9089 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

blah64 wrote...

Of course I don't want to die. That's why destroy and control are around.

It's also irrelavent how "cool" it might feel, how perfectly "integrated" all the tech was with my body. I wasn't given a CHOICE. You can't just overhaul every single person's body, from the DNA up without their consent and call it moral.

One person isn't allowed to take every free thinking being up and force them to change for their own good, while defining for yourself what that good is. You don't get to decide that for me. My body, my rules.

Yeah, isn't it awesome that BioWare decided to sabotage such a great ending? They ruined Synthesis by forcing it on every being in the Milky Way. Yep, no better way to ****** everyone off!

[Wayning_Star]

blah64 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

blah64 wrote...
I would be none to pleased, to say the least, if I went to do battle witht he Reapers and woke up half synthetic. Rage and horror would be the least of my reactions.

Complaining on a high level. Would you rather be dead? For that's the more likely outcome when doing battle with the Reapers. Also, I think this anticipation of horror is caused by the idea of having "foreign objects" in your body, but what if everything feels perfectly natural, perfectly "of you", and you have some cool new abilities? As I see it, Synthesis isn't at all like the stuff you see in DX:HR, it's more like DX1's nano-augmentation, perfectly integrated into your body. and if it feels foreign, Synthesis hasn't worked. Exactly that's the difference between mere implants and Synthesis.

Of course I don't want to die. That's why destroy and control are around.

It's also irrelavent how "cool" it might feel, how perfectly "integrated" all the tech was with my body. I wasn't given a CHOICE. You can't just overhaul every single person's body, from the DNA up without their consent and call it moral.

One person isn't allowed to take every free thinking being up and force them to change for their own good, while defining for yourself what that good is. You don't get to decide that for me. My body, my rules.

Who said it were moral, or if morals of 20th century old earth even applies to a universe filled with assorted space aliens and their progeny of radical Ai life forms?

Besides, organics picked the poison, if that's what you say is true, by developing the problems and the apparent cure for those. The complaint dept is down on your right, sum few billion years... They'll complete your questionaire..and file it properly with the Alliance brass who gave Shep clearance...

 (Don't worry, be happy!!)

[Ieldra]

blah64 wrote...
Of course I don't want to die. That's why destroy and control are around.

It's also irrelavent how "cool" it might feel, how perfectly "integrated" all the tech was with my body. I wasn't given a CHOICE. You can't just overhaul every single person's body, from the DNA up without their consent and call it moral.

One person isn't allowed to take every free thinking being up and force them to change for their own good, while defining for yourself what that good is. You don't get to decide that for me. My body, my rules.

Not that I like this aspect in Synthesis, but your autonomy is quite a bit less important than the future of the galaxy as a whole, and if the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial, and even *you* would agree it's cool and perfectly integrated, sticking to principles in a situation likes this comes across as dogmatic.

Putting myself in the situation, no, neither would I like not being given a choice, but I have a hard time understanding a mindset where you wouldn't make your peace with the changes if they're cool and perfectly integrated. 

As for morality, I am a consequentialist. The bigger the stakes, the more results become more important than the means to achieve them, and there aren't any bigger stakes than the future of the galaxy.

[nos_astra]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Not that I like this aspect in Synthesis, but your autonomy is quite a bit less important than the future of the galaxy as a whole, and if the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial, and even *you* would agree it's cool and perfectly integrated, sticking to principles in a situation likes this comes across as dogmatic.

I could roll with this if it was the only option. But it's not. You have two other choices who that will save the galaxy for now.

Modifié par klarabella, 06 février 2013 - 02:16 .

[Ieldra]

klarabella wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Not that I like this aspect in Synthesis, but your autonomy is quite a bit less important than the future of the galaxy as a whole, and if the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial, and even *you* would agree it's cool and perfectly integrated, sticking to principles in a situation likes this comes across as dogmatic.

I could roll with this if it was the only option. But it's not. You have two other choices who will save the galaxy for now.

Admittedly, my preference for Synthesis over Control is more a result of thematic concerns. In a pure roleplaying mode where my agency was not limited by the presentation, I'd choose Control and lead the galaxy towards Synthesis, using my power to create, through memetic engineering, a cultural climate where people would embrace it on their own. But then I don't get to see that future on-screen... Also, the thematic appeal of Control is limited. I don't want to "protect the many", I want the many to emancipate themselves from those who would protect them in that way. I don't want to install a god, I want people to become as gods. Neither Destroy nor Control goes into that direction, thematically.

For one of my Shepards, I've also mentally rewritten the ending so that only Shepard is changed and becomes the avatar of Synthesis.

The thing is, I want the outcome of Synthesis, I am firmly convinced that the galaxy will be better off with the knowledge of the Reapers preserved. I could work through Control as I said above, but my main Shepard has wanted to achieve an outcome that preserves the Reapers' knowledge since Virmire, so Destroy is ruled out even before I need to consider its downside. If there are any objections: it's Shepard who's standing there at the Crucible, as I see it, (s)he has earned the right to make a decision on that scale.

Having said that, the global forced change is the sole reason why I'm not happy with my ending, but just ok, why I say "OK, I can live with that" instead of "Yay! That's what I wanted!".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 février 2013 - 02:14 .

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

I don't know why this misperception is so persistent. Nothing in the epilogue suggests that people's ability to make free decisions is impaired (as free as they ever are, which isn't very in my point of view, but that's beside the point). It's just overridden for one specific decision. If I force you to make one decision, that doesn't mean you are less free to make decisions in the future.

That people are taking one for the other is either a result of false reasoning, or a result of disliking Synthesis for unrelated reasons (I suppose the "sacred nature" intuition is at work) and rationalizing it in terms of "destroying free will". Well, I suspect that while this is in the range of possible interpretations, it doesn't happen in the interpretation of anyone who actually chooses Synthesis. Which means that it never happens and that it's a propaganda item brought up by Synthesis detractors.

You are still choosing for everyone else (without any real understanding of the consequences.)  I also was not condeming anyone for making this choice...merely responding to another's post on why so many dislike synthesis.  You want people to respect your thought processes, but get offended when someone offers a countering viewpoint that challenges your beliefs.

[Wayning_Star]

bascially, the universe is laughing behind your back.. doesn't care in the least.

That's the real problem of the MEU, not reapers..lol

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Not that I like this aspect in Synthesis, but your autonomy is quite a bit less important than the future of the galaxy as a whole, and if the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial, and even *you* would agree it's cool and perfectly integrated, sticking to principles in a situation likes this comes across as dogmatic.

I could roll with this if it was the only option. But it's not. You have two other choices who will save the galaxy for now.

Admittedly, my preference for Synthesis over Control is more a result of thematic concerns. In a pure roleplaying mode where my agency was not limited by the presentation, I'd choose Control and lead the galaxy towards Synthesis, using my power to create, through memetic engineering, a cultural climate where people would embrace it on their own. But then I don't get to see that future on-screen... Also, the thematic appeal of Control is limited. I don't want to "protect the many", I want the many to emancipate themselves from those who would protect them in that way. I don't want to install a god, I want people to become as gods. Neither Destroy nor Control goes into that direction, thematically.

For one of my Shepards, I've also mentally rewritten the ending so that only Shepard is changed and becomes the avatar of Synthesis.

The thing is, I want the outcome of Synthesis, I am firmly convinced that the galaxy will be better off with the knowledge of the Reapers preserved. I could work through Control as I said above, but my main Shepard has wanted to achieve an outcome that preserves the Reapers' knowledge since Virmire, so Destroy is ruled out even before I need to consider its downside. If there are any objections: it's Shepard who's standing there at the Crucible, as I see it, (s)he has earned the right to make a decision on that scale.

Having said that, the global forced change is the sole reason why I'm not happy with my ending, but just ok, why I say "OK, I can live with that" instead of "Yay! That's what I wanted!".

From a roleplaying (and headcanon) standpoint, control concerns me more than synthesis.  I can't help but think that Shep becoming some kind of godly entity with the absolute power to shape the galaxy can only lead to bad.  After thousands of years of isolation, Shep's companions long dead, and watching a galaxy repeat the same selfish cycles over and over...I think Shep would go mad or simply lose sight of empathy and compassion...and turn the Reapers on the galaxy once again.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

I don't know why this misperception is so persistent. Nothing in the epilogue suggests that people's ability to make free decisions is impaired (as free as they ever are, which isn't very in my point of view, but that's beside the point). It's just overridden for one specific decision. If I force you to make one decision, that doesn't mean you are less free to make decisions in the future.

That people are taking one for the other is either a result of false reasoning, or a result of disliking Synthesis for unrelated reasons (I suppose the "sacred nature" intuition is at work) and rationalizing it in terms of "destroying free will". Well, I suspect that while this is in the range of possible interpretations, it doesn't happen in the interpretation of anyone who actually chooses Synthesis. Which means that it never happens and that it's a propaganda item brought up by Synthesis detractors.

You are still choosing for everyone else (without any real understanding of the consequences.)  I also was not condeming anyone for making this choice...merely responding to another's post on why so many dislike synthesis.  You want people to respect your thought processes, but get offended when someone offers a countering viewpoint that challenges your beliefs.

And I wasn't offended by you. Sorry if it came across that way. I'm just wondering why so many people have this idea that Synthesis destroys free will. Yes, I am making that one choice for everyone, and that's undesirable, but I wouldn't make a choice that destroys free will, nor, do I think, would Bioware create such a choice in their games and present it as even remotely desirable.

[Wayning_Star]

Synthesis merely changes the nature of things. From the ground up. Something organics are known for.. many complain when it all came back to bite them on their..ethics.

[Steelcan]

Synthesis doesn't change organics' ability to make decisions, it just violates it.

[CosmicGnosis]

You know, I actually have seen some people state that they choose Control because they want the power to guide the galaxy. But I've never heard of anyone choosing Synthesis because they want to rob people of their free will or completely agree with the Catalyst's philosophy.

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

I don't know why this misperception is so persistent. Nothing in the epilogue suggests that people's ability to make free decisions is impaired (as free as they ever are, which isn't very in my point of view, but that's beside the point). It's just overridden for one specific decision. If I force you to make one decision, that doesn't mean you are less free to make decisions in the future.

That people are taking one for the other is either a result of false reasoning, or a result of disliking Synthesis for unrelated reasons (I suppose the "sacred nature" intuition is at work) and rationalizing it in terms of "destroying free will". Well, I suspect that while this is in the range of possible interpretations, it doesn't happen in the interpretation of anyone who actually chooses Synthesis. Which means that it never happens and that it's a propaganda item brought up by Synthesis detractors.

You are still choosing for everyone else (without any real understanding of the consequences.)  I also was not condeming anyone for making this choice...merely responding to another's post on why so many dislike synthesis.  You want people to respect your thought processes, but get offended when someone offers a countering viewpoint that challenges your beliefs.

And I wasn't offended by you. Sorry if it came across that way. I'm just wondering why so many people have this idea that Synthesis destroys free will. Yes, I am making that one choice for everyone, and that's undesirable, but I wouldn't make a choice that destroys free will, nor, do I think, would Bioware create such a choice in their games and present it as even remotely desirable.

Wasn't implying it destroys freewill...was pointing out that you are taking away a person's right to make a choice...and it's a damn big one too.  People don't like when governments take away even the smallest "choice..."  Something on that scale is gonna ****** off a few hundred billion.  If Shep were left alive after that choice, his/her life expenctancy would be very short.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Not that I like this aspect in Synthesis, but your autonomy is quite a bit less important than the future of the galaxy as a whole, and if the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial, and even *you* would agree it's cool and perfectly integrated, sticking to principles in a situation likes this comes across as dogmatic.

I could roll with this if it was the only option. But it's not. You have two other choices who will save the galaxy for now.

Admittedly, my preference for Synthesis over Control is more a result of thematic concerns. In a pure roleplaying mode where my agency was not limited by the presentation, I'd choose Control and lead the galaxy towards Synthesis, using my power to create, through memetic engineering, a cultural climate where people would embrace it on their own. But then I don't get to see that future on-screen... Also, the thematic appeal of Control is limited. I don't want to "protect the many", I want the many to emancipate themselves from those who would protect them in that way. I don't want to install a god, I want people to become as gods. Neither Destroy nor Control goes into that direction, thematically.

For one of my Shepards, I've also mentally rewritten the ending so that only Shepard is changed and becomes the avatar of Synthesis.

The thing is, I want the outcome of Synthesis, I am firmly convinced that the galaxy will be better off with the knowledge of the Reapers preserved. I could work through Control as I said above, but my main Shepard has wanted to achieve an outcome that preserves the Reapers' knowledge since Virmire, so Destroy is ruled out even before I need to consider its downside. If there are any objections: it's Shepard who's standing there at the Crucible, as I see it, (s)he has earned the right to make a decision on that scale.

Having said that, the global forced change is the sole reason why I'm not happy with my ending, but just ok, why I say "OK, I can live with that" instead of "Yay! That's what I wanted!".

From a roleplaying (and headcanon) standpoint, control concerns me more than synthesis.  I can't help but think that Shep becoming some kind of godly entity with the absolute power to shape the galaxy can only lead to bad.  After thousands of years of isolation, Shep's companions long dead, and watching a galaxy repeat the same selfish cycles over and over...I think Shep would go mad or simply lose sight of empathy and compassion...and turn the Reapers on the galaxy once again.

The reason why I'm not concerned is that more than in the other endings, in Control your agency can reasonably be said to extend into the future. Also, I think if Control!Shepard does get disconnected from those he set out to protect, he'll rather leave and concern himself with more interesting things than spending millennia watching the lives of ants.  CrutchCricket's much underrated thread "Eternal. Infinite. Immortal: CrutchCricket's Guide to Control" explains it best. That's what would happen to several of my Shepards should they choose Control and become disconnected. 

[Wayning_Star]

simply put: None of the other choices actually end the reaper threat. Case closed.

[Helios969]

Wayning_Star wrote...

simply put: None of the other choices actually end the reaper threat. Case closed.

synthesis?

[Obadiah]

Helios969 wrote...
...
Wasn't implying it destroys freewill...was pointing out that you are taking away a person's right to make a choice...and it's a damn big one too.  People don't like when governments take away even the smallest "choice..."  Something on that scale is gonna ****** off a few hundred billion.  If Shep were left alive after that choice, his/her life expenctancy would be very short.

In all 4 options Shep is making a choice for the galaxy. If Shep doesn't choose Synthesis, it was a "opt out" choice - opportunity to fully integrate Organics with technology gone... for now.

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...
Wasn't implying it destroys freewill...was pointing out that you are taking away a person's right to make a choice...and it's a damn big one too.  People don't like when governments take away even the smallest "choice..."  Something on that scale is gonna ****** off a few hundred billion.  If Shep were left alive after that choice, his/her life expenctancy would be very short.

I think you underestimate people's willingness to accept a forced outcome if it's beneficial, or at least neutral, to their personal wellbeing. Not every culture is as dogmatic about individual autonomy as that of the US, that they'd reject a good outcome for a matter of principle.

Now the question is whether or not the outcome of Synthesis is that. The epilogue heavily suggests that it is, for most people anyway. As I see it, the only people who'd be seriously offended by the outcome are those with some religious prescription about not changing anything about their natural bodies. I'm quite prepared to ****** off a minority. Rather less undesirable than killing one like in Destroy.

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Not that I like this aspect in Synthesis, but your autonomy is quite a bit less important than the future of the galaxy as a whole, and if the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial, and even *you* would agree it's cool and perfectly integrated, sticking to principles in a situation likes this comes across as dogmatic.

I could roll with this if it was the only option. But it's not. You have two other choices who will save the galaxy for now.

Admittedly, my preference for Synthesis over Control is more a result of thematic concerns. In a pure roleplaying mode where my agency was not limited by the presentation, I'd choose Control and lead the galaxy towards Synthesis, using my power to create, through memetic engineering, a cultural climate where people would embrace it on their own. But then I don't get to see that future on-screen... Also, the thematic appeal of Control is limited. I don't want to "protect the many", I want the many to emancipate themselves from those who would protect them in that way. I don't want to install a god, I want people to become as gods. Neither Destroy nor Control goes into that direction, thematically.

For one of my Shepards, I've also mentally rewritten the ending so that only Shepard is changed and becomes the avatar of Synthesis.

The thing is, I want the outcome of Synthesis, I am firmly convinced that the galaxy will be better off with the knowledge of the Reapers preserved. I could work through Control as I said above, but my main Shepard has wanted to achieve an outcome that preserves the Reapers' knowledge since Virmire, so Destroy is ruled out even before I need to consider its downside. If there are any objections: it's Shepard who's standing there at the Crucible, as I see it, (s)he has earned the right to make a decision on that scale.

Having said that, the global forced change is the sole reason why I'm not happy with my ending, but just ok, why I say "OK, I can live with that" instead of "Yay! That's what I wanted!".

From a roleplaying (and headcanon) standpoint, control concerns me more than synthesis.  I can't help but think that Shep becoming some kind of godly entity with the absolute power to shape the galaxy can only lead to bad.  After thousands of years of isolation, Shep's companions long dead, and watching a galaxy repeat the same selfish cycles over and over...I think Shep would go mad or simply lose sight of empathy and compassion...and turn the Reapers on the galaxy once again.

The reason why I'm not concerned is that more than in the other endings, in Control your agency can reasonably be said to extend into the future. Also, I think if Control!Shepard does get disconnected from those he set out to protect, he'll rather leave and concern himself with more interesting things than spending millennia watching the lives of ants.  CrutchCricket's much underrated thread "Eternal. Infinite. Immortal: CrutchCricket's Guide to Control" explains it best. That's what would happen to several of my Shepards should they choose Control and become disconnected. 

It's a good take, and I could buy that as a possible outcome (though I'm a half empty kind of guy and pretty much always expect the worst.)  I've applied the same logic to the whole A.I. as genocidal machines concept prevalent in scify and the tech singularity.  In my thought processes I think it much more likely an ever-advancing race of machines would simply leave (lesser) organic races behind to seek their own future.  The Dr. Manhattan analogy works very well.  That machines would have some sort of obsessive-compulsive bug in their processing that would make them want to understand organics and their cacophony of emotions is somewhat laughable.

[Wayning_Star]

Synthesis actually intigrates reality, or nature with organic needs for technology to survive nature.

A redo... Destroy and Control speak for themselves, but are limited to their effectiveness in that regard. Basically the same old things, different day/millenium. Cosmic problems requires cosmic decisions, or decision on a cosmic scale.

Cannot handle your cosmic decision? Pick refuse.. let someone else decide.

[Wayning_Star]

the creators runs away from their created? Whoa..

[Helios969]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
Wasn't implying it destroys freewill...was pointing out that you are taking away a person's right to make a choice...and it's a damn big one too.  People don't like when governments take away even the smallest "choice..."  Something on that scale is gonna ****** off a few hundred billion.  If Shep were left alive after that choice, his/her life expenctancy would be very short.

I think you underestimate people's willingness to accept a forced outcome if it's beneficial, or at least neutral, to their personal wellbeing. Not every culture is as dogmatic about individual autonomy as that of the US, that they'd reject a good outcome for a matter of principle.

Now the question is whether or not the outcome of Synthesis is that. The epilogue heavily suggests that it is, for most people anyway. As I see it, the only people who'd be seriously offended by the outcome are those with some religious prescription about not changing anything about their natural bodies. I'm quite prepared to ****** off a minority. Rather less undesirable than killing one like in Destroy.

That's true...Americans are definitely the extreme case.  I would perceive the Japanese perhaps being amenable to such a solution (at least outwardly) as they seem to be more selfless as a society (perhaps one of our native Japanese friends can comment on this.)  However, I am not convinced you'd only being pissing off a minority...especially based on the polls and comments I have seen on the three (four) final choices.

[Helios969]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Synthesis actually intigrates reality, or nature with organic needs for technology to survive nature.

A redo... Destroy and Control speak for themselves, but are limited to their effectiveness in that regard. Basically the same old things, different day/millenium. Cosmic problems requires cosmic decisions, or decision on a cosmic scale.

Cannot handle your cosmic decision? Pick refuse.. let someone else decide.

Well that presumes synthesis actually solves anything.  Do you really believe it stops galactic conflict long term?  Conflict is driven by lack of resources as much as anything.  No matter how much you understand another, if it becomes a matter of survival of your family over another's...you know what you'll choose.

[MegaSovereign]

Helios969 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Synthesis actually intigrates reality, or nature with organic needs for technology to survive nature.

A redo... Destroy and Control speak for themselves, but are limited to their effectiveness in that regard. Basically the same old things, different day/millenium. Cosmic problems requires cosmic decisions, or decision on a cosmic scale.

Cannot handle your cosmic decision? Pick refuse.. let someone else decide.

Well that presumes synthesis actually solves anything.  Do you really believe it stops galactic conflict long term?  Conflict is driven by lack of resources as much as anything.  No matter how much you understand another, if it becomes a matter of survival of your family over another's...you know what you'll choose.

Synthesis doesn't solve conflicts. It just keeps organics and synthetics on equal footing.

[Ieldra]

@Helios969:
Ah well, if I interpret people's reactions correctly, for many people the idea that Synthesis accomodates the Reapers is more of a deciding factor for rejecting Synthesis. Also, I suspect Synthesis appears more frightening as an unrealized idea, much like I'm afraid to be operated on regardless of the knowledge that the outcome will most likely be an improvement. The autonomy issue is only one factor.

The difference for me personally is that the autonomy issue is an important one, one that I need to debate with myself to see if it's an aspect I can live with. Integrating the Reapers' knowledge I find desirable, and the matter of justice/punishment/vengeance is a complete non-issue for me.