9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

How about Hackett? He isn't as stubborn as Anderson and doesn't seem to be totally averse to other ways of ending the war.

[Aurora313]

The avatar of Synthesis should be Legion in my humble opinion.

[3DandBeyond]

Aurora313 wrote...

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.

It makes a lot of sense that is partly what happened to the Krogan.  They were advanced too fast, killed the Rachni, and then became bored and fought and bred and fought a lot more and bred.

Synthesis is done without permission.  Beyond that almost everything else that does matter, doesn't matter.  It was never Shepard's goal (nor was solving the kid's problem Shepard's goal) and so Shepard can't even infer any kind of permission was given.  And it invades other people's bodies.  Where I live that's an assault.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Aurora313 wrote...

The avatar of Synthesis should be Legion in my humble opinion.

[In Anderson voice] Agreed!

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 06:40 .

[3DandBeyond]

pirate1802 wrote...

How about Hackett? He isn't as stubborn as Anderson and doesn't seem to be totally averse to other ways of ending the war.

Hackett specifically tells Shepard at one point the only way to solve the reaper problem is no more reapers.  You get that when you ask about Cerberus and talk about TIM wanting to control the reapers.  Hackett orders Shepard to kill TIM and in saying the solution is "no more reapers" is basically ordering Shepard to destroy them as well.  No one ever said that anything other than destroying them was what they wanted, except TIM and Saren.  TIM wanted to control them, Saren talked about synthesis of a sort, he was being augmented himself and yes, may have wanted to join with the reapers.

I honestly do not see how anyone could justify synthesis at all given just the one fact that there's no authorization or permission by people to do that to them.

Beyond that, it makes no sense that at some point nature will fuse organic and synthetic life into one type of organism as the end state of evolution.  And no people do not seek perfection through tech.  Some may, but the implication is that everyone does.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 21 juillet 2012 - 06:48 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Shepard asks Hackett after Sanctuary what if Control is really an option. Hackett says even if its possible, TIM is the worst kind of man to give such control to. He didn't outright deny the possibility like he did earlier.

[RiouHotaru]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would have no issue with Synthesis if it was enacted by a majority vote.

One person does not have the right to dictate how life evolves for every single being in the galaxy. I'm talking about the undiscovered races as well.

A newly constructed Crucible could be made and Synthesis enacted then, but only with a consensus.

But that's just it.  You CAN'T enact a majority vote.  The people of the Galaxy have voluntarily given Shepard all the authority to stop the Reapers.  Hackett said it himself.  You can pay a soldier to shoot a gun and confront an enemy, but you CANNOT pay them to believe in something.

I think the thing is with any of the three choices, the Galaxy is willing to give Shepard the leeway to decide how it should end, as LONG as it ends.  (Again, why I insist Refuse is a terrible option, the people of the Galaxy didn't give Shepard the authority to just say "No." and let them all die)

I severely doubt in any of the endings that any significant number of people curse Shepard's name and what he or she did.

[3DandBeyond]

pirate1802 wrote...

Shepard asks Hackett after Sanctuary what if Control is really an option. Hackett says even if its possible, TIM is the worst kind of man to give such control to. He didn't outright deny the possibility like he did earlier.

Right before Cronos if you say you aren't ready to go and talk with him, he says TIM is insane.  He order Shepard to kill him.  Shepard asks him what if the reapers could be controlled.  He says something like that would be like controlling a shark, someone will get killed. And then he says, "no the only solution to the reapers is...no more reapers".  That's paraphrased, but that is what he says.

[Aurora313]

Post - Mars debriefing.

Shepard: The Illusive man talked about controling the Reapers. He seemed to think that's how we win this.
Hackett: He's wrong. Dead Reapers is how we win this.

[3DandBeyond]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would have no issue with Synthesis if it was enacted by a majority vote.

One person does not have the right to dictate how life evolves for every single being in the galaxy. I'm talking about the undiscovered races as well.

A newly constructed Crucible could be made and Synthesis enacted then, but only with a consensus.

But that's just it.  You CAN'T enact a majority vote.  The people of the Galaxy have voluntarily given Shepard all the authority to stop the Reapers.  Hackett said it himself.  You can pay a soldier to shoot a gun and confront an enemy, but you CANNOT pay them to believe in something.

I think the thing is with any of the three choices, the Galaxy is willing to give Shepard the leeway to decide how it should end, as LONG as it ends.  (Again, why I insist Refuse is a terrible option, the people of the Galaxy didn't give Shepard the authority to just say "No." and let them all die)

I severely doubt in any of the endings that any significant number of people curse Shepard's name and what he or she did.

No the people of the galaxy never gave Shepard that authority.  Did Shepard talk to every single person?  There are people in ME that never even wanted implants of any kind.  Did Shepard ask them specifically?  And the goal was the destruction of the reapers-that's why they were building what they thought was a weapon.

As Taboo said there are undiscovered races-did they give Shepard their permission?  Every single person would have to give explicit permission for Shepard to do anything but destroy the reapers.  That was the goal.

And, seriously you can't see anyone in the Control choice having any problem with seeing reapers running around?  Anyone that saw what they did to Palaven, Thessia, and Earth would.  Anyone whose loved one was killed by them would-maybe that reaper over there has the Smith family in it.  Great, he's fixing the road for us.  Say hi to the Smiths would you?  By the way have you seen my wife?  She was here a minute ago.

In control, no one knows that Shepard is controlling the reapers-they think Shepard died and might even think s/he failed and that the reapers are acting crazy-and might start killing again.  They have people goo in them.

Anything short of destroying the reapers leaves the reapers alive with people goo in them.  That would be a failure.

[RiouHotaru]

If they didn't give Shepard the authority to decide, WHY is Shepard the one they put as part of the team to go into the beam to fire the Crucible? Well, why did everyone in the game play up Shepard as being so integral. Hackett did, Anderson did, Liara did, EVERYONE DID.

[AresKeith]

RiouHotaru wrote...

If they didn't give Shepard the authority to decide, WHY is Shepard the one they put as part of the team to go into the beam to fire the Crucible? Well, why did everyone in the game play up Shepard as being so integral. Hackett did, Anderson did, Liara did, EVERYONE DID.

Anderson was part of that team and he wanted the Reapers Destroyed, Hackett wanted the destroyed, everyone but TIM wanted the Reapers dead

[RiouHotaru]

And? They still gave Shepard the authority implicitly (even if not explicitly) to bring this to an end. That Destroy was forefront in their minds is a function of the fact that they didn't think there were alternatives.

[Ieldra]

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

People are conditioned to believe everything "bad guys" say or do as well as every idea they have is bad. I find it one of the more refreshing aspects of the Mass Effect stories that it isn't that easy here. TIM and to a lesser extent, Saren are interesting figures and they're not stupid. It's totally appropriate that some of their ideas have merit. Apart from their speciesism, it's their methods who make them antagonists, not their ideas.

TIM and Saren are fascinating antagonists whose deaths I actually regret. It was inevitable given how the story was set up, but....such a waste! Anderson.....was born in London...

As for an "avatar" for Synthesis: there isn't one because it's Shepard's choice alone.  Also, we don't need one. TIM is the "sponsor" for Control, but I don't see Control-supporters using him in their sigs. I wonder why....

[DirtyPhoenix]

1. No one suggested anything other than destroy because they didn't know other options were possible. If they knew they'd certainly gave it a thought atleast. once he knows other options are possible, it is irresponsible for Shepard to not take the new situation into account, if it involves killing a species and similar drastic results. And he certainly needs a better reason than "my old friend Andy told me to so i pick destroy and turn a blind eye to the result"

2. Shepard is the only organic to have made it to the catalyst chamber. He now must do whatever he can to end the reaper threat. He can't take a vote there, he must pick whatever option he feels is the best. What my shepard picked may not be what yours picked, but my choice is as legitimate as yours. What I see as acceptable maybe an abomination to you, but there is no universal moral scaale so better not go there.

3. If, Coats had made it to the decision chamber instead, it'd have been his decision.

4. Saren=/=Synthesis. I'm probably beating my head into the wall, but his idea was to huskify his species and let the reapers reap the others. Not what we see in the epilogue. You may see the change as huskification but thats your own headcannon. Nothing in the epilogue suggests that. Plus he was indoctrinated, so he had to be stopped anyway if we want to build the crucible, dock it and usher in true synthesis!

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:01 .

[Ieldra]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would have no issue with Synthesis if it was enacted by a majority vote.

One person does not have the right to dictate how life evolves for every single being in the galaxy. I'm talking about the undiscovered races as well.

A newly constructed Crucible could be made and Synthesis enacted then, but only with a consensus.

But that's just it.  You CAN'T enact a majority vote.  The people of the Galaxy have voluntarily given Shepard all the authority to stop the Reapers.  Hackett said it himself.  You can pay a soldier to shoot a gun and confront an enemy, but you CANNOT pay them to believe in something.

I think the thing is with any of the three choices, the Galaxy is willing to give Shepard the leeway to decide how it should end, as LONG as it ends.  (Again, why I insist Refuse is a terrible option, the people of the Galaxy didn't give Shepard the authority to just say "No." and let them all die)

I severely doubt in any of the endings that any significant number of people curse Shepard's name and what he or she did.

Indeed. People are too obsessed with principles here and don't look at results. For organics, Synthesis increases the utility of the body and takes nothing away. It's as if some time in the past, an alien species had come and offered humans a bigger brain. Hear the complaints: "No, I don't want a bigger brain. I want to stay stupid. And because I want to stay stupid, everyone else should, too."

I can only say: if you want to stay stupid, don't use your bigger brain. It's easier than you might think. In any other respect, a good denied is an evil.

No, I have no problem at all with making that global change to organics, given the situation and the alternatives. I'd have more of an issue with the changes to synthetics, since I am affecting their minds. But apparently they want it and anyway rewriting the Heretics was considered acceptable according to Legion. This is just the same on a bigger scale.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

To those who have a hard time thinking how something so abominable be ok for others, I'd give a controversial example. pardon me if I'm crossing my line:

In my country, Hindus revere cows and consider them their mother. Killing a cow is absolutely the lowest a Hindu can go. Even worse than killing a human. They however consider eating pork normal.
Muslims on the other hand, consider pork to be hell-worthy. Eating pork is in the darkest no-no list as far as a Muslim is concerned. But they are fine with eating beef.
So the same thing is an abomination for one group and fine for the other.
I've seen traditional hindu and muslims living next to each other, respecting each others conflicting beliefs without going into conflict themselves.

This is why it is pointless arguing on morality. Each decision is morally grey, lets leave it at that. Which is more grey and what is less grey.. it really depends on the person.

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 07:57 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No, I have no problem at all with making that global change to organics, given the situation and the alternatives. I'd have more of an issue with the changes to synthetics, since I am affecting their minds. But apparently they want it and anyway rewriting the Heretics was considered acceptable according to Legion. This is just the same on a bigger scale.

Interesting thing about the heretic mission in ME2. Who gave Legion the right to decide the heretic's fate? Did he ask other geth? If I remember correctly, Legion had 1100-something runtimes installed in him. he said 500-something favoured rewrite, while a same number favoured death. So he didn't consent other geth elsewhere in the galaxy. Instead he consulted someone who wasn't even a geth. Not only that, he handed over to him/her the right to decide the heretic's fate! Who gave him the right to do so? Not to mention he was ok with what is equivalent to brainwashing the heretics.

Now I'm getting more and more convinced Legion should be the rightful avatar of synthesis. Not that we need one, but it helps to have a nonvillain who did something similar. Using Reaper codes to upgrade themselves was something very close to synthesis, on a smaller scale/scope. 

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .

[Ieldra]

The first time I played, I got a good chuckle out of the scene with Legion showing the Reaper code upgrades on the Normandy. I immediately thought of how many people wouldn't get the thematic implications of that scene. Beautiful, really.

[elitehunter34]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The first time I played, I got a good chuckle out of the scene with Legion showing the Reaper code upgrades on the Normandy. I immediately thought of how many people wouldn't get the thematic implications of that scene. Beautiful, really.

When did Legion show you them?

[Aurora313]

When he first arrives on the Normandy and he's discussing things with you and Rann... or after you do the first Rannoch groundside mission. Actually I'm fairly certain it's after the Geth fighter base. I remember Shepard shouting at Rann after claiming he saw their history. So it's after you visit the concensus.

Modifié par Aurora313, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:40 .

[Ieldra]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The first time I played, I got a good chuckle out of the scene with Legion showing the Reaper code upgrades on the Normandy. I immediately thought of how many people wouldn't get the thematic implications of that scene. Beautiful, really.

When did Legion show you them?

I think it was after the mission to the geth consensus. Or after the mission to rescue the admiral. Anyway, the scene will always appear at some time if you do both of the optional Rannoch missions. Legion will show a symbolic representation of a geth mind before and after the Reaper upgrade and comment the upgraded version has a certain beauty reminiscent of life. You have the choice to agree or disagree.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:57 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would have no issue with Synthesis if it was enacted by a majority vote.

One person does not have the right to dictate how life evolves for every single being in the galaxy. I'm talking about the undiscovered races as well.

A newly constructed Crucible could be made and Synthesis enacted then, but only with a consensus.

But that's just it.  You CAN'T enact a majority vote.  The people of the Galaxy have voluntarily given Shepard all the authority to stop the Reapers.  Hackett said it himself.  You can pay a soldier to shoot a gun and confront an enemy, but you CANNOT pay them to believe in something.

I think the thing is with any of the three choices, the Galaxy is willing to give Shepard the leeway to decide how it should end, as LONG as it ends.  (Again, why I insist Refuse is a terrible option, the people of the Galaxy didn't give Shepard the authority to just say "No." and let them all die)

I severely doubt in any of the endings that any significant number of people curse Shepard's name and what he or she did.

No the people of the galaxy never gave Shepard that authority.  Did Shepard talk to every single person?  There are people in ME that never even wanted implants of any kind.  Did Shepard ask them specifically?  And the goal was the destruction of the reapers-that's why they were building what they thought was a weapon.

As Taboo said there are undiscovered races-did they give Shepard their permission?  Every single person would have to give explicit permission for Shepard to do anything but destroy the reapers.  That was the goal.

And, seriously you can't see anyone in the Control choice having any problem with seeing reapers running around?  Anyone that saw what they did to Palaven, Thessia, and Earth would.  Anyone whose loved one was killed by them would-maybe that reaper over there has the Smith family in it.  Great, he's fixing the road for us.  Say hi to the Smiths would you?  By the way have you seen my wife?  She was here a minute ago.

In control, no one knows that Shepard is controlling the reapers-they think Shepard died and might even think s/he failed and that the reapers are acting crazy-and might start killing again.  They have people goo in them.

Anything short of destroying the reapers leaves the reapers alive with people goo in them.  That would be a failure.

It's a little late to make an issue out of what authority Shepard can/cannot have.

If I were to poll the galaxy back in ME1 on whether or not they wanted me to release a giant telepathic bug which is the last of its kind back into the wild - a bug best known for threatening the entire galaxy - I get the strong feeling that most would want me to kill it off. For added fun, let's incorporate some frequently used anti-synthesis arguments: "they were working for the enemy! you were JUST fighting it earlier!" - "how can you trust it? it has all the reason in the world to lie to you!"

And don't give me the "it's not the same because it doesn't affect everyone" argument. It does. The threat of a hostile rachni is created for everyone where there otherwise wouldn't have been one, so that's false and naiive.

In the end, trying to be a people-pleaser is one of the worst kind of leadership styles if you ask me. What the people want is not always worth doing (in this case, it would be the genocide of a species). There's also a thing called Bandwagon Fallacy which this basically falls under as well.

To that end, my Shepard's goals were very straightforward: galactic peace at best, survival at worst. I recruited anyone to my cause who I believed could help, but I guaranteed nothing to anyone (not even survival because hell if I know whether or not the Crucible will do its job). So if in the end I decide that not destroying the Reapers is the best course of action, that's the way it is. People accepted that implicityly when they joined me.

Your job is to make the right decision, not the popular one.

[Pinax]

RiouHotaru wrote...

And? They still gave Shepard the authority implicitly (even if not explicitly) to bring this to an end. That Destroy was forefront in their minds is a function of the fact that they didn't think there were alternatives.

Well, actually Shepard's and his team goal only was to open the Citadels arms, so that the Crucible can dock and ( possibly) fire ending the Reaper threat. Nobody told: " Shepard, go into the beam, as you are the best person to decide the fate of the galaxy". Shepard and Anderson were just 2 people who made it from the entire decimated squad, not some galactic representatives that should decide it's fate in a final moment...

[Aurora313]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Your job is to make the right decision, not the popular one.

'Good isn't the same as 'right'.' I suppose.
All decisions have their weaknessses and strengths, its just a matter of what do you want the Galaxy to be when everything is over?