9089 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

Nimrodell wrote...

Dammit, even JeffZero popped into this party and I missed it, being lost in Skyrim and enjoying it. Bah, gonna kill few more dragons, think if I should marry Vilkas or Farkas lol, and then I'll read new shenanigans... I lie, I'll do that tomorrow, bloody time difference. One thing do, yes, refusal ending is utterly, nah, not going to use Taboo's words, gonna sugar-coat it, refusal is the choice for my elder daughter. Wish Admiral Cheez shows her face on on these boards and this topic... and now off to kill some bad people in Skyrim, after all, I am lawful high elf .

Hehe, man, I miss Cheez. I left, then I came back and learned that she'd apparently left for good.

[JeffZero]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LOL, at least we agree about Refuse. BTW, Shepard knows what will happen to some degree in Synthesis, post-EC. It's still a jump into the unknown, but the unknown - that's more where that future will lead than what Synthesis will do. You can do a good extrapolation of the mid-term future of the galaxy in the other endings, but not so in Synthesis. That's what makes it so attractive.

To boldly go, etc.

In some ways it's the pinnacle of science fiction.

The Doctor wouldn't do it.

Picard wouldn't do it.

Kirk wouldn't do it.

I get what JZ is saying, in some ways, not in every way!

Though, I think Kirk would do it, if it ensured him some bedtime with a girl.

Hah, yeah, I didn't mean it so literally.

[JeffZero]

...Sisko might do it though.

[3DandBeyond]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I think you may need to refine your definition, because it sounds like, ever since humanity messed with wood to achieve fire, we have been unnaturally progressing, according to you.

You learn by finding solutions to adversity at some point-you overcome a problem.  If however you never face the problem does it ever exist?  It's like a tree falling in the forest without ears to catch the vibration and translate it into sound.

Someone maybe found fire to keep warm and to cook food and to create light.

If however I am given fire, do I understand what it was like before I could make that to keep warm.  Will I understand the real problems of uncooked food or the dangers of the dark?

[Taboo]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I think you may need to refine your definition, because it sounds like, ever since humanity messed with wood to achieve fire, we have been unnaturally progressing, according to you.

You learn by finding solutions to adversity at some point-you overcome a problem.  If however you never face the problem does it ever exist?  It's like a tree falling in the forest without ears to catch the vibration and translate it into sound.

Someone maybe found fire to keep warm and to cook food and to create light.

If however I am given fire, do I understand what it was like before I could make that to keep warm.  Will I understand the real problems of uncooked food or the dangers of the dark?

This. Seriously.

What's the ****ing point if we can't learn?

[DirtyPhoenix]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Have you thought about people rebuilding the Crucible in Destroy? To enact Synthesis at a later date.

We do still have the plans.

Whoa. That's an interesting idea.

Doesn't the catalyst get erased in destroy? How will the future crucible work then? I think control would be a petter candidate for future synthesis.

[Taboo]

pirate1802 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Have you thought about people rebuilding the Crucible in Destroy? To enact Synthesis at a later date.

We do still have the plans.

Whoa. That's an interesting idea.

Doesn't the catalyst get erased in destroy? How will the future crucible work then? I think control would be a petter candidate for future synthesis.

That's the issue.

However constructing the Crucible again would give us knowledge of were the beam was and it's effects. We simply couldn't do anything with it. The Illusive Man made false husks, why couldn't we do something along the same lines?

Sans test subjects of course.

The Catalyst states that Synthesis is inevitable after all.

[His Name was HYR!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

If however I am given fire, do I understand what it was like before I could make that to keep warm.  Will I understand the real problems of uncooked food or the dangers of the dark?

[Taboo]

That post reminds me of a joke about Descartes.

If he stops thinking will he disappear?

[Bill Casey]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst states that Synthesis is inevitable after all.

He states lots of stuff is inevitable...

[Aurora313]

While I support Synthesis, I do agree to a point.

For the less advanced species its like giving cavemen the nuke. A phrase that comes to mind is 'Give a man a fish, he's fed for a day. Teach him how to fish, he's fed for life.'

You can give the Galaxy Synthesis, and the current races'll probably figure it out sooner or later, how to enact or reverse the changes, or even how to use them to their full advantage. But if they've been shown the right general direction, they can achieve it on their own with complete understanding of the steps along the way.

For lesser, primative species, its a massive massive doubleedged sword. Hell, look at the Yagh - Smarter than Salarians, Stronger and more Agressive than Krogan, more resourceful than humans. Imagine what would happen to them thanks to Synthesis?

If that agression was left unchecked, you'd have a second Galactic-wide Rebellion on your hands.


Sorry if this makes no sense. Very ill atm.

Modifié par Aurora313, 21 juillet 2012 - 02:51 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah, and people would have no issue with Destroy if it didn't kill the geth, and no issue with Control if Control!Shep and his Reaper force was elected for government for the next ten thousand years. It's very much the point of the ending scenario that you are determining the future of the galaxy with no input from anyone.

I'm rather surprised that people insist to use the same standards they use for everyday situations here. It's as if people are immune to the changed circumstances and the desperate situation. Compared to the scale of the decision you're making, and their merits and objective downsides, the existing moral downsides of every decision are almost irrelevant. Consensus decisions are a luxury you can't afford here. If you disagree, you might as well go and choose Refuse.

Totally agree. If we remove all that makes each ending unpleasant than every ending might well be equally rainbow and sunshine. It is somewhat like saving the collector base in ME2 but only having the option to give it to TIM. If they had an opion to give it to Alliance almost everyone would have chosen it. Moral of the story: Each ending has a darkside because it is intended to be like that, to be a kind of counterbalance to the positive side, so that it repulses some people while attracting others. I have some friends who are tremendously attracted by the prospect of an immortal shepard-god, while the same issue repulses others. Same goes for synthesis. I personally was draawn away from Destroy the moment I saw that naughty smile of EDI in the flashback scene. I knew I could never pick destroy again. So yeah, the same also goes for destroy; I'd have no problem with it if it doesn't off Geth and EDI. It used to be my favourite option pre-EC. But then I was an IT supporter:D

Hope I made sense :S

EDIT: Also, I've seen people suggest the Geth were willing to fight the reapers so would be OK with your decision to off them. The reaction of legion at Rannoch when you decide to off him comes to mind.

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:38 .

[Taboo]

The issue is how you solve the Reaper threat.

It isn't just about what you want, it's about which ending you feel will give the galaxy the best future. You must take other people's opinions on the matter.

It's still a moral failing on my part regardless of how the Geth go out.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I should, but it isn't an ideal situation. As Ieldra said, I don't have the luxury of consensus here, same goes for any decision. Time is short and I have to decide one way or the other, unless I want to go full retard and refuse xD. So all it comes down to is what Shepard herself feels the best for the galaxy, that would give them the best future. And that really depends on the individual player.
Some people feel refuse gives the galaxy the best future. They probably feel the same way about synthesis as I do about refuse, and they are totally right, as far as their own Shepards are concerned. No more or less right than I am about synthesis for my own Shepards.

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:48 .

[Taboo]

Unfortunately you do have a consensus, which is Destroy.

That's why you see all the support for Destroy. It's the most thematically consistent for people.

For whatever reason it appears Refuse is now the second most popular choice is Refuse, which makes my head hurt.

At the very root of the disagreement between Ieldra and I is whether or not we have the right to change the way things are.

I say no, and he says yes.

[DirtyPhoenix]

There is consensus on destroy, but do they have a consensus on if knowing that it will kill a newly-sentient species? For all we knew the crucible was supposed to dock, fire and kill all reapers. Why not would there be a consensus on it. But things changed once we meet the catalyst. You have to take the changes into account. Also, nowhere did we know before the ending that there could be actually other ways to defeat the reapers. In Sanctuary, after seeing that the reaper forces can be controlled to some degree, you see doubts developing in your squadmate's minds. Synthesis ofcourse was a total unknown prior the the ending.

Taboo-XX ...
At the very root of the disagreement between Ieldra and I is whether or not we have the right to change the way things are.

I say no, and he says yes.

I think thats the very root of synthesis-hate, and its a valid one. And also an intended one. like I said, its the counterbalance. There would be few reasons not to choose synthesis if there wasn't one. Like there would be few reasons non to pick destroy if it didn't kill Geth and EDI. But its totally subjective, because the way I see the world maynot be the way you see it.

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 03:57 .

[Taboo]

Control would be an ideal solution if it could be done without replacing the Catalyst.

This new AI construct is based off of Shepard. It is not him.

His morals are not the galaxies.

Paragon or Renegade makes no difference. If one thing goes wrong things could go terribly for everyone.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Control would be an ideal solution if it could be done without replacing the Catalyst.

This new AI construct is based off of Shepard. It is not him.

His morals are not the galaxies.

Paragon or Renegade makes no difference. If one thing goes wrong things could go terribly for everyone.

That again, is the counterbalance for control. Every ending has the "it would have been the best if (remove stuff)" aspect. Except refuse, where it is "it would have been the best if you remove all of it!" xD

Renegade control is creepy as hell though. Reneshep-god spouts lines like "I will lead an army none would dare oppose". I imagine if things are like this now, what it could be when that shep actually goes rogue.

Another interesting possibility: Is it possible that catalyst was based on one or more people from the original race? Like the new catalyst is based off shepard?

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:06 .

[Taboo]

The Catalyst is just an AI like EDI.

But he was programmed by organics and was programmed to believe he was correct. This is why he probably doesn't provide any data and is surprised once the Crucible docks. He is only now, after millions of years, taking in new information. Whoever constructed him was just as flawed as we are.

Synthesis is more of a neutral ground. For people who will not Control or Destroy. It's doesn't really have a sponsor, other than the Catalyst, which automatically makes people dislike it.

Personally, I think it's in the wrong story.

[TMA LIVE]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Control would be an ideal solution if it could be done without replacing the Catalyst.

This new AI construct is based off of Shepard. It is not him.

His morals are not the galaxies.

Paragon or Renegade makes no difference. If one thing goes wrong things could go terribly for everyone.

At least everyone is aware of the controller. Or that's the suggestion. If they don't like AI God, they know where to target.

[DirtyPhoenix]

lol, yeah the implementation could have been better. the connection with the catalyst automatically makes them assume all the worst consequences.

And those who are strutting around with Saren banner in their sig are certainly not helping!

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[Taboo]

That Saren banner is doing Synthesis any favors, that's for sure.

To be honest, it's really up to you what the ending represents.

I don't see Synthesis as transhumanist.

I don't see Control as the means to survival.

I don't see Destroy as an "Us or Them" situation either.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Saren is not an appropriate avatar because that simply wasn't his reason for allying with the Reapers. I wouldn't hate the connection if it were actually true, it just isn't, and people having their facts wrong bothers me more than their obvious attempt to bash synthesis.

That being said, if you asked me who's lead I'd rather follow between Saren, TIM, and Anderson (none of them indoctrinated, ofc) I'd pick Saren and it would be a pretty easy choice.

TIM vs. Anderson would be a push for me.

[Taboo]

I'd rather not follow anyone.

As much as this is going to cause Ieldra's hair to stand on end, Cerberus IS a Nationalist Organization, and is stated as such in the Codex. I'm not not big on Nationalism.

Anderson is too pragmatic, he's a good guy but I don't think he's as intelligent as TIM.

Saren is pragmatic too, but he's more intelligent than Anderson.

But Refuse is silly so I have to pick one.

[DirtyPhoenix]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Saren is not an appropriate avatar because that simply wasn't his reason for allying with the Reapers. I wouldn't hate the connection if it were actually true, it just isn't, and people having their facts wrong bothers me more than their obvious attempt to bash synthesis.

That being said, if you asked me who's lead I'd rather follow between Saren, TIM, and Anderson (none of them indoctrinated, ofc) I'd pick Saren and it would be a pretty easy choice.

TIM vs. Anderson would be a push for me.

I've lost time how many time I had to facepalm as I read intelligent people write stuff like: Why bother stopping Saren if you want synthesis, or why kill TIM if you want control. Because they were indoctrinated! Some people have a hard time differentiating between the synthesis process as shown in the epilogue, and being turned into goo and reaperized, which was Saren's plan. So I just tell them I'd have supported Saren back in ME1 if the game had given me a choice to do so!. Because explaining the obvious would make me look like that mad prophet in ME2 surrounded by hordes of hostiles xD.

Even the control ending, they make it out like its the renegade choice just because it involves using your enemy's ways. They conveniently ignore that this ending doesn't involve genociding an entire species or forcing your will on others. They think Shep is taking control out of a lust for power, though this is not the reason why most people, as far as I know, choose control. And to them ofcourse destroy is the paragon-est ever. Because it is sponsored by my old friend Andy; nevermind if it involves the death of an entire species and probably many more.

And yes, unindoctrinated Saren, and also TIM, like we see in the comics, are very interesting indeed. I found a new respect for them after seeing their origins. Certainly more interesting than Anderson.

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 05:08 .