9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

Nimrodell wrote...

I respect your opinion, the only thing I'm reacting to is term 'collateral damage' - always be careful when you describe innocent victims like 'collateral damage'. That term is horrible creation from modern wars and governments of modern societies where the illusion of morality and justified goals has to be upheld in front of their own citizens that very often don't know anything about countries and nations to whom they are bringing 'democracy' or 'helping hand' (after all, they say this term was born during Vietnam War).

Always keep in mind, would I call myself and my dearest ones a collateral damage if I was actually on the receiving end? Trust me on this, you wouldn't. There is no such thing as collateral damage for truly aware men - only crime that can be committed out of pure madness or evil or spite or etc., but also there is a crime that is legalized and hidden behind the curtain of political and military power. After all, history for the most part is written by winners, not losers - and we might evolve this phrase by adding - history is written by media supporting stronger party and better players and that's how the abhorrent twisting of truth and justice was born in sintagm 'collateral damage' and even definitions of it very often possess one extremely important description 'it's euphemism.

You are appealing to the idealist in me

"Collateral damage" is only a choice of word, a lable that I have chosen, I am not hiding behind it cos I thought killing the Geth was the right thing to do, because it is not a right thing to do, I ACCEPT it as a cost to wiping out all the reapers in the galaxy, and the death of the Geth is a bill that is handed down to me

May I remind u that currently ALL options have "collateral damages", when you force your ideals about synthesis on everyone in the galaxy, did the people suddenly become not innocent? No one is guilty here, but certainly no one is innocent, in fact I would go one step further, by killing the Geth, I am also robbing the galaxy a chance to embrace their culture, that is the price that I am willing to take if all reapers are wiped out, I do not want people to fear the reapers anymore

"Collateral damages" had been inflicted when the reapers started harvesting, had been inflicted when the Quarians created the Geth, had been inflicted when Shepard bought the galactic fleet to earth, nothing is that easy, it is a difficult decision, sacrificing liberty for the sake of liberty

Throughout the game, we learnt that the synthetics should be treated with respect that they are alive and can be befriended with, this is a subtext along the main theme "defeat the reapers", and yet the ending presents a solution that compromises this theme, by introducing an extra complication to the solution and an extra issue that is out of place, and pulled the Geth into it, it is wrong, it is INCORRECT

[Doctor Quinn]

i honestly Feel Sorry for you that you think their is no "true meaning" of Life because those with a clear mind can see it its been proven by Scientists and every one else

Thank god for Scientists. So since there is a clear true meaning for life that is Scientist approved, what are we all supposed to be doing to have proper meaningful lives free from moral ambiguity and the general suffering of our human condition?

[lillitheris]

Doctor Quinn wrote...

i honestly Feel Sorry for you that you think their is no "true meaning" of Life because those with a clear mind can see it its been proven by Scientists and every one else

Thank god for Scientists. So since there is a clear true meaning for life that is Scientist approved, what are we all supposed to be doing to have proper meaningful lives free from moral ambiguity and the general suffering of our human condition?

I was just going to go for the trusty “…What?” but I’m also interested in the answer.

[o Ventus]

Life (n): the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

That work?

[Nimrodell]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

I respect your opinion, the only thing I'm reacting to is term 'collateral damage' - always be careful when you describe innocent victims like 'collateral damage'. That term is horrible creation from modern wars and governments of modern societies where the illusion of morality and justified goals has to be upheld in front of their own citizens that very often don't know anything about countries and nations to whom they are bringing 'democracy' or 'helping hand' (after all, they say this term was born during Vietnam War).

Always keep in mind, would I call myself and my dearest ones a collateral damage if I was actually on the receiving end? Trust me on this, you wouldn't. There is no such thing as collateral damage for truly aware men - only crime that can be committed out of pure madness or evil or spite or etc., but also there is a crime that is legalized and hidden behind the curtain of political and military power. After all, history for the most part is written by winners, not losers - and we might evolve this phrase by adding - history is written by media supporting stronger party and better players and that's how the abhorrent twisting of truth and justice was born in sintagm 'collateral damage' and even definitions of it very often possess one extremely important description 'it's euphemism.

You are appealing to the idealist in me

"Collateral damage" is only a choice of word, a lable that I have chosen, I am not hiding behind it cos I thought killing the Geth was the right thing to do, because it is not a right thing to do, I ACCEPT it as a cost to wiping out all the reapers in the galaxy, and the death of the Geth is a bill that is handed down to me

May I remind u that currently ALL options have "collateral damages", when you force your ideals about synthesis on everyone in the galaxy, did the people suddenly become not innocent? No one is guilty here, but certainly no one is innocent, in fact I would go one step further, by killing the Geth, I am also robbing the galaxy a chance to embrace their culture, that is the price that I am willing to take if all reapers are wiped out, I do not want people to fear the reapers anymore

"Collateral damages" had been inflicted when the reapers started harvesting, had been inflicted when the Quarians created the Geth, had been inflicted when Shepard bought the galactic fleet to earth, nothing is that easy, it is a difficult decision, sacrificing liberty for the sake of liberty

Throughout the game, we learnt that the synthetics should be treated with respect that they are alive and can be befriended with, this is a subtext along the main theme "defeat the reapers", and yet the ending presents a solution that compromises this theme, by introducing an extra complication to the solution and an extra issue that is out of place, and pulled the Geth into it, it is wrong, it is INCORRECT

Ah, I just mean - try not using that horrible term - I'm first not to judge such events nor do I judge those who actually made that mistake during war actions (it's war after all and sure, the intentions here are what matters, but still... ), it's just I think that at least in naming we can pay respect to those who died that way.  Collateral damage is too often used as a sort of guilt, morality shower nowadays thus negating the importance of those who actually died as innocent victims because of military actions. To be honest, it's even easier to dismiss those faceless and nameless lives nowadays since those who are involved in the air military operations usually don't even come close to see what's next to their designated target - it's just target and missile (I really wonder what were those dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki thinking, were they aware of civilians down there or those lives were indeed just incoherent mass for them?).

I'm telling you this from my own experience (unfortunately, I know exactly what and who was branded as collateral damage) . I can accept 'collateral damage' if some civilian installations were destroyed - those can always be rebuild, but when it comes to people, I react, because it is personal when you're on the receiving end. I didn't mean anything offensive by it, but also I feel it as my moral obligation to tell anyone who I can - try to reconsider validity of that term, because you never know if someday you and your dearest ones can be branded that way. I was just asking from you to reconsider, nothing more .

[Vigilant111]

*

Modifié par Vigilant111, 18 juin 2012 - 08:23 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@Vigilant111: I do not think you have to feel sorry for what you wrote. It is hard to come up with proper terms. Think about this: The game gives one 3 options that are solutions to a non-existent problem. That simple fact already makes selecting one pushing the limits of what makes sense. And ethically it is even worse. The game is full of cyclical genocides. And all the 3 options are morally indefensible one way or another. You have to select *something* or stop playing the game altogether.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 juin 2012 - 08:47 .

[Vigilant111]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@Vigilant111: I do not think you have to feel sorry for what you wrote. It is hard to come up with proper terms. Think about this: The game gives one 3 options that are solutions to a non-existent problem. That simple fact already makes selecting one pushing the limits of what makes sense. And ethically it is even worse. The game is full of cyclical genocides. And all the 3 options are morally indefensible one way or another. You have to select *something* or stop playing the game altogether.

Thanks

For the bolded text, "collateral damage" came first to my mind, I don't know how else to describe it, and I didn't mean to offend anyone by it, and certainly not to imply that synthetics are expendable, and I did not intend the term to justify the death of the Geth, well I guess I didn't present myself sincere enough

[AngryFrozenWater]

Vigilant111 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@Vigilant111: I do not think you have to feel sorry for what you wrote. It is hard to come up with proper terms. Think about this: The game gives one 3 options that are solutions to a non-existent problem. That simple fact already makes selecting one pushing the limits of what makes sense. And ethically it is even worse. The game is full of cyclical genocides. And all the 3 options are morally indefensible one way or another. You have to select *something* or stop playing the game altogether.

Thanks

For the bolded text, "collateral damage" came first to my mind, I don't know how else to describe it, and I didn't mean to offend anyone by it, and certainly not to imply that synthetics are expendable, and I did not intend the term to justify the death of the Geth, well I guess I didn't present myself sincere enough

I too like to bring up ethics into this, and I do that for all 3 options. None of those options make sense. All I want to do with that is show how horrible each of those options are. But it gets worse, because I too play the game and make a choice. If I look at it objectively I shouldn't have played any of the 3 games at all. That's rather hypocritical isn't it?

Edit: My defense is that I am aware of the issues involved. As long as that is the case I am OK with it. It's food for thought.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 juin 2012 - 09:07 .

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
1. Don't retire in shades of grey so soon, yes, things are often not black and white but this one, I am afraid it is, I don't think u need to patronize others just coz u think u r more creative than them by saying oh u don't understand this and that, u r not able suspend disbelief or what not...no need for that, to you, other peoples' problem of ending is "you are unable to appreciate this or that" and suddenly you are the good guy that understands everything

I didn't mean it as some special virtue. It's just a description of my approach to the ending. I suspend my disbelief for certain things, others can't or won't. I can see why others can't and I have my limits, too. But this insistence that I shouldn't, that I absolutely must explain every little insignificant detail of my scenario or abandon it, that's putting impossible standards up in order to discredit, and I won't have it. I also won't stand for the insinuation that it's somehow dishonest to tweak a scenario that doesn't make sense at face value in order to make it make sense. I can't claim better understanding because honestly, I have no idea what the writers wanted to achieve with the Synthesis option except that it's somehow intended to be a good solution, but yes, I do claim the moral high ground for being constructive.

2. Own taste of medicine? don't flatter yourself, destroy advocates has long been accused of genocidal urges, and to clarify I don't remember saying synthesis is genocidal nor do I hold that view right now, others who said that were probably venting their anger

Rape, fascism, destruction of all species, making everyone the same, huskification, destruction of free will, and yeah...genocide. Perhaps not specifically by you, but by several people in the anti-Synthesis faction. Things have calmed down a bit lately, but you've started things up again by professing to be "shocked" that anyone could support Synthesis. This kind of moral righteousness is insulting, dismissive of different perspectives which are not at all implausible with an ending as vague as this, and serves no purpose. If anything, it only makes me harden my stance and be more dismissive of anything else said in such a context.  

3. Noop, organic purity IS invented by you, it is quite original, I have not read it anywhere else, and u cannot simply just guess that people took destroy just to cleanse the galaxy of every last piece of synthetics, because that was not the goal, we already got the reapers on our plates, and definitely don't have the strength to deal with other "issues"

You misunderstand. I didn't mean it as a political agenda. I think that those people who rail most emotionally against Synthesis dislike the idea of having to forego being pure organics. They see being pure organics as somethings special. As a comparison, consider what is taken away by the relay explosion: the foundation of galactic civilization. That effect is dramatic and affects everyone, people are as justified in saying "I didn't ask for this" as for any other consequence of the endings, and still you don't see people being called evil for not choosing Control which avoids or at least mitigates that effect. Why the hell is this organic purity so special that the mere idea of having to abandon it for a better future raises such intense emotions? Yes, I think organic purity is very much an issue here.

Yes, I cannot stop you from taking whatever away from the game, but I will say this, if you think that ME3 is telling you that synthesis is okay, or practical, or moral, then you are gravely mistaken, and that is my opinion, accept it

Why then has the Synthesis scene on the Crucible the most serene imagery? Why is the Synthesis version of the Normandy scene the only version that features love? Yes, I am convinced that ME3 is telling me exactly that Synthesis is a very good ending. The bad writing just obfuscates it somewhat.

Edit:
About that "collateral damage". It's just a term for an unpleasant reality of war, and I don't find anything especially offensive in using it, as long as it's clear that it's not meant to be dismissive. Would "necessary sacrifice" be better? No idea.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@Ieldra2: I don't get one thing: You post a lot in these threads and even create ones. You obviously want to defend the synthesis option. Not only fun and logic are involved, but also ethics. When people show you how bad this option is you give the impression that you do not want to be criticized for that option. If that is the case then maybe you shouldn't write about the topic at all. And this is not intended to make you angry. It is just an observation.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
1. Don't retire in shades of grey so soon, yes, things are often not black and white but this one, I am afraid it is, I don't think u need to patronize others just coz u think u r more creative than them by saying oh u don't understand this and that, u r not able suspend disbelief or what not...no need for that, to you, other peoples' problem of ending is "you are unable to appreciate this or that" and suddenly you are the good guy that understands everything

I didn't mean it as some special virtue. It's just a description of my approach to the ending. I suspend my disbelief for certain things, others can't or won't. I can see why others can't and I have my limits, too. But this insistence that I shouldn't, that I absolutely must explain every little insignificant detail of my scenario or abandon it, that's putting impossible standards up in order to discredit, and I won't have it. I also won't stand for the insinuation that it's somehow dishonest to tweak a scenario that doesn't make sense at face value in order to make it make sense. I can't claim better understanding because honestly, I have no idea what the writers wanted to achieve with the Synthesis option except that it's somehow intended to be a good solution, but yes, I do claim the moral high ground for being constructive.

2. Own taste of medicine? don't flatter yourself, destroy advocates has long been accused of genocidal urges, and to clarify I don't remember saying synthesis is genocidal nor do I hold that view right now, others who said that were probably venting their anger

Rape, fascism, destruction of all species, making everyone the same, huskification, destruction of free will, and yeah...genocide. Perhaps not specifically by you, but by several people in the anti-Synthesis faction. Things have calmed down a bit lately, but you've started things up again by professing to be "shocked" that anyone could support Synthesis. This kind of moral righteousness is insulting, dismissive of different perspectives which are not at all implausible with an ending as vague as this, and serves no purpose. If anything, it only makes me harden my stance and be more dismissive of anything else said in such a context.  

3. Noop, organic purity IS invented by you, it is quite original, I have not read it anywhere else, and u cannot simply just guess that people took destroy just to cleanse the galaxy of every last piece of synthetics, because that was not the goal, we already got the reapers on our plates, and definitely don't have the strength to deal with other "issues"

You misunderstand. I didn't mean it as a political agenda. I think that those people who rail most emotionally against Synthesis dislike the idea of having to forego being pure organics. They see being pure organics as somethings special. As a comparison, consider what is taken away by the relay explosion: the foundation of galactic civilization. That effect is dramatic and affects everyone, people are as justified in saying "I didn't ask for this" as for any other consequence of the endings, and still you don't see people being called evil for not choosing Control which avoids or at least mitigates that effect. Why the hell is this organic purity so special that the mere idea of having to abandon it for a better future raises such intense emotions? Yes, I think organic purity is very much an issue here.

Yes, I cannot stop you from taking whatever away from the game, but I will say this, if you think that ME3 is telling you that synthesis is okay, or practical, or moral, then you are gravely mistaken, and that is my opinion, accept it

Why then has the Synthesis scene on the Crucible the most serene imagery? Why is the Synthesis version of the Normandy scene the only version that features love? Yes, I am convinced that ME3 is telling me exactly that Synthesis is a very good ending. The bad writing just obfuscates it somewhat.

First of all I want to apologize for the harsh tone last night when I responded, I was drunk on coffee

I think you have made your scenario too elaborate, that is gonna attact criticism like moth to flame, and I admit, it seems many of us has preconceptions about synthesis, but we think our preconceptions are based on in game facts, which more than less contradict your visions and interpretations, and also, people don't like to be told what to do, it is very strange that BW implies that synthesis is the best choice, it is effectively telling the gamer that despite everything they went through. their fate is sealed

Moral righteousness is what we have left, we have killed the Geth and EDI, and new synthetics coming back to kill us all, everyone screams, everyone feels bad, and destroy being the default bad choice, it is very hard to take, people are dismissive of synthesis, because there are really no solid evidence of it, or how it might work, hence no flashback scenes like TIM and Anderson

It is not just organics, also synthetics as well, we are all perfect, we do not need to add or subtract things

Adam and Eve being serene is only a matter of opinion, and you cannot claim that synthesis features love and other endings don't, what they have is lost love, if synthesis is serene, all endings are serene, hence 99.9% are the same scene

EDIT: no, "necessary sacrifice" is even worse, cos its like we are pointing a gun at the Geth and say :"sacrifice yourself or we will all die", Crucible = fraking loose cannon, don't know who to shoot

Modifié par Vigilant111, 18 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

About that "collateral damage". It's just a term for an unpleasant reality of war, …

I think the problem is pretty evident in you describing war as “unpleasant”.

[Ageless Face]

I tried to read the OP, but I just can't do it, sorry. It's really complicated for me. Can't read scientific things even in my first language.

So I wanted to ask, why did you choose synthesis? What were the pros that appealed to you in this choice?

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
I dislike one ending being promoted as the best just as much as you. It detracts from the choice. I'll also defend any attempt to make a good post-Destroy scenario. But I won't stand for this attempt to justify one option by painting the others in a bad light they don't deserve. The endings are malleable enough to our imagination that this is dishonest.

@Perfection: ask anyone suffering from cancer or another endogenic disease about the perfection of the human body. They'll laugh in your face.

As for the serenity, I was talking about Shepard dissolving into light after jumping into the beam. And you can't deny that the post-Synthesis Normandy scene features love where the others don't. I think that those images carry more power than the associations put forward by the anti-Synthesis faction. The only real problem is the violation of autonomy. Which means it's a button I'd not push in reasonably normal circumstances, but less normal circumstances than the one we find ourselves in at the end of ME3 are hardly imaginable.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant111:
I dislike one ending being promoted as the best just as much as you. It detracts from the choice. I'll also defend any attempt to make a good post-Destroy scenario. But I won't stand for this attempt to justify one option by painting the others in a bad light they don't deserve. The endings are malleable enough to our imagination that this is dishonest.

The thing is, destroy is the only option that doesn't allow much imagination, it is just doom and gloom, it is just the most destructive of all options, it negates all ideals that the gamer has, be it paragon or renegade, whether you are looking at it on a face value, or you try to imagine a headcanon

EDIT: the options are not on equal terms, doesn't matter how much effort the gamer has put in

Modifié par Vigilant111, 18 juin 2012 - 10:11 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant111:
I dislike one ending being promoted as the best just as much as you. It detracts from the choice. I'll also defend any attempt to make a good post-Destroy scenario. But I won't stand for this attempt to justify one option by painting the others in a bad light they don't deserve. The endings are malleable enough to our imagination that this is dishonest.

I agree. You really should have a Fantasy Control and Fantasy Destroy thread for a fair comparison to Fantasy Synthesis.

[Vigilant111]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant111:
I dislike one ending being promoted as the best just as much as you. It detracts from the choice. I'll also defend any attempt to make a good post-Destroy scenario. But I won't stand for this attempt to justify one option by painting the others in a bad light they don't deserve. The endings are malleable enough to our imagination that this is dishonest.

I agree. You really should have a Fantasy Control and Fantasy Destroy thread for a fair comparison to Fantasy Synthesis.

OMG, don't get Ieldra2 started

[Ieldra]

HagarIshay wrote...
I tried to read the OP, but I just can't do it, sorry. It's really complicated for me. Can't read scientific things even in my first language.

So I wanted to ask, why did you choose synthesis? What were the pros that appealed to you in this choice?

I have added a box to the OP with an "Ultra-short version". I think that and the link provided there will answer your questions.

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
Does this count?
I admit I am determined to paint the most positive scenarios which are still plausible. See it as an act of defiance against Bioware's doom and gloom. If my Destroy scenario isn't bright enough for you, you can tweak it by adjusting improvements in conventional FTL.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 juin 2012 - 10:29 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Vigilant111:
Does this count?
I admit I am determined to paint the most positive scenarios which are still plausible. See it as an act of defiance against Bioware's doom and gloom. If my Destroy scenario isn't bright enough for you, you can tweak it by adjusting improvements in conventional FTL.

Okay, I need sometime to decrpt that, my hope in the EC is this:

Among other things

1. Geth and EDI not "dead"

2. People stranded on earth would find a way to quickly utilise FTL drives in harbingers

3. Even though I don't think singularity is a problem, but I still think it should be addressed to put everyone's mind at ease

Tall order, I know

Modifié par Vigilant111, 18 juin 2012 - 10:40 .

[Ieldra]

I haven't addressed the geth and EDI. It's all big picture stuff. No starvation, conventional FTL improved. For Destroy, I wanted to paint an interesting relay-less future to make it different from Control. I haven't mentioned Reaper drive cores for 30ly/day average speed with no discharging but it would be a nice addition since this scenario depends so much on improved conventional FTL.

[jtav]

Speaking of the imagery, I'd forgotten how much I like it. Shepard drops his gun and is no longer limping. Instead he takes a flying leap into the light. No pain or struggle, just light.

[Xellith]

jtav wrote...

Speaking of the imagery, I'd forgotten how much I like it. Shepard drops his gun and is no longer limping. Instead he takes a flying leap into the light. No pain or struggle, just light.

Same with destroy.  Shepard is no longer limping and is like "SCREW YOU RE-PAS!"

[jtav]

But it's also violent imagery. Gunfire, explosions, fire in the sky. Not at all appealing to me personally.