9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Making them aware of what they are is unethical, as is controlling them.

Telling someone the truth is unethical? Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I will never, ever agree with that.

You are telling a being what they are, created out of millions and millions of lost souls. You then proceed to tell them that they are responsible for two quintillion deaths.

This isn't a bit of whistleblowing at the government in the name of freedom Ieldra. It's a big deal.

Yes, it is a big deal. The truth is a double-edged sword and should be handled with care. But "know thyself" is one of my most important maxims. It is perhaps what I consider anyone's most important moral obligation, and refusing it the most elemental moral failing. I would respect a wish not to know if it was told to me explicitly - most of the time - but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

And anyway I'm not convinced they don't know this already.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 08:15 .

[Taboo]

It is a term used to describe thematic content.

The glamorization of the close ups of violence in Sam Peckinpah's films have fascist aesthetic but the work itself is not Fascist. That glamorization of death and violence has a certain aesthetic. Peckinpah had his issues mentally, but he was no facist.

You of course know of Richard Wagner? He had some funny political beliefs and I've heard people argue that it shows in his music. But that alone does not make the Ride of the Valkyries a fascist piece of music. It's a wonderful piece of music. Liking it does not make me a fuddy duddy. This is what I am trying to relate here.

I take everything into account when I make a choice. Everything. How will the Reapers feel about this? How will X feel about being Synthesized. How would the Geth react to Destroy?

I do not see you making assessments based on the aftermath of Synthesis in the capacity I'm looking for. You assume that everyone will be happy based on your views. You do not differentiate between what a good and bad life is. You appear to care nothing for the people who will be upset over being Synthesized.

You can either accept that certain people will be unahppy for the rest of time or that you force everyone to be happy.

Everything is grey until it involves you. It's easy to make assessements because you have no emotional attachement. Certain things however, like Rape, are always wrong.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 08:36 .

[Ieldra]

(This is not in response to anyone in particular)

I've talked about the "spirit" of the endings a great deal. Perhaps it's time I said what I think that is. Looking at the ending options in a general sense, without taking the details of their implementation into account, this is what I believe the "message" of each ending is:

(1) Destroy: Karma - Organic life will live or die on its own merits. We believe in our ability to fix this ourselves. And if we're wrong, then so be it. Keywords: freedom, chaos, opportunity, fate.

(2) Control: Conservation - Survival is more important than freedom. Organic life will be guided along a path that ensures survival, until a time when the guardian judges it is no longer needed. Keywords: order, maturation, survival, continuity.

(3) Synthesis: Revolution - Transcend the old order to bring about a new age where the old conflicts between organics and synthetics are meaningless. Keywords: ascension, change, expansion

This lies at the core of why I'm attracted to Synthesis. It brings about something new and unknown, transcending the conflicts that have defined the past. It looks forward to what we can be instead of sticking to what we are. And since the game leaves me a lot of freedom to interpret, I'll set the details so that I can justify the implementation to myself.

Possibly others take different things away from the ending. But this is my perspective. Note how this echoes the endings of Deus Ex 1. Unsurprisingly, I usually choose the Helios Merge in that game. And Sarif's ending in Deux Ex:Human Revolution.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 08:44 .

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
How many times must I admit that I'm not painting a sunshine-and-rainbows scenario to make you stop belaboring the point? Naturally some people will be unhappy about it all. That's a fallout I accept just as other people accept the death of the geth in Destroy.
(Perhaps the possibility that the change is reversible might mitigate their unhappiness, but of course this only applies to my scenario).

[jtav]

I think that's why I keep coming back to Synthesis. The old order smells rotten. Nature is corrupt. Synthesis is the chance for something better. Maybe it won't work. But at least I tried.

[Taboo]

 Hence my point. You affect everything for all time. ALL time. You were not supposed to change the fundamental  working of the galaxy, you were supposed to stop the Reapers, any interference past that is grossly inappropriate.

Understanding comes from experience, and should not be forced. That is how we overcome conflict.

I chose to tell people the truth in Deus Ex: HR. For the exact purpose you don't. People should not be forced to sumbit to those people or their policies. People will rebuild based upon their terms, not on coporations, an abstraction. If they do not want implants, they do not have to get them.

Remember, people in Deus Ex have to take medication for their implants and they will be entirely dependant on a company for survival. I will not allow such a travesty to occur. That is worse than death, it is a living hell.

Instant Karma!

[Ieldra]

Well, Taboo, I am a revolutionary. When playing games, anyway. And as revolutionaries do, I accept that my choices will make some people unhappy. Most notably those enamored of the old order. Accept that my perspective is different from yours. I'll do my best to minimize the fallout (see the thing about the change being reversible), but I will not go back on my decision. And considering the implementation of the alternatives, it's fortunate that I can justify the decision to myself. Had the Reapers remained Lovecraftian horrors, I would not have been able to justify it. That's why for me, the step-by-step revelation of the Reapers' nature, the subversion of the cosmic horror story, was the absolute best aspect of the trilogy.

As for DX:HR, genetic modifications based on Jensen's genes will ensure that the medication is no longer needed. That's why Jensen is so important. Or did you overlook that little detail?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 09:10 .

[antares_sublight]

But you, at decision-time, had none of that knowledge. You can only rationalize it post-choice. Jumping into the beam with what Shepard knows at that time is not revolutionary, it's irresponsible.

[Taboo]

Yes. I do remember that detail. Meghan had a startling inability to tell her boyfriend about it. With that kind of knowledge at their disposal, a great number of VERY powerful people are going to use Jenson. Much like, the oft mentioned Illuminati in the story, someone is going to abuse it. No one has that right.

I too choose to be a revolutionary, but through acts of non compliance. I do not believe it is ethical to force that change on anyone. I have friends in Greece right now who are fighting because they want change. What they don't realize is that violence won't change Angela Merkel's mind in Germany nor will it make the politicians any less obtuse. Greece will either fail or it will get better, but only when the people decide what they want, not Papoulias.

Destroy gives people that chance to begin again. Maybe it won't go well. Maybe it will. But at least I don't have to deal with the forced change when Shepard wakes up in the hospital. I choose to accept responsibility for the restart to zero.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 09:18 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I think that's why I keep coming back to Synthesis. The old order smells rotten. Nature is corrupt. Synthesis is the chance for something better. Maybe it won't work. But at least I tried.

Exactly my stance. It's a decision as risky as Destroy, but it looks to the infinite possibilities of the future for a solution, not to the limitations of a nature defined by the past. 

Which ironically, makes Control the wisest choice if you approach things from a risk-minimizing perspective. Really, I don't understand why Destroy - of all things - is such a popular decision. If people told me "forget Synthesis, choose Control", I'd say they have a point. But "forget Synthesis, choose Destroy", that's a much harder sell.

@Taboo:
I understand your stance. I could mention a few points against it - for instance that you always weigh the risks of my perspective higher than the chances - but I don't really want to change your mind about your preferred choice. Heh.....a Deux Ex quote may be appropriate here: "We are our choices" (from the Helios Merge ending).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 09:24 .

[Taboo]

Just don't ever mention Che Guevara. Please.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 09:22 .

[D24O]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
I think that's why I keep coming back to Synthesis. The old order smells rotten. Nature is corrupt. Synthesis is the chance for something better. Maybe it won't work. But at least I tried.

Exactly my stance. It's a decision as risky as Destroy, but it looks to the infinite possibilities of the future for a solution, not to the limitations of a nature defined by the past. 

Which ironically, makes Control the wisest choice if you approach things from a risk-minimizing perspective. Really, I don't understand why Destroy - of all things - is such a popular decision. If people told me "forget Synthesis, choose Control", I'd say they have a point. But "forget Synthesis, choose Destroy", that's a much harder sell.

People don't like Control because they don't trust the Catalyst, nor do they trust Shepards ability to truly control beings who are supposed to be incomprehensible. The Catalyst doesn't sell it very well anyway.

[jtav]

Okay then. Just for fun. Take Destroy out of the equation. The relays are salvageable in Control and would be working again within a human lifetime. Isn't ut more ethical to forego the benefits of Synthesis in order to minimize suffering?

[Ieldra]

@D24O:
The Catalyst doesn't sell any option well  Really, what were they smoking at Bioware when they made that dialogue?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 09:26 .

[D24O]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Catalyst doesn't sell any option well Really, what were they smoking at Bioware when they made that dialogue?

Yeah, the ending choices are just f***** stupid anyway, they really are just what you make of them unless EC gives a lot more info. Until then just speculation.

Modifié par D24O, 15 juin 2012 - 09:27 .

[Taboo]

I don't think you're ever going to change my mind. I just want everyone to be happy this Summer. Everyone can get what they want. Hopefully.

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...

Okay then. Just for fun. Take Destroy out of the equation. The relays are salvageable in Control and would be working again within a human lifetime. Isn't ut more ethical to forego the benefits of Synthesis in order to minimize suffering?

I don't know what I'd do.

Control? I don't like the idea of having control over a sentient being but I can see the potential benefits of having the Reapers around to do what Shepard wants. He DOES stop them after all. If you are going to control them, you might as well use them. Terrible but a choice nonetheless.

And what of Synthesis? No, I don't think so. I don't like the idea, at all. At least in Control I have some ability to relate what I've done.

I'd feel better about Synthesis if Shepard could take responsibility for it in some capacity, but I don't see that happening.

Unless of course he/chops off an arm and throws it into the beam and walks away. 

[antares_sublight]

jtav wrote...

Okay then. Just for fun. Take Destroy out of the equation. The relays are salvageable in Control and would be working again within a human lifetime. Isn't ut more ethical to forego the benefits of Synthesis in order to minimize suffering?

Just for fun, Destroy doesn't actually kill any geth or EDI (just like it doesn't kill Shepard) and the reapers are Orcs, made to be evil, clear in what they have been doing.

[Heeden]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Heeden:
About EDI, Legion and "awareness", I think that needs to be kept vague because we don't know the roots of our self-awareness. There's a quote from a book by one of my favorite authors which illustrates that in a very poetic way:

"The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?" -- from The Darkness That Comes Before, by R Scott Bakker

Meaning if you look closely, self-awareness may turn out to be an illusion and our thoughts are not ours, but they just occur. Still we feel self-aware. So what's true? In the ME universe, we have VIs and AIs - what makes them different? What makes the pre-upgrade geth different from the post-upgrade ones? I like your speculations about the internal workings of EDI, but certain processes becoming subconscious would lessen self-awareness, right? I would question whether or not this is an improvement.

I agree entirely, I only came up with the theory because I've recently been reading up on Penrose/Hamilton's Orch-OR theory of quantum consciousness, I felt that using a quantum computer for AI could possibly allow a similar system. However whilst the Orch-OR theory (which is mathematically sound but unproven in practice) tries to explain the mechanisms of consciousness and free-will the authors cheerfully admit that it doesn't actually explain the hard-problems of the mind.

For EDI, I agree it may not be an improvement exactly but it would be giving her a more organic quality and you could argue that having her reactions develop through feelings (or as an emergent and ultimately less predictable process of her upgraded hardware) rather than intellectual assessment would giver her a richer personal existence.

This is complete and utter raving speculation though with no more in-game backing than the fact she uses quantum computation.

[antares_sublight]

antares_sublight wrote...

Here's a question: How exactly is the distinction between sentient life and non-sentient life made by these parasitic nanites? Which species currently on earth would be determined to be sentient and why not others?

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Okay then. Just for fun. Take Destroy out of the equation. The relays are salvageable in Control and would be working again within a human lifetime. Isn't ut more ethical to forego the benefits of Synthesis in order to minimize suffering?

Hmm....a question that's hard to answer. If you could put things to a vote, I could almost guarantee that people would choose Control. That's because there's a built-in status quo bias in the biological roots of human morality. People subconsciously value stability, often at the expense of their professed values. For the same reason, the stance "a good denied is an evil" is totally unintuitive for most people. "Any change is a threat" is much more common. So, the popular vote would be Control. But that's a descriptive account, not the normative one we're looking for. In the end, I don't think there's a right answer, because the answer depends on your value hierarchy, and I don't think there's a way to say that one value hierarchy is objectively better than another.

Still, a few of my Shepards who are less inclined to topple the old order than Cyrus will probably choose Control because it's the safest decision that keeps your options open and ensures stability.
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Hmm....a question that's hard to answer. If you could put things to a vote, I could almost guarantee that people would choose Control. That's because there's a built-in status quo bias in the biological roots of human morality. People subconsciously value stability, often at the expense of their professed values. For the same reason, the stance "a good denied is an evil" is totally unintuitive for most people. "Any change is a threat" is much more common.

Except that the vote isn't for "status quo" vs "total change". It's Control - the choice more than one of your enemies has been striving for and for which you just a couple of minutes ago killed (or forced to suicide) one of those enemies calling him insane for wanting it - versus Synthesis - something completely unknown and unknowable and unlimited in its reach to all life in the galaxy, and very creepily preferred by the most evil force in the galaxy you've just chatted with.

Your reduction to simple "status quo" vs "change" is unfounded. You might be thinking of it that way, but that manner of simple reduction isn't how most people will see or feel it.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 15 juin 2012 - 09:51 .

[Taboo]

My Shepard does not believe in the Bravery of Being out of range. The Freedom of choice is most important to me for people.

He will be able to answer for Destroy, unlike the other endings. The devastation will be terrible, but I would make the wager that given their respective situations in the Sol System, most of the fleet is going to be willing to help one another out.

There will be no questions left as to what happened. Everyone will know, and that I feel, will be the driving force behind change for the better.

[Ieldra]

So you'd be less antagonistic to Synthesis if Shepard could survive it? You see his death as "escaping his responsibility?" Welcome to my headcanon scenario, LOL.

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

jtav wrote...
I think that's why I keep coming back to Synthesis. The old order smells rotten. Nature is corrupt. Synthesis is the chance for something better. Maybe it won't work. But at least I tried.

Exactly my stance. It's a decision as risky as Destroy, but it looks to the infinite possibilities of the future for a solution, not to the limitations of a nature defined by the past. 

Which ironically, makes Control the wisest choice if you approach things from a risk-minimizing perspective. Really, I don't understand why Destroy - of all things - is such a popular decision. If people told me "forget Synthesis, choose Control", I'd say they have a point. But "forget Synthesis, choose Destroy", that's a much harder sell.

@Taboo:
I understand your stance. I could mention a few points against it - for instance that you always weigh the risks of my perspective higher than the chances - but I don't really want to change your mind about your preferred choice. Heh.....a Deux Ex quote may be appropriate here: "We are our choices" (from the Helios Merge ending).

I actually picked the Helios merge ending myself at the end of Deus Ex. But then Helios hadn't commited any genocides nor had he been antagonistic, so it didn't feel stupid. Shame what they did with the sequel though :/ I really do hope Human Revolution is as good as people have said it is (although so many of these people haven't played the original and that makes me sad. Deus Ex is still the best game i've ever played IMO). I also liked how the different endings required you to complete different objectives rather than making a new choice at the very end.