9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

Arcian wrote...

For Synthesis Supporters: Hypothetical Destroy Scenario

Would be cool if you guys could answer this poll.

Done. I'll copypasta my response here as well.

For me, Synthesis is a difficult decision. Changing all galactic life at
the whim of a single person? Not an easy decision, one that weighs
heavy on my Shepard's conscience. (both in her final moments and after
her resurrection in my headcanon.) I choose it only in comparison to the
other endings. And while I like the final outcome of Synthesis, (except
Shepard's "sacrifice"), making EDI and the Geth survive destroy would
tip the balance in my books. Collateral damage was the thing that weaned
me off destroy. 

[jtav]

I'd still choose it. I chose it for the sake of the Reapers, in hopes of breaking the Catalyst's control. Access to the knowledge of past cycles is a historian's dream. And I just don't like Destroy from an aesthetic standpoint.

[Taboo]

 There's that word again. Aesthetic. 

With all the information there I'm actually more upset by the..."magicness" of Synthesis rather than the...aesthetics. 

Slightly off topic but within the pursuit of "advancement". Did you ever play Fallout: NV Ieldra? There's a really great DLC in there I think you'd enjoy called Old World Blues. I was blown away by it when I finished it yesterday.

At what point does technological progress become unethical? When you force people to live in machines and making them unaware of what happens? What good is it if people can't be free?

That's the one thing I've always brought up with extreme forms of Moral Relativism. Yeah they're alive but in what condition?  At what point is life not worth living?

I'll also leave this quote here, from one of my favorite filmmakers. You might enjoy him Ieldra. He debates serious moral issues within society.

"On principle, I don't answer questions about interpretation." - Michael Haneke

[Ieldra]

Eckswhyzed wrote...
230 pages later, I have found the OP image source!

http://www.mondolithic.com/?p=2316

There, now you can credit that wonderful picture

Thank you very much. Edited the OP. They have a few other noteworthy images on their site.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Slightly off topic but within the pursuit of "advancement". Did you ever play Fallout: NV Ieldra? There's a really great DLC in there I think you'd enjoy called Old World Blues. I was blown away by it when I finished it yesterday.

I was burned out pretty fast on FO3, and the persistent bug "Irreproducible crash on entering a new area" that has haunted Betheda games for more than ten years didn't help. When the revised ending (LOL) came out, I had already left it behind. Is NV good?

At what point does technological progress become unethical? When you force people to live in machines and making them unaware of what happens? What good is it if people can't be free?

That's the one thing I've always brought up with extreme forms of Moral Relativism. Yeah they're alive but in what condition?  At what point is life not worth living?

There is no objective point where life is not worth living. It's up to the individual to decide, to decide only for itself, and an informed decision is only possible with first-hand experience of the condition supposedly not worth living in. And ideally, perfect information. How much does knowledge change your feelings? Should science one day prove that we aren't really free at all, would you consider life not worth living any more?  

I'll also leave this quote here, from one of my favorite filmmakers. You might enjoy him Ieldra. He debates serious moral issues within society.

"On principle, I don't answer questions about interpretation." - Michael Haneke

LOL, I guess that's why we don't head from Mac Walters and Casey Hudson. But then, ME3's ending has greater problems than those of interpretation.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I'd still choose it. I chose it for the sake of the Reapers, in hopes of breaking the Catalyst's control. Access to the knowledge of past cycles is a historian's dream. And I just don't like Destroy from an aesthetic standpoint.

This. Also, I see the ability to integrate technology as ultimately desirable. People aren't forced to use it and can continue to live as they always did if they want. It's like getting a new tool. Since it's part of you, you can't throw it away, but you can ignore it.

I'd say I'm thematically uncomfortable with Destroy. The EC chooses to sugarcoat it, but the dark age would be thematically appropriate for Destroy - it's the ultimate rejection of all things Reaper-based, which should include the complete and irreversible destruction of the mass relays, but not necessarily the geth. Of course, since the geth have Reaper upgrades if they survive to this point, they are included, but it didn't have be to written that way.

For avoiding immediate downsides, I'd always choose Control.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 octobre 2012 - 08:12 .

[jtav]

I'm glad they got rid of the dark age, but after Jacob and Miranda's arcs, I think I'm allergic to normal. Synthesis says that we will push ourselves and not rest on our laurels. And it's not a free ride. The best possible future for the krogan still requires Wrex.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I'm glad they got rid of the dark age, but after Jacob and Miranda's arcs, I think I'm allergic to normal. Synthesis says that we will push ourselves and not rest on our laurels. And it's not a free ride. The best possible future for the krogan still requires Wrex.

I'm also glad they got rid of the dark age. People who still want it can play low-EMS Destroy. But that doesn't change that it would've been thematically fitting for Destroy only, asking the question "Is getting rid of the Reapers worth getting rid of so much technology along with it". The leaked script had that scenario. The mistake they made for the original endings is to force the dark age on all endings. I guess they thought having only Destroy resulting in a dark age would unbalance the endings too much.

Anyway, I'm glad it's gone for my endings of choice, and if that means an ending I don't choose is thematically skewed for balance, then so be it.  

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I was burned out pretty fast on FO3, and the persistent bug "Irreproducible crash on entering a new area" that has haunted Betheda games for more than ten years didn't help. When the revised ending (LOL) came out, I had already left it behind. Is NV good?

They've patched it up. If you're a nerd like me you'll get a kick out of all the old Sci-Fi references.

"Plan 9s" and such.

There is no objective point where life is not worth living. It's up to the individual to decide, to decide only for itself, and an informed decision is only possible with first-hand experience of the condition supposedly not worth living in. And ideally, perfect information. How much does knowledge change your feelings? Should science one day prove that we aren't really free at all, would you consider life not worth living any more?  

Most people want to live. Some don't. At what point is it your decision to choose for them? You know about the Cybermen right? Did you see the episode where the Doctor instead chooses to kill every single one of them than let them exist as individuals?

What would you do? Synthesize the Cybermen into half man half machine like he could have done?

[His Name was HYR!!]

Arcian wrote...

For Synthesis Supporters: Hypothetical Destroy Scenario

Would be cool if you guys could answer this poll.

If Destroy only destroyed the Reapers then yes, Synthesis would be invalid to me. The need for that kind of an unprecedented solution would be unnecessary. I'd choose Control first, though: access to vast knowledge and the resources to help rebuild (and then destroy them).

As is, Destroy sounds like it will create more problems on top of untold devastation in the wake of the war, both short- and long-term. For that reason, I tell organics to bite the bullet, we're advancing now to make the recovery process go easier for all of us.

That's why I enjoy it when fans get all upset about how good the synthesis epilogue looks. Gee, 'guess that's what happens when you don't end a war with more destruction and take the most efficient solution. (Who'da thunk it??)

But since the poll only asks about geth/EDI, I voted "I'd still choose it." 

[atheelogos]

Seival wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

I like the summarization. My Shepard would probably be revered as a martyr by some while reviled as the one who sold out to the Reapers by some. Hero to some and a monster to some. And I like it that way. Gives me headspace to create an interesting post-synthesis headcanon.

Unhappy Synthesized people may say whatever they want, but they can't do anything about it. Synthesis is irreversible...

...And somehow I really doubt that there will be too many unhappy Synthesized people. Synthesis brings all life to the new level of existance never known before. It's not time to be unhappy, it's time to build the future with limitless possibilities

I like this human. He understands! lol;)

[atheelogos]

Barquiel wrote...

I suppose people will know that Shepard activated the crucible, but not that the crucible presented different options.

Why do people think this?

The Catalyst is connected to all the other Reapers. They all know the details of what led up to sheps choice. The only way people wont find out about it is if the Reapers choose not to tell them.

[Ieldra]

atheelogos wrote...

Seival wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

I like the summarization. My Shepard would probably be revered as a martyr by some while reviled as the one who sold out to the Reapers by some. Hero to some and a monster to some. And I like it that way. Gives me headspace to create an interesting post-synthesis headcanon.

Unhappy Synthesized people may say whatever they want, but they can't do anything about it. Synthesis is irreversible...

...And somehow I really doubt that there will be too many unhappy Synthesized people. Synthesis brings all life to the new level of existance never known before. It's not time to be unhappy, it's time to build the future with limitless possibilities

I like this human. He understands! lol;)

Indeed, that's what I've always thought. There are new options to life, new lifestyles will emerge which were never before possible. Those people who don't want all that can pretty much ignore it, but I think it likely most would rather explore the new possibilities. Yes, there will be new horrors along with the new wonders, but given human nature that will always be inevitable.

I'm not so sure Synthesis is irreversible though. After all, what technology made technology can theoretically unmake. On an individual basis, I think it would be reversible at some time in the future, but why would anyone want that?

[jtav]

Religious beliefs spring immediately to mind.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Religious beliefs spring immediately to mind.

All right, I concede that, but it's not unheard of that religious dogma gets adapted for practical reasons either. I'm not an expert in the world's religions, but I doubt there is any holy text explicitly forbidding something like Synthesis. Those who would have it reversed would likely be fringe groups.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Religious beliefs spring immediately to mind.

All right, I concede that, but it's not unheard of that religious dogma gets adapted for practical reasons either. I'm not an expert in the world's religions, but I doubt there is any holy text explicitly forbidding something like Synthesis. Those who would have it reversed would likely be fringe groups.

. No religion bans other things, like pork, or shellfish, or shaving....... Looking at you Leviticus.

Modifié par Steelcan, 29 octobre 2012 - 05:32 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

well, i tried building a bridge of understanding between me and the Indoctrination Hypothesizers...didn't end well.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 29 octobre 2012 - 03:19 .

[Steelcan]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

well, i tried building a bridge of understanding between me and the Indoctrination Hypothesizers...didn't end well.

. What did you try to tell them?

[Bill Casey]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
Religious beliefs spring immediately to mind.

All right, I concede that, but it's not unheard of that religious dogma gets adapted for practical reasons either. I'm not an expert in the world's religions, but I doubt there is any holy text explicitly forbidding something like Synthesis. Those who would have it reversed would likely be fringe groups.

. No religion bans other things, like pork, or shellfish, or shaving....... Looking at you Leviticus.

Amish Mennonites?



Anyone?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 octobre 2012 - 05:04 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

well, i tried building a bridge of understanding between me and the Indoctrination Hypothesizers...didn't end well.

BSNites loves their groupthink.

And hate when outside opinions threaten the validity of it.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 29 octobre 2012 - 05:09 .

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

BSNites loves their groupthink.

And hate when outside opinions threaten the validity of it.

I see what you did there...

[CosmicGnosis]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

BSNites loves their groupthink.

And hate when outside opinions threaten the validity of it.

BSN is like the geth Consensus, except that it functions in the opposite way: As it grows larger, it becomes dumber.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 29 octobre 2012 - 05:28 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

CosmicGnosis wrote...



BSN is like the geth Consensus, except that it functions in the opposite way: As it grows larger, it becomes dumber.

rofl... so much this. This place actually sort of influenced me to choose Synthesis for my canon ending.

I didn't really choose anything the first time I played because I heard the endings were a mess, so I "defaulted" to Destroy for the time. And indeed, the original endings were crap, in my opinion. So I kind of disregarded the entire final-decision and then came here to talk about the game. In the process, I was re-thinking/trying to make sense of the final decision.

I was initially swayed away from synthesis since it was met with the most negative response of all three choices. But the more I read people's posts against it, the less convinced I became that the negativity was legitimate. It almost always boiled down to silly symbolic-arguments, no real rational thought. It quickly became apparent that people were either (A) channeling their hate for the ending, ( invalidating the other endings to validate their own, © both A & B. The attitudes sure didn't help their cases either. And IT didn't convince me about their interpretation whatsoever.

In the end, choosing something that the majority on this site was opposed to just felt like more reason to choose it. This is a place where voicing an unpopular opinion is called out as "trolling." Says it all, I don't care much for their approval.

[inko1nsiderate]

Not that anyone cares what I have to say, but I've been replaying the ME trilogy, and recording it this time. Anyway, it means I don't skip dialogues which has reminded me about The Cipher's description. One thing I see a lot of people complain about is why does Shepard need to die in Synthesis. Well, besides symbolically, we can justify it several ways:

1) Cultural endemic memory of humanity is important in making synthesis possible. Certainly if the Thorian can gain this endemic memory through consuming of Protheans (with some study), and this Cipher can be transferred to an Asari and to Shepard, that a similar process can happen to read Shepard's endemic memory.

2) From ME3 we know Protheans can read DNA, but we could guess something along those lines based on their technological ability to transfer information directly into Shepard's brain with the beacons. Either way, we see that memory of an individual can be read and transferred by advanced technology thus Shepard's unique experiences and outlook is part of what is necessary for Synthesis to work. In effect, Shepard's memories are encoded in the synthesis technology so that the memories can influence people towards peace (but it isn't a mindwashing thing just like the Prothean Beacon didn't mindwash Shepard).

I've also been thinking about the actual mechanics of the synthesis technology as well, I'm still thinking it is picotechnology. There are repeatedly references to nanotechnology throughout the series, mostly in codexes, and there is a mystery as to why the Serpent nebula is there. Prevailing theory is that waste is 'somehow' reduced to the sub molecular level and dispersed by the Keepers. So there is in lore justification for the Reapers having a similar level of technology that is necessary for my picotechnology explanation.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 30 octobre 2012 - 03:31 .