9089 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

For someone as smart as you, you sure have a big blind spot.

You conveniently omitted the paragraph where I explained why the argument "We don't know in advance that X won't happen" is irrelevant. If I may remind you:

Unknown vs. unknowable. I’ve explained this to you. You yourself claim that some of the effects of Synthesis are beyond our understanding.

Sorry, your freakish everyone-is-brainwashed-scenario won't happen. And you do know that without looking at the epilogue.

No. Without the epilogue (and as I have to point out once again, even with it), it’s perfectly possible that there will be significant cognitive changes. In fact, it’s exceedingly likely in light of all that we know of human biology, but I’ll throw you a bone and say it’s 50/50 odds.

So, I ask you again:

Can I get you to acknowledge this: the actual end result is irrelevant to making the decision?

If you’re not interested in a discussion about the morality of the choice, just admit you’re making the third-worst choice morally speaking, and move on.

[Xamufam]

[quote]pirate1802 wrote...

[quote]Troxa wrote...

[/quote]
Not benifits just slavery
You are too religious
You people would kill just too get your way even if it's a bad thing
The benefits are too small versus the repercussions

[/quote]

Didn't see any slavery or repercussions apart from green skin. I guess I was watching a different ending.

[/quote]

Alredy explaind it earlier

[DirtyPhoenix]

Didn't see any slavery or repercussions apart from green skin. I guess I was watching a different ending.

lillitheris wrote...Of course it is. A morally repugnant and/or stupid Shepard can choose
Synthesis and think it’s probably…maybe…going to be awesome, and die
happily.

Depends..
The morality factor maybe to a huge one for some people, not that huge
for some. I guess renegade shepard would have no such qualms. As for
being stupid, I think destroy is more stupid, taking an AI race, an
innocent race which cooperated with you down with the reapers when they
can be used for good is just.. To muddleheaded? Shepard behaves exactly
how TIM describes anderson: An old soldier stuck in his ways. But thats
just my opinion.

lillitheris wrote...
Right, and everybody is suddenly perfectly OK with the Reapers.

Like everybody is OK with reapers walking about london, and hovering above Earth in Control ending. Or like Joker is perfectly ok with losing EDI and Hackett doesnt even sees it fit to mention Shepard even once. I guess they were indoctrinated by dead reapers.

lillitheris wrote...
Right. So, do you understand why I think that it’s perfectly fine for Shepard alone
to go through Synthesis, but that it is a horrifying thought that
Shepard would presume to force it on everyone, especially with as little
idea about what’ll happen as he has?

In
each ending he forces something on someone else. In destroy would the
geth be ok with his decision to obliterate them? Would the galaxy be ok
with a new reaper-god watching over them? Or would they be ok with
getting killed because their hero is an indecisive fool?

lillitheris wrote...

No. Without the epilogue (and as I have to point out once again, even with it), it’s perfectly possible that there will be significant cognitive changes.

All cognitive changes doesn't mean necessarily mean brainwashing. Sure it can be one of the possibility, but to say ALL cognitive changes has to be brainwashing is a blanketing statement.

And it is ironic, given that it is the reapers, that most probably got brainwashed.

Troxa wrote...

Alredy explaind it earlier

If it is about that brainwashing part then clearly we see the world differently. You believe they would never coexist without brainwashing, i believe they can. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 juillet 2012 - 11:53 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You conveniently omitted the paragraph where I explained why the argument "We don't know in advance that X won't happen" is irrelevant. If I may remind you:

Unknown vs. unknowable. I’ve explained this to you. You yourself claim that some of the effects of Synthesis are beyond our understanding.

(1) You didn't explain, you made generalizing assumptions I didn't agree with. Dismissed.
(2) That was before the EC. As opposed to you, I am not interested in discussing the pre-EC situation. Dismissed.
(3) I said the *process* was beyond our understanding, not necessarily the results. Dismissed.

No. Without the epilogue (and as I have to point out once again, even with it), it’s perfectly possible that there will be significant cognitive changes.

It's also possible that Synthesis will make everyone grow a unicorn's horn or turn the tip of everyone's nose blue. That is irrelevant. Of course nobody of the anti-Synthesis faction claims that - it wouldn't serve their purpose of discrediting Synthesis.

We can only base our information on what we're told. We get zero information about how biochemistry is exactly affected. Your assertion that it's likely to affect our thought processes is based on zero evidence. All we are told is that it will change our physical selves in some way that makes it possible to integrate technology.

NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!

(At this point, I could get into a debate about human biology, DNA, protein synthesis and neurochemistry, but I am not confident that it would serve any purpose, given your assertions here).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[Heeden]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

That does not change the fact that the only choice that is worse is Refuse. If you wish to metagame, that’s your business — just don’t try to portray Synthesis as having some higher moral ground. It doesn’t. It’s an abhorrent choice, regardless of the outcome.[/quote]

None of the choices occupy a higher moral ground with the possible exception of Refuse, because whilst it may lead to the death of everyone in the galaxy it is immoral through inaction rather than through action which at least could be said to keep Shepard's hands clean. Destroy and Control are, to my mind at least, morally less appealing than Synthesis.

[quote]Can I get you to acknowledge this: the actual end result is irrelevant to making the decision? [/quote]

No, because we tried playing that game with you earlier in the thread and you failed to keep away from "actual results" in your replies.

[quote]pirate1802 wrote....
That is why I believe there is no best or worst ending. It is all a matter of what you/your Shepard sees as being the best for the galaxy and acts accordingly.[/quote]
[/quote]

[quote]Of course it is. A morally repugnant and/or stupid Shepard can choose Synthesis and think it’s probably…maybe…going to be awesome, and die happily.

If you can’t separate the actual RP decision from metagaming, then it’s useless to discuss it. Just admit that Synthesis is a terrible choice to actually make in that moment and move on to talking about the mechanics and implications of the epilogue in that knowledge.[/quote]

The exact same things can be said about the other choices. Only a morally repugnant Shepard would choose Destroy, only a morally repugnant Shepard would choose Control, only a morally repugnant Shepard would Refuse to choose. The point you've failed to grasp, despite having several people attempt to explain it from various angles, is none of the choices are clearly morally good.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

As I keep saying, it’s scientifically extremely likely that there are cognitive changes. Maybe there aren’t.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. To be scientific you must have at least a vague form of evidence to support it, pictures of the races doing what they also do in some Destroy and Control endings is the exact opposite of supporting evidence (unless you think organics are also mind-controlled by the red and blue beams).

Right. So, do you understand why I think that it’s perfectly fine for Shepard alone to go through Synthesis, but that it is a horrifying thought that Shepard would presume to force it on everyone, especially with as little idea about what’ll happen as he has?

It’s not the actual Synthesis (although, again, I find that concept ridiculous), but the circumstances of making that choice.

So it's the circumstances you don't like? Tough. It is shown several times in ME that the universe can be harsh, and occasionally an individual will find themselves in a position where their decisions can effect billions of individuals with little or no consultaion. Often that person is Shepard so you really should be used to it by the end of the third game.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

If you’re not interested in a discussion about the morality of the choice, just admit you’re making the third-worst choice morally speaking, and move on.

Again, if you ignore the consequences Synthesis is morally superior to both Control and Destroy with only Refusal beating it insofar as keeping Shepard's soul clean.

[Heeden]

Troxa wrote...
<snip>

Maybe that went over some people's heads, but it breaks down to this: SPACE MAGIC IS CRAP!

Most of the ME franchise is based on some form of space-magic, a lot of it makes as much or less sense than Synthesis (although I agree your interpretation of how Synthesis works is particularly bogus).

In synt ending every one seemed to get along. That would
never happen if it wasn't some kinda "sub mission/brainwashing" going
on. "There is just too much bad blood"

In most of the endings, depending how you played, everyone seems to get along at the end. You have just as powerful an argument for saying curing the genophage brain-washed the Krogan and (somehow) Turians.

[Shaigunjoe]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

If you’re not interested in a discussion about the morality of the choice, just admit you’re making the third-worst choice morally speaking, and move on.

Again, if you ignore the consequences Synthesis is morally superior to both Control and Destroy with only Refusal beating it insofar as keeping Shepard's soul clean.

Why can't people agree to disagree on this topic and move on?

[flemm]

I have a couple of questions.

lillitheris wrote...

So you’d be violating the basic rights of every being in existence — and those not yet born! — to perform an unnecessary act whose consequences you really have only the faintest idea about.

On this point, in what sense is it possible to violate the basic rights of people who don't exist yet?

lillitheris wrote...
That doesn’t matter, however, since this
completely ignores the primary contention — which I actually also listed
— which is that you don’t know beforehand. I only pointed out that you don’t — can’t — even know after the fact.

Can't the same be said about the other choices? You really don't know how destroy or control will turn out either. Can't we imagine equally bad outcomes for all the choices, based on the information provided prior to making the choice?

In all scenarios, Shepard is deciding the fate of the galaxy and determining everyone's future without having a clear idea of what will happen.

Modifié par flemm, 16 juillet 2012 - 01:16 .

[fiendishchicken]

High EMS Refusal is the only good ending. As for evolving humanity and the rest of the galaxy, the catalyst is wrong. We're not ready. Not by a long shot. It is something that must come on its own, and on our (the races) own terms.

Not going to get into the space magic argument.

[lillitheris]

pirate1802 wrote...


Didn't see any slavery or repercussions apart from green skin. I guess I was watching a different ending.

lillitheris wrote...Of course it is. A morally repugnant and/or stupid Shepard can choose
Synthesis and think it’s probably…maybe…going to be awesome, and die
happily.

Depends..
The morality factor maybe to a huge one for some people, not that huge
for some. I guess renegade shepard would have no such qualms.

Just because someone thinks something’s OK doesn’t make it so. A Renegade Shepard might not have qualms—and as a consequence, they are acting immorally.

As for  being stupid, I think destroy is more stupid, taking an AI race, an
innocent race which cooperated with you down with the reapers when they
can be used for good is just.. To muddleheaded?

It’s not a vacuum. All choices have alternatives. Relatively speaking, Destroy will cause less harm. That doesn’t mean that it’s a pure or good choice. It’s less bad.

lillitheris wrote...
Right, and everybody is suddenly perfectly OK with the Reapers.

Like everybody is OK with reapers walking about london, and hovering above Earth in Control ending. Or like Joker is perfectly ok with losing EDI and Hackett doesnt even sees it fit to mention Shepard even once. I guess they were indoctrinated by dead reapers.

Maybe!

lillitheris wrote...
Right. So, do you understand why I think that it’s perfectly fine for Shepard alone
to go through Synthesis, but that it is a horrifying thought that
Shepard would presume to force it on everyone, especially with as little
idea about what’ll happen as he has?

In each ending he forces something on someone else. In destroy would the
geth be ok with his decision to obliterate them? Would the galaxy be ok
with a new reaper-god watching over them? Or would they be ok with
getting killed because their hero is an indecisive fool?

That’s not what I asked you. Do you understand the specific problem of violating everyone’s basic rights because you want to use them as involuntary guinea pigs?

Destroy will kill the geth. Control causes the least (likely) permanent harm. Synthesis harms everyone, as does Refuse.

lillitheris wrote...

No. Without the epilogue (and as I have to point out once again, even with it), it’s perfectly possible that there will be significant cognitive changes.

All cognitive changes doesn't mean necessarily mean brainwashing. Sure it can be one of the possibility, but to say ALL cognitive changes has to be brainwashing is a blanketing statement.

Correct. That’s why I’m not claiming that they are. I’m claiming that it is a possibility that cannot be discounted. Therefore, you should assume that that can happen when you make the decision. You plan for the worst.

[His Name was HYR!!]

fiendishchicken wrote...

High EMS Refusal is the only good ending. As for evolving humanity and the rest of the galaxy, the catalyst is wrong. We're not ready. Not by a long shot. It is something that must come on its own, and on our (the races) own terms.

Not going to get into the space magic argument.

We are ready - and it did come on our own terms.

-- High EMS unlocks synthesis, meaning our galaxy has strong unity. Cultural readiness, unlike the krogan who were not ready before uplift (warlike attitudes, fragmented culture, bad outcome).
-- We finished the construction of the Crucible on our own and made it work successfully.
-- The catalyst had no control over the crucible or Shepard's decision. The ball was completely in our court.

Were we "ready" for it when we first used the mass-relay we discovered? It was not our creation, we didn't fully understand it, but we used it anyway and it worked out fine for us. Even the argument of "developing along the paths the Reapers desire" is irrelevant there because we defeated them, in no small part due to our advancement through their resources.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You conveniently omitted the paragraph where I explained why the argument "We don't know in advance that X won't happen" is irrelevant. If I may remind you:

Unknown vs. unknowable. I’ve explained this to you. You yourself claim that some of the effects of Synthesis are beyond our understanding.

(1) You didn't explain, you made generalizing assumptions I didn't agree with. Dismissed.
(2) That was before the EC. As opposed to you, I am not interested in discussing the pre-EC situation. Dismissed.
(3) I said the *process* was beyond our understanding, not necessarily the results. Dismissed.

Ah, so you’re walking this back too. I’m sorry, it’s hard to keep up with your backpedaling. Your claim is now that everything is explained—except below where you’re claiming the opposite.

No. Without the epilogue (and as I have to point out once again, even with it), it’s perfectly possible that there will be significant cognitive changes.

It's also possible that Synthesis will make everyone grow a unicorn's horn or turn the tip of everyone's nose blue. That is irrelevant. Of course nobody of the anti-Synthesis faction claims that - it wouldn't serve their purpose of discrediting Synthesis.

It is possible. I’m personally less concerned about a horn than my brain being f— with.

We can only base our information on what we're told. We get zero information about how biochemistry is exactly affected. Your assertion that it's likely to affect our thought processes is based on zero evidence. All we are told is that it will change our physical selves in some way that makes it possible to integrate technology.

NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!

The ‘nothing else’ is exactly the problem. You. Don’t. Know.

How hard it is to understand that I am not asserting that it will affect thought processes? I am asserting that it can. Can you please try to understand this distinction?

We know there’s a “new DNA”. That is a fundamental change in the composition of every living thing.

To say that it will not and cannot cause cognitive changes is egregiously stupid. I’m sorry, but it is. It’s rationalization of the worst kind…you have a conclusion you like, so you try to twist everything to support it, and ignore everything that might contradict it.

You must take the possibility into account. If you do not, you’re being wilfully ignorant.

Of course, as I said, an ignorant Shepard might do it, not knowing any better.

(At this point, I could get into a debate about human biology, DNA, protein synthesis and neurochemistry, but I am not confident that it would serve any purpose, given your assertions here).

No, please do. I would love to see what you come up with.

…

Also, you tried to sidestep my question once again…

[lillitheris]

flemm wrote...

I have a couple of questions.

lillitheris wrote...

So you’d be violating the basic rights of every being in existence — and those not yet born! — to perform an unnecessary act whose consequences you really have only the faintest idea about.

On this point, in what sense is it possible to violate the basic rights of people who don't exist yet?

Sorry, I was writing something different and changed the sentence in the middle. You’re right, the unborn are only affected by the change—as many kids as there will be given immortality and “new DNA” anyway.

lillitheris wrote...
That doesn’t matter, however, since this
completely ignores the primary contention — which I actually also listed
— which is that you don’t know beforehand. I only pointed out that you don’t — can’t — even know after the fact.

Can't the same be said about the other choices? You really don't know how destroy or control will turn out either. Can't we imagine equally bad outcomes for all the choices, based on the information provided prior to making the choice?

In all scenarios, Shepard is deciding the fate of the galaxy and determining everyone's future without having a clear idea of what will happen.

Yes, it’s absolutely correct to say that the future—the actual consequences—are unknown in each case.

Where the problem lies is in Synthesis being unknowable. That is, it is not possible for a creature at our level to comprehend the changes. As the thread title says, it’s supposed to be an ‘ascension’—a new level of consciousness. By definition we are unable to understand what that means in reality.

So whereas for the other options can be reasoned about, and their potential consequences can be mapped out, Synthesis by definition cannot. It is therefore impossible to make an educated decision concerning Synthesis.

Now, if you want to try to guess at it, Synthesis could be good—but that’s not a valid basis for the decision when you don’t understand it. You must at least assume that the worst case scenario is a possibility.

Synthesis worst case (or one of them)? Brainwashing or death, and nobody’s the wiser so this dystopia simply continues to exist for all time, all of what made up organic species forever lost.

Control worst case? ShepardAI goes rogue, and restarts the cycle or a similar process of eradication. What does this mean? It means we’re back where we started, fighting the Reapers.

Of those, Control is better.

How about the good possibility? Synthesis can lead to utopia. On the other hand, a good Control will [u]leave open the possibility of Synthesis[/i]! We can study it, and maybe make a more educated decision, or maybe limit the effects—or at least ask for a vote.

It’s a no-brainer, really. There is no reason to choose Synthesis.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juillet 2012 - 02:48 .

[Heeden]

@Lili

Nothing about Synthesis suggests mind-control any more than Destroy and Control; if you believe a green burst of energy is capable of influencing thought patterns surely red and blue ones will be able to do so as well?

[DirtyPhoenix]

lillitheris wrote...

Just because someone thinks something’s OK doesn’t make it so. A Renegade Shepard might not have qualms—and as a consequence, they are acting immorally.

Morality is very, very dependent on an individual's outlook. What is immoral acording to you might be something I'd be fine with me and vise versa. There simply isn't a universal morality slider. Regardless I never said synthesis isn't morally problematic. Bioware intended this to be a morally grey choice.

Destroy will kill the geth. Control causes the least (likely) permanent harm. Synthesis harms everyone, as does Refuse.

You are assuming the worst-case sinario for synthesis but not for the other endings. Assuming the worst-case, all endings harm almost everyone.

Correct. That’s why I’m not claiming that they are. I’m claiming that it is a possibility that cannot be discounted. Therefore, you should assume that that can happen when you make the decision. You plan for the worst.

And the possibility exists the crucible not working as the catalyst describes it to be, and fries every living being in the galaxy, in the destrroy ending, or shepard being tricked into control and being indoctrinated by the catalyst (you know, when I chose control and saw the kid mile creepily I almost thought "Oh sh*t!"). So, if we plan for the worst, the other endings can have as bad consequenses, if not more, that synthesis.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

That does not change the fact that the only choice that is worse is Refuse. If you wish to metagame, that’s your business — just don’t try to portray Synthesis as having some higher moral ground. It doesn’t. It’s an abhorrent choice, regardless of the outcome.

None of the choices occupy a higher moral ground with the possible exception of Refuse, because whilst it may lead to the death of everyone in the galaxy it is immoral through inaction rather than through action which at least could be said to keep Shepard's hands clean. Destroy and Control are, to my mind at least, morally less appealing than Synthesis.

Thought experiment. Which of these is worst?

– Destroy will kill the geth, and EDI, and the risk of synthetic-organic war remains.

– Control will result in ShepardAI going rogue and attempts restarting the cycle, and the risk of synthetic-organic war remains.

– Synthesis destroys the personality of everyone it affects, but there is no risk of the resultant creatures being killed by synthetics.


(As an aside, personally—and in most human legal systems—harm by inaction is considered comparable to actively causing harm. If you like to believe otherwise…well, less power to you.)

Can I get you to acknowledge this: the actual end result is irrelevant to making the decision?

No, because we tried playing that game with you earlier in the thread and you failed to keep away from "actual results" in your replies.

Hey, you’re the ones who can’t seem to grasp the concept…

Do you actually understand the difference of a potential result and an actual result?

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juillet 2012 - 02:58 .

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

@Lili

Nothing about Synthesis suggests mind-control any more than Destroy and Control; if you believe a green burst of energy is capable of influencing thought patterns surely red and blue ones will be able to do so as well?

It modifies the basis of all life, creating in essence an entirely new life form (supposedly—this is what the description says!) This has the distinct possibility of significant cognitive changes.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Control worst case? ShepardAI goes rogue, and restarts the cycle or a similar process of eradication. What does this mean? It means we’re back where we started, fighting the Reapers.

Control's worst case is Shepard becoming like Leto II from Dune, ruling the galaxy with an iron grip and keeping the population at a tech-level where they couldn't even dream of resisting the Reapers. Imagine 1984 without the hope or WH40k without the excitement. Even a well-intentioned, Paragon Shepard could create a dystopia beyond your most rabid delusions of a post-Synthesis galaxy.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Control worst case? ShepardAI goes rogue, and restarts the cycle or a similar process of eradication. What does this mean? It means we’re back where we started, fighting the Reapers.

Control's worst case is Shepard becoming like Leto II from Dune, ruling the galaxy with an iron grip and keeping the population at a tech-level where they couldn't even dream of resisting the Reapers. Imagine 1984 without the hope or WH40k without the excitement. Even a well-intentioned, Paragon Shepard could create a dystopia beyond your most rabid delusions of a post-Synthesis galaxy.

OK! You’re welcome to use this worst case in your analysis.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Control's worst case is Shepard becoming like Leto II from Dune, ruling the galaxy with an iron grip and keeping the population at a tech-level where they couldn't even dream of resisting the Reapers. Imagine 1984 without the hope or WH40k without the excitement. Even a well-intentioned, Paragon Shepard could create a dystopia beyond your most rabid delusions of a post-Synthesis galaxy.

OK! You’re welcome to use this worst case in your analysis.

Okay, so we have three "worst case possible outcomes" that we have to consider before making a choice.

Destroy - kills absolutely everyone in the galaxy and renders it uninhabitable for all eternity.
Control - Shepard blasts everyone and everything back to the stone age (literally) and micro-manages every aspect of development creating a bleak and hopeless future of despair.
Synthesis - everyone is mind-controlled in to being happy.

Modifié par Heeden, 16 juillet 2012 - 03:07 .

[lillitheris]

pirate1802 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Just because someone thinks something’s OK doesn’t make it so. A Renegade Shepard might not have qualms—and as a consequence, they are acting immorally.

Morality is very, very dependent on an individual's outlook. What is immoral acording to you might be something I'd be fine with me and vise versa. There simply isn't a universal morality slider. Regardless I never said synthesis isn't morally problematic.

This is true. Just for clarity, I—and I think a vast majority of people—consider forcing Synthesis on everyone to be a morally horrifying act.

I’m not saying that someone couldn’t think it was justified. People obviously seem to think it’s perfectly OK to violate everybody’s right to self-determination because they feel like it.

I’m only saying that I think it abhorrent, and would do anything in my power to prevent such a person from being in a position to make that choice.

Bioware intended this to be a morally grey choice.

Heh, I don’t think anyone else on the pro-Synthetic side really agrees with this. They’re distinctly in the (unknown) ends justifies the means–camp.

Destroy will kill the geth. Control causes the least (likely) permanent harm. Synthesis harms everyone, as does Refuse.

You are assuming the worst-case sinario for synthesis but not for the other endings. Assuming the worst-case, all endings harm almost everyone.

See a post a couple steps higher up.

And the possibility exists the crucible not working as the catalyst describes it to be, and fries every living being in the galaxy, in the destrroy ending, or shepard being tricked into control and being indoctrinated by the catalyst (you know, when I chose control and saw the kid mile creepily I almost thought "Oh sh*t!"). So, if we plan for the worst, the other endings can have as bad consequenses, if not more, that synthesis.

The Catalyst must be considered trustworthy (possibly incorrect, but not lying) for this discussion to have any point at all. We also factor out the possibility of the Crucible just blowing up and similar things because they affect every choice equally.

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Control's worst case is Shepard becoming like Leto II from Dune, ruling the galaxy with an iron grip and keeping the population at a tech-level where they couldn't even dream of resisting the Reapers. Imagine 1984 without the hope or WH40k without the excitement. Even a well-intentioned, Paragon Shepard could create a dystopia beyond your most rabid delusions of a post-Synthesis galaxy.

OK! You’re welcome to use this worst case in your analysis.

Okay, so we have three "worst case possible outcomes" that we have to consider before making a choice.

Yes, that’s what I invited you to do. As I say above, the Crucible blowing up, or not working at all, and things like that are factored out because they’re not dependent on the choice.

So:

– Destroy will kill the geth, and EDI, and the risk of synthetic-organic war remains.

– Control will result in ShepardAI going rogue and attempts restarting the cycle OR ShepardAI becomes an evil overlord, oppressing everybody. The risk of war remains.

– Synthesis destroys the personality of everyone it affects, but there is no risk of the resultant creatures being killed by synthetics.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juillet 2012 - 03:11 .

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

– Destroy will kill the geth, and EDI, and the risk of synthetic-organic war remains.

– Control will result in ShepardAI going rogue and attempts restarting the cycle OR ShepardAI becomes an evil overlord, oppressing everybody. The risk of war remains.

– Synthesis destroys the personality of everyone it affects, but there is no risk of the resultant creatures being killed by synthetics.

Destroy could kill everyone, the Catalyst says we will "lose no more than has already been lost", but the cycle has been going on for millions (a billion?) of years. Synthesis = Mind Control is a bigger jump than Destroy = Uninhabitable Galaxy.

The worst-case Control dystopia is worse than your worst-case Synthesis dystopia because at least with Synthesis sentient beings are being brain-washed to appreciate the new situation.