9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

Pinax wrote...


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...

They aren't. But by the twist of fate the burden of decision rests now on Shepard, so he must decide one way or other. Unless you find refusal attractive.. If Coats had made it to the room it would have been his decision to make.

I hope I am making myself clear, that even though they arent galactive representatives. In the decision chamber they are forced to make a decision with what is to them, the best for the galaxy. Every decision is morally questionable and every decision tramples on someone's rights.

Modifié par pirate1802, 21 juillet 2012 - 11:30 .

[Ieldra]

Aurora313 wrote...

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?

Yes. You're shaping future civilization. If you think decision X will lead to the best future, I could make a point that you're obligated to make that decision. Some people feel that moral considerations outweigh that, but I disagree. In all of the three major options, the cost is acceptable. 

It would be different if Synthesis took anything away except some kind of biological purity. But it doesn't. It adds utility. People who don't want it don't need to use it. 

[Taboo]

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.

Breaking news.

I can't enact Synthesis for that reason alone. The only thing closest to a consensus was Destroy.

It's not about what I want.

[Shaigunjoe]

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?

Actually, you learn stuff through synthesizing.  There are also varios quotes from around from Steve Jobs, Einstein, and even the X-files about the importance of synthesis in creativity.  This underscores an important thematic element of the synthesize ending, the color green is often associated with growth afterall.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX 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.

That sounds a bit like a non sequitir there...

I believe Mordins words were "limitations".

And something about not giving an atomic weapon to a cave man.

Well, I made an exageration to emphasize my point rather than define it.  I just don't think the definition that was given as natural fit the bill.

In some ways, it kind of reminds me of the monolith in 2001.  It didn't give the nukes to the primatives.  But gave them the capacity to understand there world better.  It didn't give them a nuke, but it gave them the capactiy to eventually build one, though they weren't cave men anymore.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .

[atheelogos]

Dude that original post is amazing. lol Will take time to read...

[atheelogos]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Aurora313 wrote...

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?

Yes. You're shaping future civilization. If you think decision X will lead to the best future, I could make a point that you're obligated to make that decision. Some people feel that moral considerations outweigh that, but I disagree. In all of the three major options, the cost is acceptable. 

It would be different if Synthesis took anything away except some kind of biological purity. But it doesn't. It adds utility. People who don't want it don't need to use it. 

Agreed. The way I see it you can't stop technological progress. A singularity is inevitable in my eyes. With the Synthesis ending we choose it on our terms.

[atheelogos]

[quote]RiouHotaru wrote...

[quote]Taboo-XX wrote...

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

[/quote]Everyone sounded pretty happy in ever ending. I mean come on with Synthesis we have the chance to overcome mortality itself! Who doesn't want that?

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

There is no such thing as the right decision, whether the decision is right or wrong is up to the people in the future, will they make mistakes? will they dismiss Shepard's legacies? that is anybody's guess

How did you know synthesis is not a popular option in the galactic community? Maybe there are people who like the idea

Yes, u cannot guarantee their survival, but do you have to make everyone a synthesis test subject?

Listening to other peoples' opinions is not the same thing as being a people-pleaser

Basically it all comes down to the Catalyst's POV against that of the Galaxy's, if they both have the same view, great, if not, hehehe

A military leader may have autonomy over military decisions but the ending decision is largely political

[Ieldra]

Hmm...I just watched the three epilogues in short sequence, and I think the last scene of the Synthesis epilogue is most poignant. If I recall things correctly, It's the only epilogue where there's a spoken line "We remember Shepard" as Shepard's name plate is put on the memorial wall. Seeing the Normandy taking off after that, without Shepard, is sad, but in a good way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juillet 2012 - 07:30 .

[Taboo]

That's because Shepard is alive in Destroy.

And has an AI based off of him policing the galaxy.

There's nothing left of him in Synthesis.

It's that he isn't there in some format Ieldra. It's as poignant as you want it to be.

[TMA LIVE]

Well, Synthesis is up for interpretation. If you really want to fan fiction it, Shepard is alive in that Energy that's spread all over the place. Probably invading his LI's dreams.

[Taboo]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Well, Synthesis is up for interpretation. If you really want to fan fiction it, Shepard is alive in that Energy that's spread all over the place. Probably invading his LI's dreams.

There's going to be some seriously ****ed up fan fiction if that's the case.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...
Well, Synthesis is up for interpretation. If you really want to fan fiction it, Shepard is alive in that Energy that's spread all over the place. Probably invading his LI's dreams.

There's going to be some seriously ****ed up fan fiction if that's the case.

I know of at least twofour fan fictions with Shepards who come back post-Synthesis. No dream invading though. I'll have a look, perhaps I can find something for you

BTW, yes I know why that spoken line isn't present in the other epilogues. It doesn't change that it feels more poignant.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 juillet 2012 - 07:53 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...
Well, Synthesis is up for interpretation. If you really want to fan fiction it, Shepard is alive in that Energy that's spread all over the place. Probably invading his LI's dreams.

There's going to be some seriously ****ed up fan fiction if that's the case.

I know of at least two fan fictions with Shepards who come back post-Synthesis. No dream invading though. I'll have a look, perhaps I can find something for you

Someone thought it would be funny to link me to an adult fan fiction site.

With a story about EDI.

The implications...

But I'm interested in seeing what people come up with for that. It would be interesting.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Well, Synthesis is up for interpretation. If you really want to fan fiction it, Shepard is alive in that Energy that's spread all over the place. Probably invading his LI's dreams.

There's going to be some seriously ****ed up fan fiction if that's the case.

Have you read much fan fiction? What TMA described is actually kinda benign compared to stuff thats out there.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That's because Shepard is alive in Destroy.

Not neccessarily. There are 2 variation of Destroy where Shepard isn't alive. Complete with LI putting the name plate on the memorial wall.

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Well, Synthesis is up for interpretation. If you really want to fan fiction it, Shepard is alive in that Energy that's spread all over the place. Probably invading his LI's dreams.

There's going to be some seriously ****ed up fan fiction if that's the case.

Have you read much fan fiction? What TMA described is actually kinda benign compared to stuff thats out there.

No but I made the mistake of googling "Miranda Lawson" into the image search with safe search off.

I had no idea people actually did that OR had that kind of time on their hands.

[Ieldra]

Currently reading some post-Synthesis fan fiction. You know, it's such a relief compared with reading this forum re:Synthesis. I had almost forgotten what a mostly friendly online environment feels like. People actually write up interesting scenarios in a totally matter-of-fact way. I should recommend more post-Synthesis fan fiction - they may do more for creating an impression of what a post-Synthesis galaxy might look like than my dry descriptions. Stay tuned.

[Taboo]

^ Oh, you're telling me. I'm doing a new playthrough right now. It's nice to be back doing something else for a change.

I should probably write something too, if only to clear my head.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The ME3 story boards are worse than 4chan. There. I said it. Atleast 4chan is never serious.

[3DandBeyond]

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.

They didn't give Shepard the authority to change everyone into cyborgs.  If you hand me a gun because someone is trying to kill us and tell me to please kill them first and instead I decide to join the bad guys and make you join them too, I have not done what you wanted.

No one said or gave Shepard the right to do just anything s/he wanted to do.  What if Shepard decided to turn everyone into reapers who would return to kill everyone in 50k years-did they give Shepard permission for that?  What if Shepard was given the choice to kill all Asari and the reapers would leave?  Did Shepard have that authority?  All humans?  Shepard was given a limited purpose which in effect was part of the orders Hackett gave time and again.  Shepard might disobey orders for a really good reason, but Shepard would not force everyone to physically change in order to help the kid achieve his (the kid's) goal.  The goal, the permission given was to destroy the reapers.

Shepard had a really hard time on Cronos when confronted with vids of the Lazarus project.  Shepard wondered if s/he was just an AI that thought it was Shepard-do you really think that same person would force even further change on others, especially people who were dead set against tech of any kind? 

Who if anyone has the right to force something into your body?  And if someone is allowed to force one thing into your body, why then are they not allowed to force whatever they want into it?

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Currently reading some post-Synthesis fan fiction. You know, it's such a relief compared with reading this forum re:Synthesis. I had almost forgotten what a mostly friendly online environment feels like. People actually write up interesting scenarios in a totally matter-of-fact way. I should recommend more post-Synthesis fan fiction - they may do more for creating an impression of what a post-Synthesis galaxy might look like than my dry descriptions. Stay tuned.

That's all well and good but it does nothing to change pre-synthesis enforcement.  If one can get past the idea of no population problem and so on, there are still too many hurdles to overcome.

Learning creates unique personalities.  Just having all knowledge does not do that because it is all given from one sterile perspective.  If you and I are trying to learn how to tie a good knot and we know nothing about tying a knot, we might make some bad knots and might end up even making the same knot.  You might end up creating Crochet.  I might create macrame.  Maybe we were both just trying to create a simple knot to tie a bundle together.  We learned how to do something different.  If however we just know how to tie a knot, neither of us may ever explore creative knots.

It's sometimes the mistakes we make in learning things that create the greatest knowledge.  If we just know things, we never learn them, and we lose that thing that can help to create our characters and our personalities.  Another example, we might both be learning math and I might not be good at it and you might have no trouble with it.  I might get frustrated, but this is all easy for you.  I might have to learn to persevere and keep trying in order to figure it all out.  You might never learn that and one day you run into something difficult.  This has never happened before.  You get mad maybe, whereas I might view it as just another thing I need to figure out.  I might take it in stride, while you might just give up.  Our learning helps us to find ways to adapt-mistakes especially build our character.  This is no character assassination directed at you-I don't know if you are good in math or would get mad or not.

Adversity can form our culture and our personalities by forming our learning and creating a necessity for our learning.  And either these synthesized beings know everything or they don't-what lies beyond perfection.  And since when did the catalyst become God and become aware of what all people want, perfection through tech?  This is BS.  And since when did he become psychic or God and become aware of what evolution will inevitably lead to-his version of perfection?  He is tech and he sees people wanting perfection through tech.  He thinks people want to become more like him. Uh, no.

[Shaigunjoe]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Currently reading some post-Synthesis fan fiction. You know, it's such a relief compared with reading this forum re:Synthesis. I had almost forgotten what a mostly friendly online environment feels like. People actually write up interesting scenarios in a totally matter-of-fact way. I should recommend more post-Synthesis fan fiction - they may do more for creating an impression of what a post-Synthesis galaxy might look like than my dry descriptions. Stay tuned.

That's all well and good but it does nothing to change pre-synthesis enforcement.  If one can get past the idea of no population problem and so on, there are still too many hurdles to overcome.

Some people may see it as too many hurdles to overcome and give up, others will see it as just another thing they need to figure out.

[atheelogos]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Currently reading some post-Synthesis fan fiction. You know, it's such a relief compared with reading this forum re:Synthesis. I had almost forgotten what a mostly friendly online environment feels like. People actually write up interesting scenarios in a totally matter-of-fact way. I should recommend more post-Synthesis fan fiction - they may do more for creating an impression of what a post-Synthesis galaxy might look like than my dry descriptions. Stay tuned.

Can I get some links?