9089 réponses à ce sujet

[His Name was HYR!!]

Hey everyone!

Nobody post in antares_sublight's dumb new thread, k?

K.

[antares_sublight]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hey everyone!

Nobody post in antares_sublight's dumb new thread, k?

K.

Especially you, please. Thanks.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hey everyone!

Nobody post in antares_sublight's dumb new thread, k?

K.

Only if you stop posting, period.

[His Name was HYR!!]

antares_sublight wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hey everyone!

Nobody post in antares_sublight's dumb new thread, k?

K.

Especially you, please. Thanks.

Right. That's why you asked pro-Synthesis to respond. And had my name in your OP. 

o Ventus wrote...

Only if you stop posting, period.

Obviously I meant pro-Synths, I don't care what you do. Feel free to circlejerk with the rest of this site's militant Destroy-only camp. 

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 15 juin 2012 - 10:51 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

You know synthesis might not be so bad if the was a way to like put the entire war that's raging on hold and see if we could get a consensus before Shepard makes that decision. It's that lack of consensus that keeps me from making that choice. It's not that synthesis itself is good or evil. Synthesis is synthesis. It's the imposition of it without a consensus where I have the problem.

Now reaching that consensus is going to require much more of an explanation of what it is from the brat, but he's not forthcoming with one is he? So do you follow me here? But still we're still dealing with the collapse of galactic civilization with the destruction of the relays.

So Tabs.... here's a question: if you were allowed to get consensus and got consensus regarding synthesis that said "Okay do it" would that be okay with you then? I think this is your issue with it.

Control is another issue. If destroy were off the table, and given that reaching consensus is not available, control would become the most viable option. Control is maintaining the status quo except with Shepard in charge of it, and Shepard now sets the rules for the cycles if any. Hell, she could just have them sleep in dark space forever and let the galaxy evolve on its own and if it hits that singularity too bad so sad. The thing is what kind of Shepard are we talking about? Are we talking about perfect play through paragon Shepard who has Kaiden for VS? or ass hole renegade Shepard who has Ashley for VS? How is each going to behave once they have control?

With Destroy it sets Earth back 50 yrs technologically, but the rest of the galaxy back a few millenia potentially depending upon what the EC says about it. But then it allows for something the other two do not... freedom of choice of the individual. << this is what was most important to me. Yes this: chaos, evolution, we deserve to make our own way and if we screw it up we go bye bye.

There's a price paid no matter which.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Of the MANY issues I have with Synthesis, Shepard's inability to take responsibility for it bothers me a great deal. No one will have ANY idea what happened.

I simply feel such an action warrents taking up some sense of responsibility, that's all.

I find Synthesis to be very irresponsible, and this is one of the reasons behind it. It doesn't even feel like a sacrifice to me. 

You could say it's a................GAMBLE.

[Taboo]

If I didn't have a choice for Destroy and somehow had consensus for Synthesis?

Control.

If I had to choose between Synthesis and nothing? We call that a Hobson's choice. I'd try and talk the Catalyst out of his solution before I jumped in.

ANYTHING before Synthesis.

[jtav]

It is a sacrifice for me. I could have Miranda, but I gave her up because I believed Synthesis led to the brightest tomorrow. It's also a huge gamble, but I also spared the rachni, cured the genophage, kept the base, let Balak go...Some of those gambles paid off and some didn't but I don't regret it. This is the biggest gamble. If I may borrow a line I had quoted at me relentlessly after ME2, "I won't let fear compromise who I am."

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Of the MANY issues I have with Synthesis, Shepard's inability to take responsibility for it bothers me a great deal. No one will have ANY idea what happened.

I agree. I mean, Shepard is standing five feet away from an exploding tank and then falls from the Citadel onto a pile of rocks on Earth... and survives (in high-EMS Destroy). It wouldn't be more far-fetched for him to live in Synthesis (not that I particularly want Shepard to live).

Let the beam "absorb" him/her for a little while and do what it must. Then he lands to safety on a more familiar area of the Citadel and finds an emergency exit pod off the exploding station.

Then let the player experience post-synthesis changes and new galaxy. That's really the #1 gripe I have with the ending. I just chose to make a huge decision, I should see way more than just "glowing green" in organics, which is just a recycled cutscene anyway.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 16 juin 2012 - 01:56 .

[Taboo]

I only consider something to be a sacrifice if I know what I'm doing will ensure the safety of others and it WILL benefit ALL. Shepard saving Joker in the beginning of the second game is a sacrifice. He dies to save his friends. Synthesis is the biggest, "Oh my Gods I've ever seen." I have no idea what the hell I'm doing.

I'm not a big risk taker, as you can well imagine, and that takes it's shape from me having an anxiety disorder, OCD. I won't do something unless I know what's going to happen.

Surviving and seeing Miranda is just a plus here. I still have to answer for what I've done here, which I believe Shepard has to do, at least for me.

I can only dream that there will be no more turning away, as David Gilmour once said.

From the pale and downtrodden.

[His Name was HYR!!]

 I have an affinity for taking risks.  ... as does my Shepard.

ME1 - talk-jutsu Wrex, gave classified data on Cerberus to SB, released rachni-queen (more principle than risk though), saved the council.

ME2 - re-wrote the geth (soon realized it was foolish, wouldn't do again), chased Vido on Zaeed's mission, romanced Jack (heavy risk, yo). Collector Base is kind of a risk either way, FWIW I destroyed it.

ME3 - cured the krogan, risked the quarian fleet for the geth (got both, but was willing to sacrifice), chose synthesis.

B-]

[Taboo]

These conversations goes much better after I've been drinking.

I trust Wrex though. The guy knows what he's doing, and the Rachni Queen is the same way.

But I don't rewrite the Geth. I don't chase Vido (It's more ethical to save the people yo) I don't to risk the TIM using the base in a large capacity. I blow it up.

I won't cure the Genophage with Wreav in charge. Eve needs to be there as well.

My stupid ass behavior in ME2 ensures that someone dies above Rannoch. The Geth are risky. Awful, but the Quarians won't receive a computing error or build a Dyson spehere.

Chose Destroy. Assume responsibility for my actions, as I have always done in Mass Effect.

But not to the council. Those guys are ***holes.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I won't cure the Genophage with Wreav in charge. Eve needs to be there as well.

I'm against sabotaging the cure completely. I supported it for the longest time, but not anymore. Doesn't matter who's chief.

I don't understand why so many people accept it as a viable option, but rail on synthesis for morality concerns. 

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I won't cure the Genophage with Wreav in charge. Eve needs to be there as well.

I'm against sabotaging the cure completely. I supported it for the longest time, but not anymore. Doesn't matter who's chief.

I don't understand why so many people accept it as a viable option, but rail on synthesis for morality concerns. 

I'd never sabotage it.

It technically fits out law surrounding Genocide now. Severly limiting childbirth is just that, Genocide.

Geno -> Family, Generation

Phage -> Eat, Devour

Genophage = Generation eater. Family eater. Generation devourer.

Implications...

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 03:08 .

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
It is a sacrifice for me. I could have Miranda, but I gave her up because I believed Synthesis led to the brightest tomorrow. It's also a huge gamble, but I also spared the rachni, cured the genophage, kept the base, let Balak go...Some of those gambles paid off and some didn't but I don't regret it. This is the biggest gamble. If I may borrow a line I had quoted at me relentlessly after ME2, "I won't let fear compromise who I am."

Exactly. For someone who's had any serious romance, choosing Synthesis hurts. Still, I couldn't do anything else. With my main Shepard anyway.

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

It is a sacrifice for me. I could have Miranda, but I gave her up because I believed Synthesis led to the brightest tomorrow.

I agree with this, obviously.

Ieldra2 keeps complaining that I favor Destroy too heavily in Meaningful Sacrifice…but this is exactly that. That’s the choice.

(I still think it’s the worst choice, but that’s beside the point.)

[Ieldra]

The thing is, if all endings have no other significant downsides, why is Destroy singled out for Shepard's survival? Designing the choices like you did creates a designers' preference. People will believe it is meant to be the best if the others have downsides but Destroy hasn't. I'd choose Synthesis anyway, but I'd feel snubbed by the game designers if they set it up like that. It's bad enough that the game tells me I romanced the wrong character. I don't need the same for the ending.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[lillitheris]

It sounds like you’re conflicted between wanting to live with your Miranda, and losing her but giving her a better future.

Success.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...
It sounds like you’re conflicted between wanting to live with your Miranda, and losing her but giving her a better future.

Success.

That has nothing to with it. I'm OK with Shepard's death. Not happy of course, but OK. The thing is, in your scenario players who choose Destroy get the best future from their point of view AND Shepard alive. As a contrast, see Siduri's epilogues. She balances the big picture nicely against Shepard's life. Relays are eventually rebuilt in all endings, but the galaxy looks significantly better the less of Shepard is left. And still all read like a victory. That's a good balance. Yours....not so much. The relay destruction is an objective downside. The benefits of Synthesis are subjective. Unless the EC will actually show that it results in a better future.

I ask: from your point of view: what is the sacrifice in your high-EMS Destroy scenario? If you feel Destroy gives you the best future anyway, there is no downside at all. I don't see any sacrifice at all. And that's unbalanced.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 09:59 .

[Nimrodell]

I've been reading these posts and one thing hit me - why is there constant need for people that are adamant in preferring only Destroy ending to force those who think different into justifying themselves for different kind of understanding and different point of view? I mean, each and everyone of us have our own Shepards and our decisions are our own - I don't condemn nor I'm forcing Destroy choosers to justify themselves, nor do I doubt their good intentions.

I have great respect for the posters like Taboo-XX is, I do understand their doubts, fears and I acknowledge there is validity behind their reasoning, especially because all of us have different experiences, different national background, social background, educational background. The endings are what they are, bad execution of an old idea, of the archetypes found since times of the old Judaism (creation of Lilith from dust, then first Eve spurned by Adam, then the 'Eve from a rib'), Greek myths (Prometheus and the clay turning into flesh and blood by Athens) till Collodi's Pinocchio - then Fritz Lang's movie Metropolis, Star Trek 1979. movie and even in the episodes of Star Trek Voyager... hell, the synthesis idea and idea of tech singularity conflicts are also found in futuristic documentaries of dr. Michio Kaku.

The thing that confuses me the most is talk about 'consent' and 'democratic choices' - I mean I'm honestly happy that many of the posters didn't experience the war itself, never tasted the horror of it, never were in the situation to actually keep their beliefs intact when they have to interact with people from the nations who were the enemy. I hope they never go through it. But, the most surprising fact is that they keep forgetting that human race is already doing genetic modifications on non-sapient species, experiment on them with a blessing and consent of majority and accept that very fact (with insiginificant press turmoil for example about cloned cows farms). We are already doing that to other organic species and we are even doing that to ourselves (Escape from L.A. and those surgeons ring a bell ? I'm joking of course, but you can't deny that people all around the world are actually paying to change themselves, and not because of need to survive, but out of pure vanity and denial of nature itself).

In all three endings we get the same amount of knowledge - we know there is some supposed eternal conflict between creators and created, we know that there is 'being' called Catalyst that enforced its solution to that supposed problem, we know that Shepard reaches it, we know that Catalyst acknowledges Shepard and offers three solutions (be those correct or presented as fallacy, we know that Shepard has to choose one solution or let Reapers wipe out again advanced organic civilizations and we know that whatever Shaperd's choice is, the threat is over and Shepard became a legend... those are things we know for sure, everything else is mere speculation produced thanks to indetermination spots - and depending on Shepard's soul that is sitting by the keyboard or controller the choices will be interpreted accordingly. There are Shepards that are younger people, from countries that have peaceful existence, there are older Shepards from those countries, there are younger ones from countries filled with turmoils, older ones... etc.

The important thing is - choose what your Shepard deems right in that moment and as we see, the choice is the correct one - life does go on and Shepard becomes a legend.

My life experience has thought me never to deal in absolutes and to always keep an open mind and have patience - to be guided by strong ethics but also to recognize where there's no actual ethics to talk about. And since my Shepard is only mine, I don't see the reason why'd I allow anyone else to enforce his beliefs, his understanding on what should Shepard do... I don't do that to other Shepards... I may not agree with them that genophage is justified, but I will acknowledge their choices as valid ones because they will suffer the consequences, same as my Shepard will suffer hers.

After all, my best friends are actually people from nations who bombed me and my beloved ones for three and a half months - and yet, I didn't allow it to cloud my judgment and beliefs that nothing is absolute, that life almost never delivers justice, that the any kind of life itself is too precious to be considered by one-sided ethics and beliefs, each new perspective brings some new knowledge and understanding. If I were different, holding to rigid ethics and dead word on the paper on what is democracy and ethics, I'd never grow up and never meet such extraordinary people, I'd never accept BSN, because majority belongs to those whose bombs were above my head.

So, bottom line is - choose your own ending and stop demanding from those who think different to justify themselves - after all, all those 'different choices Shepards' end the threat and become legends.

[lillitheris]

Nimrodell wrote...

I've been reading these posts and one thing hit me - why is there constant need for people that are adamant in preferring only Destroy ending to force those who think different into justifying themselves for different kind of understanding and different point of view? I mean, each and everyone of us have our own Shepards and our decisions are our own - I don't condemn nor I'm forcing Destroy choosers to justify themselves, nor do I doubt their good intentions.

My only problem is that Ieldra2 and the others are peddling their own headcanon Fantasy Synthesis as if it were the real thing — and not only that, but comparing it to the other two as options. Why is it so hard to understand that?

There are genuine moral issues that remain even in Fantasy Synthesis, but those are subjective questions. They can and should be debated, but at this point there are two different choices:

1. Choice between Synthesis, Control, and Destroy as presented in the game; or

2. Choice between Fantasy Synthesis as formed by headcanon, Control, and Destroy.

I reject the second.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I ask: from your point of view: what is the sacrifice in your high-EMS Destroy scenario? If you feel Destroy gives you the best future anyway, there is no downside at all. I don't see any sacrifice at all. And that's unbalanced.

The inevitable extinction of organic life by synthetics.

That is the entire premise of your argument for Fantasy Synthesis, isn’t it?



(Edit: there are various other issues  around galactic stability and the immediate future that would be nearly completely mitigated by both Control and Synthesis, but you choose to ignore those so I don’t really see the point of reiterating. You can read “Unity”, if you like, it deals with those issues…)

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juin 2012 - 01:15 .

[Nimrodell]

lillitheris wrote...

There are genuine moral issues that remain even in Fantasy Synthesis, but those are subjective questions. They can and should be debated, but at this point there are two different choices:

1. Choice between Synthesis, Control, and Destroy as presented in the game; or

2. Choice between Fantasy Synthesis as formed by headcanon, Control, and Destroy.

I reject the second.

You said it as if you read my mind. That is my point too, I reject the second. One correction though, all three choices contain moral issues - but we've been dealing with such issues from the Mass Effect 1 and that's one of the reasons why so many people found Mass Effect games so compelling - it's like simultaion where we test our own reasoning and doubts.

[Ieldra]

@lillitheris:
So...what do *you* think the "real" Synthesis is? Because there is no canonical version, that's the whole point I'm making which you don't appear to understand. There is nothing about "as written" we have that describes anything concrete except "combining organics and synthetics". If you want to criticize my version for being overly speculative (I'd appreciate it if you ceased the pejorative), then please give me a less speculative one. And let it be one that (1) works as a solution, (2) is in the spirit of the principle that all endings are meant to be good, (3) where you can explain the results and (4) whose details make sense.

If you can't do that - or won't do that - then you have no right to criticize my version as too speculative. Any hypothesis has to be measured against another. If my interpretation is the one that makes the most sense (and I've actually been told that by people), then it becomes the measuring stick. Period. Until something better comes along. And while I'm at it, most other interpretations that respect the principle that all endings are meant to be good endings build on my version. And you know why? Because my version actually doesn't do that much in terms of concrete functionality. It is a toolbox through which several other versions can be realized. I did that on purpose, because no actual changes (except for the cosmetics) are presented by the game.
(Credit to Siduri btw, who posted her version before I did, and whose Synthesis has the same single concrete functionality and is otherwise left vague. Many thanks. You saved the game for me). 


As for your alternative ending scenario being unbalanced, I said sacrifice from the point of view of those who are making the decision. People who choose Destroy usually don't believe the Catalyst's logic. Thus, the risk of organics being destroyed by synthetics is no downside for them. It would only be a downside for me.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 05:00 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

If you can't do that - or won't do that - then you have no right to criticize my version as too speculative. Any hypothesis has to be measured against another.

This is incorrect. Whether or not your version is speculative is an objective measure of speculation vs. extant source material.

As for your alternative ending scenario being unbalanced, I said sacrifice from the point of view of those who are making the decision. People who choose usually don't believe the Catalyst's logic. Thus, the risk of organics being destroyed by synthetics is no downside.

This is…insulting? Might be the word for it.

Let’s go over this. You say that the Catalyst is correct and that synthetics will inevitably cause the extinction of organics. This is how you justify choosing Synthesis — whose payoff is that you can avoid that.

I may choose to not believe the Catalyst. Or I may believe it’s truthful but still choose to Destroy because I value the immediate future more (a lot of Renegades would probably feel this way) or simply believe that we’ll be able to win — or avoid — the war against the synthetics.

So, if the Catalyst is truthful as you assume (and as we may further deduce from the writing that doesn’t give an option), my choice of Destroy is going to have a very significant downside. If it isn’t, well, your choice of Synthesis is a little iffy then, isn’t it?

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juin 2012 - 04:57 .