685 réponses à ce sujet

[hot_heart]

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm saying all the choices are bad choices because their controled by the starchild.

They are all bad in some way, but as Jenonax says, maybe they aren't controlled by anyone. It's down to what you take from it.

Even if you believe in the IT, that's fine. Up to you, dude.

[Jenonax]

wright1978 wrote...


I was always planning on kicking the reapers in the 'daddy bags' so to speak. Did that mean genocide? Only if they didn't surrender/leave/ etc.

So was I.  Desperatly so.  Genocide?  No, no one has ever convinced me that the processed species were still alive.  And even if they were, to live in such a manner I speculate would have driven them insane.  Humans especially, we were not meant to live for such long periods of time in such a condition.  I am putting them out of their misery if they are alive and protecting actually living beings.

I would be open to a 'good interpreation' synthesis(such as propsed by Ieldra etc)  as an option for future development if A) There was a sane theory behind the reapers actions and/or an explanation why good synthesis would address this problem the proposer of synthesis was not to be a genocidal insane midget intent on finding a new way to address his nutty theory.

The Reapers motivations are odd, I'll give you that.  But I flip-flop between whether or not thats because the Reapers are stuck in a loop and we are not meant to understand them or Walters just doesn't know how to write/  I take either depending on my mood.  And yes, having the other solutions propsed to us from an unreliable source was not the right way to go about it.  See my Walters is a terrible writer point for further clarification.

Given the current state of A & B the only logical conclusion i can come to is that this synthesis it proposes isn't an improvement but a turning all life both synthetic and organic into a dronelike species that won't have the temerity to create new AI's.

As it stands I will argue that synthesis doesn't in fact solve anything.  This aside from the moral implications is enough to make me reject it.  I am therefore left with Control or Destroy.  Dangerous or heavy-handed.  Lucky me.

[dreman9999]

Jenonax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

hot_heart wrote...

You could say the same about all the ending choices. Once again, it comes down to how you perceive and choose to interpret things.

Absolutely, and I have said that.

All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

Think  of it this way...WHo is the only one who understands how works synthesis and who is left to apply it?

No one.  No one is in control of that ending in its current state.  Shepard's not in control.  He's not bloody doing anything, is he?  The Catalyst, is he in control?  Well no not really, he shoves his hands in the air and gives up.  The crucible has changed me!  I can't implement anything!  And me, the player, am I in control of the ending.  No, I didn't want any of the bloody endings.

Rant over.  

I guess the Catalyst could be said to be in control and that is a fundemental flaw.  If the villain is in control of the ending than it wasn't a victory.  But then that leads into a debate of was the Catalyst a villain and that's not the point of the thread.  I think he is, others think he is sympathetic.  Again, not the point.

But the choices are all aboutthe catalyst. People thing the ending is about which choice is the best choice but it's really agame of trust.... Do you really trust what was told to you by the starchild dispite his history? Most people who pick synthesis or control ignore his past add they are too blind by the beniffits ofthe choices.

[lillitheris]

The Angry One wrote...

And no, it's not Godwin's Law if the analogy is relevant.

It is always Godwin’s law. It’s just that GL doesn’t actually say anything about ‘losing’ an argument, just that it’s bound to happen.

[Vigilant111]

*cough

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juin 2012 - 03:35 .

[The Angry One]

azerSheppard wrote...

So eugenics is evil?

Is this a trick question?

And IF evolution is guided, the proprietors of said genealogical changes are therefore evil?

Evolution is not guided, also, evolution is not moral either.

We don't know enough about synthesis to state anything about altered brainpower, but the real hypocricy lies in your assupmtion that it's evil. You (and Optimist) don't know anything about it and therefore cannot make an educated guess about it's nature.

Imposing change on everyone without their consent is wrong. Period.

And your example of the "Aryan race" is misguided at best, as the genetic portion has very little to offer improvementwise. Not that "aryan" is even remotely considered to be a genetic thing. (I suggest you read up on mitochondrial DNA)

I suggest you read up on analogies. Since we're using space magic, I was postulating a situation where someone uses magic to turn all humans into the **** ideal of the perfect Aryan (as in, blond blue eyed ubermensch)

[Consider this: A widespread epidemic is about to kill billions, and even if we survive a great drought lies ahead. I have a device that will change the genetic structure of all humans, rendering them unable to fall for diseases, grow weak, hungry or thirsty. Would i be EVIL for using said device? How strange for you to call that which people all over the world dayly pray for to their GOD(S), an act of evil... 

False analogy, there is no epidemic. The beings of the galaxy are not in danger of anything except the Reapers, and it's the REAPERS who want this.
It would also be morally bankrupt to do this without even their knowledge in your analogy.

Ofcourse we could discuss the worth of said intrinsic notion of good and evil, or should i say extrinsic?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

Imposing an UNECESARRY change on the entire galaxy, completely ignoring the consequences of this alteration on societies and eco-systems is morally bankrupt and idiotic. Period.

[dreman9999]

hot_heart wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm saying all the choices are bad choices because their controled by the starchild.

They are all bad in some way, but as Jenonax says, maybe they aren't controlled by anyone. It's down to what you take from it.

Even if you believe in the IT, that's fine. Up to you, dude.

I'm not even argue based on IT.... Your missing the fact that the star child is the one that offers the choices and shows how they are done. Clearly, he is the one in control.

[hot_heart]

lillitheris wrote...
It is always Godwin’s law. It’s just that GL doesn’t actually say anything about ‘losing’ an argument, just that it’s bound to happen.

Ha. Among everything, my pedantic self forgot to point that out before. Thanks!

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

I've had a few months to mull this over. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*I don't believe the Catalyst. That is, the notion of a technological singularity leading to extinction was so poorly set up that I don't regard it as a threat.
*No option leaves Shepard with clean hands. Pretending humility is hypocritical at best.
*Within the context of the universe, synthetics are clearly people.
*Genocide is evil always and everywhere, regardless of the consequences. I cannot morally choose Destroy.
*Synthesis is problematic. If you don't believe the Catalyst regarding the Singularity, then the justification becomes the possible benefits. Which aren't clearly stated.
*I'm a Paragon. I like playing characters that do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If all my lecturing about second chances and mercy are to mean anything, I better be willing to extend that mercy even to people I hate.
*Related, I have an obligation to save as many lives as I can.

So the moral superiority of the Destroy faction confounds me. Given what we know, I choose Control. Synthesis is problematic mostly because it seems like it wandered in from a different story.

In order for control to be an option you have to consider starbrat not to be an evil insane genocidal midget maniac. Otherwise it just seems like the come into my parlour said the spider to the fly. Like it didn't whisper into TIM's head that he was a big enough man to control the reapers.

Modifié par wright1978, 02 juin 2012 - 03:35 .

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

So eugenics is evil?

Is this a trick question?

OK....I had to laugh at that. A question with an obvious awnser was asked so innocently.

[hot_heart]

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm not even argue based on IT.... Your missing the fact that the star child is the one that offers the choices and shows how they are done. Clearly, he is the one in control.

I can see what you're saying, but I think it depends on whether you trust him or not, whether you believe he has everyone's best interests at heart. That would determine his status as a villain/antagonist or a plot device.

[dreman9999]

wright1978 wrote...

jtav wrote...

I've had a few months to mull this over. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*I don't believe the Catalyst. That is, the notion of a technological singularity leading to extinction was so poorly set up that I don't regard it as a threat.
*No option leaves Shepard with clean hands. Pretending humility is hypocritical at best.
*Within the context of the universe, synthetics are clearly people.
*Genocide is evil always and everywhere, regardless of the consequences. I cannot morally choose Destroy.
*Synthesis is problematic. If you don't believe the Catalyst regarding the Singularity, then the justification becomes the possible benefits. Which aren't clearly stated.
*I'm a Paragon. I like playing characters that do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If all my lecturing about second chances and mercy are to mean anything, I better be willing to extend that mercy even to people I hate.
*Related, I have an obligation to save as many lives as I can.

So the moral superiority of the Destroy faction confounds me. Given what we know, I choose Control. Synthesis is problematic mostly because it seems like it wandered in from a different story.

In order for control to be an option you have to consider starbrat not to be an evil insane genocidal midget maniac. Otherwise it just seems like the come into my parlour said the spider to the fly. Like it didn't whisper into TIM's head that he was a big enough man to control the reapers.

But not synthesis when thereapers have a history of controling organics with implants?

[Jenonax]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...


No one.  No one is in control of that ending in its current state.  Shepard's not in control.  He's not bloody doing anything, is he?  The Catalyst, is he in control?  Well no not really, he shoves his hands in the air and gives up.  The crucible has changed me!  I can't implement anything!  And me, the player, am I in control of the ending.  No, I didn't want any of the bloody endings.

Rant over.  

I guess the Catalyst could be said to be in control and that is a fundemental flaw.  If the villain is in control of the ending than it wasn't a victory.  But then that leads into a debate of was the Catalyst a villain and that's not the point of the thread.  I think he is, others think he is sympathetic.  Again, not the point.

But the choices are all aboutthe catalyst. People thing the ending is about which choice is the best choice but it's really agame of trust.... Do you really trust what was told to you by the starchild dispite his history? Most people who pick synthesis or control ignore his past add they are too blind by the beniffits ofthe choices.

But he doesn't take responsibilty for the choices, they are forced upon him by the Crucible.  Most of his control is taken away from him.  He doesn't force Shepard to do anything.  He doesn't explain anything.  He doesn't do a whole lot really.  Its all vague and wishy-washy and so unbelievably weak.  

Shepard should have all the control and he doesn't.  He does nothing.  He needs to argue like he alway has.

This may sound twee and contrived but literally the only person that can save the endings is Shepard.  

[jtav]

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Nobody, not even Ieldra2, has yet provided a remotely plausible explanation of how Synthesis works and achieves its stated goal of forever ending war between synthetic and organic species (because of that division).

War was never the problem. Casual extinction because of disregard was. Synthesis removes the intrinsic power imbalance between organics and synthetics, or at least reduces it to a manageable level. So yes, I have provided a rationale as for why Synthesis is a solution and its technological base. What I haven't done, and don't think I need to do, is provided an explanation of the process.

I disagree, on both counts. But simply, without a viable process you can’t postulate a valid solution. Even granting your questionable assertion that it’s about “disregard”, not active destruction, I don’t see how this is achieved while preserving organics, or how future organics/synthetics are prevented. I’m not even arguing that it’s a bad thing if it turned out that everyone is going to be synthetic, I’m arguing that that’s not the stated result.

Saying that it’s beyond anyone’s understanding is a cheap way out. Essentially the only somewhat logical explanations — that still don’t actually explain process — disregard significant portions of the synthesis argument or just handwave them. You’re solving your own scenario, not what we’re actually given (whether you include parts that were cut out of the game or ‘original manuscript’ or whatever).

[jla0644]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Hypothesis requires head-canon. It makes sense to you because you made guesses as to what really happens.

And that's all anyone can do.

Anyone who hates Synthesis for whatever reason is just making stuff up.

Anyone who likes Synthesis for whatever reason is just making stuff up.

No one on either side gets the final say on what any of the choices mean, and no one is forced to accept anyone else's interpretation.

To everyone up on their moral high horse saying how disgusting Synthesis is and how they can't understand how anyone could choose it: please tell me you understand that your reasons for hating it are your reasons, and that other people don't necessarily see it like you do. You act like your way is the only way to see it, and that anyone who chose Synthesis did so while interpreting like you did. Please tell me you realize this isn't so, that you understand I don't have to see Synthesis as the homogenization of all organic life, as a rewrite of every sentient being's personality, or as the loss of free will for all organic beings.

Modifié par jla0644, 02 juin 2012 - 03:42 .

[dreman9999]

hot_heart wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm not even argue based on IT.... Your missing the fact that the star child is the one that offers the choices and shows how they are done. Clearly, he is the one in control.

I can see what you're saying, but I think it depends on whether you trust him or not, whether you believe he has everyone's best interests at heart. That would determine his status as a villain/antagonist or a plot device.

That my point as well. But we have his past action to dictate that..... The truth is that he does have everyones best intrest at heart....Bu t the problem is heis not considering or listening what everyone wants.
The reapers are here to force evolution on us by remaking us into reapers. But hey do this with out our say or consent. They impose there will on us, not depate it. And they think that doing this is our beniffit.

That is the problem. In truth, the reapers help is not wanted and ironicly because of them it's not needany more ether.

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

Starbrat as an evil insane space midget does infect all endings. Ideally i'd tell it to **** off and find a different solution. Game doesn't let me so with having to choose between 3 infected choices i'll go with one that evil genocidal monster seems desperate to convince me not to choose. Could indeed to be a clever double bluff by him i acknowledge.

[dreman9999]

Jenonax wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...


No one.  No one is in control of that ending in its current state.  Shepard's not in control.  He's not bloody doing anything, is he?  The Catalyst, is he in control?  Well no not really, he shoves his hands in the air and gives up.  The crucible has changed me!  I can't implement anything!  And me, the player, am I in control of the ending.  No, I didn't want any of the bloody endings.

Rant over.  

I guess the Catalyst could be said to be in control and that is a fundemental flaw.  If the villain is in control of the ending than it wasn't a victory.  But then that leads into a debate of was the Catalyst a villain and that's not the point of the thread.  I think he is, others think he is sympathetic.  Again, not the point.

But the choices are all aboutthe catalyst. People thing the ending is about which choice is the best choice but it's really agame of trust.... Do you really trust what was told to you by the starchild dispite his history? Most people who pick synthesis or control ignore his past add they are too blind by the beniffits ofthe choices.

But he doesn't take responsibilty for the choices, they are forced upon him by the Crucible.  Most of his control is taken away from him.  He doesn't force Shepard to do anything.  He doesn't explain anything.  He doesn't do a whole lot really.  Its all vague and wishy-washy and so unbelievably weak.  

Shepard should have all the control and he doesn't.  He does nothing.  He needs to argue like he alway has.

This may sound twee and contrived but literally the only person that can save the endings is Shepard.  

The crucible is not forcing anything  on the star child. Nothing even remotely point to that. If it did the Shepard could just use the crucible to make the star child stop the reaper with out having to die to do it.
The star child is the one in charge.That is clear.

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

With no proof? We can say at the least he beleive it will happen but it doesn't mean it will happen.

[wright1978]

dreman9999 wrote...

hot_heart wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm not even argue based on IT.... Your missing the fact that the star child is the one that offers the choices and shows how they are done. Clearly, he is the one in control.

I can see what you're saying, but I think it depends on whether you trust him or not, whether you believe he has everyone's best interests at heart. That would determine his status as a villain/antagonist or a plot device.

That my point as well. But we have his past action to dictate that..... The truth is that he does have everyones best intrest at heart....Bu t the problem is heis not considering or listening what everyone wants.
The reapers are here to force evolution on us by remaking us into reapers. But hey do this with out our say or consent. They impose there will on us, not depate it. And they think that doing this is our beniffit.

That is the problem. In truth, the reapers help is not wanted and ironicly because of them it's not needany more ether.

No reapers are there  to mass slaughters billions, indcorinate millions and preserve a few other million. Preservation is dependent on a particular species fitting their viable reaperisation spec.

[Jenonax]

jtav wrote...

You must trust the Catalyst to be more or less telling the truth about any consequences or you couldn't make a choice at all.

And what's wrong with that exactly?

Why can't I tell him to **** off?  Why can't I tell him to stick his choices up his AI arse and do one?  

Why can't I tell him I will go down fighting, rather than listen to him?

What is the big rush that I can't phone Hackett and go, "Er, boss, somethings come up...?"

I don't have to trust the Catalyst and I don't.  I resent the fact that I am forced to.

[lillitheris]

jla0644 wrote...

To everyone up on their moral high horse saying how disgusting Synthesis is and how they can't understand how anyone could choose it: please tell me you understand that your reasons for hating it are your reasons, and that other people don't necessarily see it like you do.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

Just because you can headcanon Synthesis to be something doesn’t make it valid. Stupid vitriol is stupid vitriol, but as I’ve said time and again, nobody has actually made a convincing case for Synthesis working based on the information we get in-game.

I’m not in the habit of congratulating people for ‘solving’ a hypothetical problem they created with their own premises and rules.

[dreamgazer]

jla0644 wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

Hypothesis requires head-canon. It makes sense to you because you made guesses as to what really happens.

And that's all anyone can do.

Anyone who hates Synthesis for whatever reason is just making stuff up.

Anyone who likes Synthesis for whatever reason is just making stuff up.

No one on either side gets the final say on what any of the choices mean, and no one is forced to accept anyone else's interpretation.

To everyone up on their moral high horse saying how disgusting Synthesis is and how they can't understand how anyone could choose it: please tell me you understand that your reasons for hating it are your reasons, and that other people don't necessarily see it like you do. You act like your way is the only way to see it, and that anyone who chose Synthesis did so while interpreting like you did. Please tell me you realize this isn't so, that you understand I don't have to see Synthesis as the homogenization of all organic life, as a rewrite of every sentient being's personality, or as the loss of free will for all organic beings.

I mostly agree with your post, except for your debasement of logical and textual interpretation as "making stuff up". Precedents are in place, both in the ME universe and in the theoretical and practical science arena we have today. Using that isn't just head-canon; it's deduction. 

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I've had a few months to mull this over. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*I don't believe the Catalyst. That is, the notion of a technological singularity leading to extinction was so poorly set up that I don't regard it as a threat.
*No option leaves Shepard with clean hands. Pretending humility is hypocritical at best.
*Within the context of the universe, synthetics are clearly people.
*Genocide is evil always and everywhere, regardless of the consequences. I cannot morally choose Destroy.
*Synthesis is problematic. If you don't believe the Catalyst regarding the Singularity, then the justification becomes the possible benefits. Which aren't clearly stated.
*I'm a Paragon. I like playing characters that do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If all my lecturing about second chances and mercy are to mean anything, I better be willing to extend that mercy even to people I hate.
*Related, I have an obligation to save as many lives as I can.

So the moral superiority of the Destroy faction confounds me. Given what we know, I choose Control. Synthesis is problematic mostly because it seems like it wandered in from a different story.

I agree that Control appears to be the best choice if you don't believe the singularity is a problem. You save galactic civilization and avoid the genocide of the geth. However, I would think that the billions of minds conjoined in the Reapers also deserve some consideration, given that they're "servants of the pattern", not its master. Hmm....I'm now wondering how those fit into the Unofficial Epilogue scenario for Control.

Anyway, I hope the EC will turn the Catalyst's reasoning into something coherent. I think the singularity is a premise that works, but what we're given in the game looks more like a "standard robot war scenario", and we know how to defuse those.