done. They'll be something else, and we have no way of knowing what. So, we're also sacrificing all synthetic life. So, we're really sacrificing ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT to do this without any idea of what it is we're doing. Oh, and the Reapers live.

Destroy -> Possible sacrifice all synthetic and partially synthetic life, including myself to destroy the Reapers and definitely end the cycle. The Reapers die but likely so will I and many others who may already be dead and who will certainly die if I don't end it now. So, I take a risk that Star Brat is lying.

And, yes, I consider synthesis to be a death for everyone even if they still walk around afterwards because you are effectively killing what they were before as unique organisms/constucts. They will never be that again, and that existence was exterminated by whatever synthesis does.

You can try to argue that synthesis brings about something better, but there is simply no good evidence of that except for a nonsensical cut scene. Unless the EC "shows me the money," synthesis is quite simply the end/death of everything and everyone as far as I am concerned. Your mileage obviously varies.

Oh.. so now you are ok with that you so ardently opposed simply because the scale of life and death is changed? Given the cutscenes, I see no evidence that anyone (organic or synthetic) is fundamentally changed at all. You're going to have to do better than circular arguments. 

But if they are not fundamentally changed. Then what is the point of synthesis?
If all it does is make our eyes green and give us glowing circuit board tatoos it changes nothing.

[Taboo]

As they stand right now all the endings are pretty bad.

MORE INFO.

[Grimwick]

Synthesis. Defend. In the same sentence without a "cannot"?
You must be mad!

On a more serious note, I get your gist OP but I tend to disagree.
Synthesis to me is the beginning of evolutionary and technological stagnation. It destroys the diversity of the universe - what made ME so unique - and prevents any future change. This is mostly speculation of course but if it is described as the 'apex of evolution' by the SC then how can society improve and develop in the future? As Eve says about the history of the Krogan:
"Life became to easy, there were  no challenges and so we found challenges in each other and destroyed ourselves."
On a side note I'd like to ask that if, as the SC says, synthesis is the 'ultimate solution' then why didn't the race that designed the reapers decide to carry out synthesis themselves?

Also I completely disagree with the premise that synthesis is the ultimate solution. That is a completely unfounded idea and makes little sense as to how it will stop conflicts. We just have to look at Earth today to understand that simply being made from the same stuff won't stop conflict.

Thirdly, and the point that annoys me the most, synthesis is completely out of sync with the rest of the game. It is simply space-magic - outrageously so. Anything which contradicts or screws up the established lore of the game has no place within it. If they wanted to use synthesis then they should have made it more subtle, or given a reasonable scientific explanation (though I doubt one possibly exists within the lore of the game). Nothing in ME could possibly change all matter in living organisms/synthetics on a molecular level simultaneously.

Modifié par Grimwick, 06 mai 2012 - 09:55 .

[Kroguard]

Anorling... my whole point with this post is that we don't know what the point of synthesis really is based off of what Bioware gives us.

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

Oh? In what way?

You destroyed a synthetic race on the basis that you would protect all other synthetic races from destruction and war. 

I destroyed an ideology that preached death and destruction as necesssary, so that the galaxy could progress in its absence. I doubt I will have achieved eternal peace. In fact, I expect that conflict is inevitable. The point is now the galaxy can choose its own path, as opposed to being dominated by the will of the Reapers.

And my hope is that the history and sacrifice of the Geth make that future better, not worse. But it could easily go either way. The point is, however, that I have no right to choose the future for all the races of the galaxy. We were all fighting - including the Geth - to choose our own future. Destroy is the only option in which all the peoples of the galaxy get to continue doing so.

[DJBare]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I applaud you, OP, for not being a narrow-minded fool.

In my opinion it is a narrow minded view biased by wanting to save a single species, I have no problem with people who want to choose the synthesis path, but it is the reaper way, force order on chaos.
The struggles, adversity and diversity of organic life are the very things that define who we are, remove the challenge and there is nothing left to strive for.

More importantly, the catalyst calls it the "pinnacle" of evolution, which means there is only one direction to go from there, and it's not up.

[Kroguard]

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

Oh? In what way?

You destroyed a synthetic race on the basis that you would protect all other synthetic races from destruction and war. 

I destroyed an ideology that preached death and destruction as necesssary, so that the galaxy could progress in its absence. I doubt I will have achieved eternal peace. In fact, I expect that conflict is inevitable. The point is now the galaxy can choose its own path, as opposed to being dominated by the will of the Reapers.

And my hope is that the history and sacrifice of the Geth make that future better, not worse. But it could easily go either way. The point is, however, that I have no right to choose the future for all the races of the galaxy. We were all fighting - including the Geth - to choose our own future. Destroy is the only option in which all the peoples of the galaxy get to continue doing so.

Except the geth. 

[Peranor]

Grimwick wrote...



Thirdly, and the point that annoys me the most, synthesis is completely out of sync with the rest of the game. It is simply space-magic - outrageously so. Anything which contradicts or screws up the established lore of the game has no place within it. If they wanted to use synthesis then they should have made it more subtle, or given a reasonable scientific explanation (though I doubt one possibly exists within the lore of the game). Nothing in ME could possibly change all matter in living organisms/synthetics on a molecular level simultaneously.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[lordofdogtown19]

xsdob wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

I just finished ME1 the other day and it was amazing to me how similar synthesis is to what Saren wanted.

Incorrect because an even blend of the 2 with no dominating part of the mix is a lot different than a synthetic dominated organic whose organic parts are used as a resource.

Saren also said that being hybrid made him the final evolution of organic life. Sound familiar?

Just listen to him (skip to 1:45)

[edisnooM]

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

Oh? In what way?

You destroyed a synthetic race on the basis that you would protect all other synthetic races from destruction and war. 

I destroyed an ideology that preached death and destruction as necesssary, so that the galaxy could progress in its absence. I doubt I will have achieved eternal peace. In fact, I expect that conflict is inevitable. The point is now the galaxy can choose its own path, as opposed to being dominated by the will of the Reapers.

And my hope is that the history and sacrifice of the Geth make that future better, not worse. But it could easily go either way. The point is, however, that I have no right to choose the future for all the races of the galaxy. We were all fighting - including the Geth - to choose our own future. Destroy is the only option in which all the peoples of the galaxy get to continue doing so.

Except the geth. 

Actually as an interesting note there was cut dialogue with a Geth Prime (Why did you cut this Bioware?) where it declares that there will be no more compromise with the old machines, and that the Geth will build their own future. Whether that means they would agree with Destroy is I suppose up for debate.

[wantedman dan]

Kroguard wrote...

Jere85 wrote...

We would have so many new races... the Refridgerators... the frigates.. Toaster ovens... and dont forget about Televisions.

Maybe somewhere in your mild criticism you forgot the proper spelling of refrigerator? 

And just like that, OP loses credibility.

As for your "defense" of Synthesis by launching an offense against Destroy: no one is saying any of the endings are the "moral" choice. In fact, they're all morally reprehensible. Mass genocide, mass slavery, or the destruction of genetic diversity--those are your choices.

Terrible choices at that.

[Sisterofshane]

DJBare wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I applaud you, OP, for not being a narrow-minded fool.

In my opinion it is a narrow minded view biased by wanting to save a single species, I have no problem with people who want to choose the synthesis path, but it is the reaper way, force order on chaos.
The struggles, adversity and diversity of organic life are the very things that define who we are, remove the challenge and there is nothing left to strive for.

More importantly, the catalyst calls it the "pinnacle" of evolution, which means there is only one direction to go from there, and it's not up.

*applauds*

[nategator]

Respectfully, I think people are leaking their dislike of the style of how the endings were presented with the assumption that synthesis is "stagnation" or "destroying diversity". There is nothing in the game that suggests this. Instead, the Adam/Eve scene between Joker and EDI indicate that synthesis preserved individuality but seemed to tear down the barriers between organic and synthetic life (represented by EDI laying her head on Joker's shoulder) and thus possibly break the cycle of organic extinction by synthetics.

I also add the twitter responses by the BW staff indicating that all three choices were "correct".

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

Oh? In what way?

You destroyed a synthetic race on the basis that you would protect all other synthetic races from destruction and war. 

I destroyed an ideology that preached death and destruction as necesssary, so that the galaxy could progress in its absence. I doubt I will have achieved eternal peace. In fact, I expect that conflict is inevitable. The point is now the galaxy can choose its own path, as opposed to being dominated by the will of the Reapers.

And my hope is that the history and sacrifice of the Geth make that future better, not worse. But it could easily go either way. The point is, however, that I have no right to choose the future for all the races of the galaxy. We were all fighting - including the Geth - to choose our own future. Destroy is the only option in which all the peoples of the galaxy get to continue doing so.

Except the geth. 

Any way you cut it, the Geth lose. Either they lose the ability to choose their future or they lose that future. In choosing destroy, they go out fighting the way they chose too. In choosing synthesis, they continue to exist as something that they did not choose to be. 

If you prioritize free will, destroy is the only choice.

[Kroguard]

Grimwick wrote...

Synthesis. Defend. In the same sentence without a "cannot"?
You must be mad!

On a more serious note, I get your gist OP but I tend to disagree.
Synthesis to me is the beginning of evolutionary and technological stagnation. It destroys the diversity of the universe - what made ME so unique - and prevents any future change. This is mostly speculation of course but if it is described as the 'apex of evolution' by the SC then how can society improve and develop in the future? As Eve says about the history of the Krogan:
"Life became to easy, there were  no challenges and so we found challenges in each other and destroyed ourselves."
On a side note I'd like to ask that if, as the SC says, synthesis is the 'ultimate solution' then why didn't the race that designed the reapers decide to carry out synthesis themselves?

Also I completely disagree with the premise that synthesis is the ultimate solution. That is a completely unfounded idea and makes little sense as to how it will stop conflicts. We just have to look at Earth today to understand that simply being made from the same stuff won't stop conflict.

Thirdly, and the point that annoys me the most, synthesis is completely out of sync with the rest of the game. It is simply space-magic - outrageously so. Anything which contradicts or screws up the established lore of the game has no place within it. If they wanted to use synthesis then they should have made it more subtle, or given a reasonable scientific explanation (though I doubt one possibly exists within the lore of the game). Nothing in ME could possibly change all matter in living organisms/synthetics on a molecular level simultaneously.

And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

[Peranor]

DJBare wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I applaud you, OP, for not being a narrow-minded fool.

In my opinion it is a narrow minded view biased by wanting to save a single species, I have no problem with people who want to choose the synthesis path, but it is the reaper way, force order on chaos.
The struggles, adversity and diversity of organic life are the very things that define who we are, remove the challenge and there is nothing left to strive for.

More importantly, the catalyst calls it the "pinnacle" of evolution, which means there is only one direction to go from there, and it's not up.

I like you DJBare. You always manage to remain calm and constructive in the middle of this sh*itstorm 

[nategator]

Kroguard wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Synthesis. Defend. In the same sentence without a "cannot"?
You must be mad!

On a more serious note, I get your gist OP but I tend to disagree.
Synthesis to me is the beginning of evolutionary and technological stagnation. It destroys the diversity of the universe - what made ME so unique - and prevents any future change. This is mostly speculation of course but if it is described as the 'apex of evolution' by the SC then how can society improve and develop in the future? As Eve says about the history of the Krogan:
"Life became to easy, there were  no challenges and so we found challenges in each other and destroyed ourselves."
On a side note I'd like to ask that if, as the SC says, synthesis is the 'ultimate solution' then why didn't the race that designed the reapers decide to carry out synthesis themselves?

Also I completely disagree with the premise that synthesis is the ultimate solution. That is a completely unfounded idea and makes little sense as to how it will stop conflicts. We just have to look at Earth today to understand that simply being made from the same stuff won't stop conflict.

Thirdly, and the point that annoys me the most, synthesis is completely out of sync with the rest of the game. It is simply space-magic - outrageously so. Anything which contradicts or screws up the established lore of the game has no place within it. If they wanted to use synthesis then they should have made it more subtle, or given a reasonable scientific explanation (though I doubt one possibly exists within the lore of the game). Nothing in ME could possibly change all matter in living organisms/synthetics on a molecular level simultaneously.

And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

Agreed, the idea that most alien species would be humanoid or bipedal with similar height and weight is "space magic" as well.  If you look at the biodiversity of just this planet the idea that alien life would look anything like a human being is wishful thinking.  

Most popular science fiction is merely fantasy with scientific overtones instead of fantasy with medieval overtones.

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 10:09 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Up until the end of the trilogy they went a fine line between space magic, gameplay necessities (clips everywhere) and suspension of disbelief.
Then suddenly they just throw it all over board for a weird philosophically boring and very very gamey choice thingy.

And no, synthesis is beyond everything you could save with any discussion or argument. At least in the context presented in the game. You could, theoretically, muse about organics and life and machines and so on and so on... yes. But in this Reaper context? Husks and all that stuff? No, just no.

I liked that post about Jokers hat being all glowy... lol

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 06 mai 2012 - 10:09 .

[Grimwick]

Kroguard wrote...
And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

It actually makes a lot more sense than changing matter on a molecular level.
And I disagree, making it so unrealistic that it ignores your previously established lore destroys your immersion, your attachment and understanding of the game. Breaking immersion does anything but make it more fun. It ruins it.

If your post was just a vis-a-vis to destroy, then it's simply pointless. It's like comparing a cowpat to bird droppings.
At least destroy makes sense from one side of the argument. I can't see that at all with synthesis.

Modifié par Grimwick, 06 mai 2012 - 10:17 .

[AlexMBrennan]

I'm sorry but I'm finding it hard to be unbiased because the writing is just not all that great - I am unable to suspend enough disbelief to see the geth as anything other than toasters, and godchild as anything other than a confused hallucination.

OP: Google golden mean fallacy. Also, the immediate body count does not determine the morality of the choice.

Synthetic and organic civilizations no longer have a reason to clash and the reapers have no further need to harvest advanced life.

You literally have to take godchilds word for this. There is no explanation. You are not given any reason to trust him. What little Godchild says makes no sense.

[ZombieChad]

 Firstly Project Overlord isn’t about Synthetics rising up it’s about an organic mind railing against enforced synthetic interference. Last time I checked David wasn’t a Synthetic.

Synthesis has truly unforeseeable consequences on not just everyone, but everyTHING in the Galaxy.  You
claim Synthesis is the ending of peace. So Turian's suddenly stop being a militaristic society and Krogan stop being overly aggressive, Volus stop trading to get one up on the other as they've done for millennia and so on... All the cultures, behaviours and in essence the soul/spirit of what each species has acheived is stripped away in a wave of Green BS. Read the Dune series and pay attention to Leto II's Peace that he enforces and that now “everyone is Atreides”, I see a lot of similarity and possibility for this kind of event as after all what do the
Reapers do then? They’re not dead.  Dothey follow their orders/programming and “preserve life” by acting as enforcing agency or do the untold billions of harvested and "preserved" species live on left without meaning just drifting through space?  I know that you dismiss this next question but it doesn’t stop its validity. The technology exists to make synthetic life. Does this mean that as soon as a new-synthetic steps off a production line it
suddenly becomes sentient and “alive”?

If it doesn’t have any of the effects I’ve mentioned then the problem isn’t solved, the changes are seemingly cosmetic and wars between species can (and will) still occur solving only the Reaper crisis and meaning
that the Geth are still going to wage war just now they'll do it for a more realistic reason than because they MUST destroy all life. This raises the questions if the Reapers would now intervene to stop the war and “preserve life”?

So Destroy is the least of the 3 evils. Its breaks the cycle as the Reapers and their creator (or in my opinion, firewall program) are dead hurrah! I’ve wanted to do that since I played ME1. This option also kills the Geth, EDI and Shep but it imposes nothing upon the survivors of the Reaper War and from this point forward life will continue naturally and not on a cycle founded on the flawed idea that synthetics will by their nature turn on Organics.

The Organic/Synthetic relationship is hardly friendly at first but that’s far from unique. Just like in the Morning War where the Geth waged an implacable fight driving the Quarian’s off, when the Humans and Turians first butted heads in the First Contact War the Turian's used asteroid drops kill single fire teams of Alliance Soldiers.  Eventually though peace was founded. Secondly It has already stated that the Geth outstrip organic species in several areas but by and large (the Heretics) chose isolation to avoid unnecessary conflict. This decision shows the flaws in Starchild’s logic and their alliance with the Quarian’s points towards the fact that AI's can work and work well with Organics.

So I chose Destroy. Did I feel guilty over the Geth and EDI? A little twinge for the Geth but that was it with EDI I felt as guilty as I did over Kaiden and any of the other characters, but their sacrifice (and Shepard’s) stops all Reaper influence permanently. Will that lead to a war where AI's wipe out all organics? I seriously doubt it as so far despite their superiority the Geth were being defeated by the Quarian’s and had to get Reaper upgrades to
even the balance. 

Personally I’m unwilling to blast every sentient species with an unknown energy type that defies physics and existing lore simply to keep the Geth, EDI and Shepard alive. The Destroy choice ends the threat and we go on with our lives at a slower pace but they are OUR lives, untouched by Reapers, Crucible, Catalyst or by any would be God-Emperor Shepard.

You also asked if I’d have sacrificed every man woman and child. I assume you’re talking about human man woman and child. If so then yes I would, I’d been thinking that might be necessary since I saw what Sovereign was capable of and when I saw the Collector Base I began to take in that this was bigger than one species’ fate and that most likely several species would no longer exist after the third. I’d sacrifice the Turians, Asari, Volus, Elcor, Salarian, Krogan or even the Yahg. How many species would I have done that to? I don’t know, but I will concede that I’m glad it stopped at one. Am I monster for choosing that? Possibly, though I’m a monster that makes no attempt to manipulate the fate of every survivor of the Reaper War inflicting unknown changes on them and therefore every single one of the immeasurable number that will born in the post-Reaper Era or a monster that would forgive the untold genocide of countless more species before us by accepting the flawed logic of an inevitable unstoppable Organic/Synthetic conflict.

I also noticed that when someone questions your morality you ask them not to resort to petty insults but when Hyr 2.0 congratulates you on not being a narrow minded petty fool, with the implication that those who disagree
with Synthesis are, you simply thank him rather than ask him to keep quiet or contribute something meaningful to the discussion. Don’t you want everything to be standardised just how we’d be if we were Synthesised? (Joking)

 **editted the formatting**

Modifié par ZombieChad, 06 mai 2012 - 10:17 .

[Reorte]

Kroguard wrote...

And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

I can just about accept Control as some sort of override transmission to the Reapers and Destroy a similar signal that triggers a self-destruct. It seems very unlikely that the Reapers would be daft enough to be at all vulnerable to such a signal but it's orders of magnitude more plausible than changing everything Synthesis (and why I regard "destroys all synthetic life" as nonsense).

[Peranor]

Kroguard wrote...




And so channeling a beam of red energy specifically and exclusively upon advanced synthetics to destroy them is believable? As a physicist, I can fully tell you with 100% confidence that all those endings are "space magic". The game is sci-fi meaning that you can't expect everything to be fully realsitic or believable. That is what is part of the fun. This post is based purely off the morality of synthesis vis-a-vis destroy.

I agree with that. They are all silly. I just find synthesis to be the most ridiculous of the three.
We all know that in science fiction, you can create new laws that dictate what's possible in that universe.  But the story in that universe then has to follow those laws, otherwise the story gets unrealistic in a different, bad-writing kind of way.  And that is what synthesis is for me; unrealistic in a different, bad-writing kind of way. 

[Anacronian Stryx]

I wonder how anybody would react if a great unseen hand suddenly changed you and all the life around you to something new and unwanted, i bet you'll feel pretty violated, It's kind of like mind control except here you don't get your mind changed you get your life changed instead; And you have no say in it at all.