1256 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

But at least mine are in keeping with the tone clen.

Here's my reasoning: All three endings are supposed to be good. Catalyst wants to stop a singularity--that is, he wants it to be impossible for synthetics to treat organics the way we treat animals.

Which he can't logically have encountered.

This requires an alteration of organic life.

No, it doesn't.

So, how might we be changed so that they can't surpass us? Maybe the ability to self-modify as consciously and rapidly as they do. Seems reasonable.

We don't need to change. Look at all of the technology we have today. My iPhone isn't planning on using my body as a battery, like the Matrix. My toaster hasn't set my house on fire yet. Everyone asserting that the singularity always (ALWAYS) involves the destruction of organic life is an idiot on the caliber of the Catalyst, dealing only with extremes. It's much more likely that such a singularity will actually benefit organics, not destroy them.

[KingZayd]

jtav wrote...

But at least mine are in keeping with the tone clen.

Here's my reasoning: All three endings are supposed to be good. Catalyst wants to stop a singularity--that is, he wants it to be impossible for synthetics to treat organics the way we treat animals. This requires an alteration of organic life. So, how might we be changed so that they can't surpass us? Maybe the ability to self-modify as consciously and rapidly as they do. Seems reasonable.

You mean like the Reapers have been doing? They have been basically farming organics for what.. 1 billion years?

[o Ventus]

jla0644 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

In much the same fashion that Synth-lovers headcanon or just make up reasons as to why Synthesis is good, just like jtav has done here.

That is all anyone can do, with any of the endings.

They all suck. The entire ending sucks. It sucked before you were given your 3 choices, it sucked after you were given the choices, and it sucked after you made your choice. There is no way to objectively and definitvely prove that one is better or more ethical than the others. It's all a matter of opinion. No matter what you choose, you are forever changing the galaxy without getting anyone's consent. There is no way around this fact, for any of the choices. This argument that Synthesis haters keep harping on applies to all three endings.

As bad as the ending is, the one thing Bioware did right was give us a choice of how we wanted to **** over the galaxy. If you don't like Synthesis (which I can understand, only 1 one of my Sheps has taken it), you don't have to choose it. You're free to commit genocide or become a Reaper, whichever one you think is more ethical, lol.

I will never understand why some of you, and you know who you are, cannot tolerate the fact that others choose not to take Synthesis in the direction you took it. If you're so damn concerned about choice and free will, let them have theirs without calling them fascists for it.  Does it really hurt you that they wanted to take it in a positive direction, that they were able to get something positive out of this trainwreck of an ending? Why does it offend you if they do that? It does not affect you in the slightest. You're only coming off as intolerant and self-righteous. And some of you are becoming quite unhinged in your hatred.

True enough.

Although 1 thing that Destroy and Control have (Control to a lesser extent than Destroy) that Synthesis doesn't is some semblence of clarity on the effects and aftereffects. 

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: I consider radically altering life perfectly acceptable as long as the situation is grave enough and personhood is retained. I do not consider killing allied people when there are other options on the table justified.

Personhood is not retained. Am I to understand that you reject Synthesis now?

[akenn312]

jla0644 wrote...


I will never understand why some of you, and you know who you are, cannot tolerate the fact that others choose not to take Synthesis in the direction you took it. If you're so damn concerned about choice and free will, let them have theirs without calling them fascists for it.  Does it really hurt you that they wanted to take it in a positive direction, that they were able to get something positive out of this trainwreck of an ending? Why does it offend you if they do that? It does not affect you in the slightest. You're only coming off as intolerant and self-righteous. And some of you are becoming quite unhinged in your hatred.

It's the message and the blind acceptance of this message just to make an ending work that should be challenged, anyone that says that violating consent is okay or try to make a positive spin on it should be challenged. You also can't stop people from speaking out, you can disagree with what they say but they have a right to challenge it.

Making violating free will a cute happy thing is a bad concept, I cannot stress this enough. Next thing we can do is make the Holocaust all positive and happy. Again why all of a sudden is violating basic human rights okay?

The basic concept is offensive, Hitler had a right to have his views but people had a right to fight against him. We have that right to challenge this view. You can't violate a persons free will to choose. You can't change people into whatever you wish them to be. Debate them all you want but you can't switch them into something you want them to be.

[jtav]

Except it seems to be, judging from what Joker and EDI are doing. Mental capabilities may have been altered, but identity is retained.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

Except it seems to be, judging from what Joker and EDI are doing. Mental capabilities may have been altered, but identity is retained.

That 10 seconds of cutscene is hardly anything to work on.

Especially considering Joker and EDI still embrace even when the relationship is called off.

[InHarmsWay]

o Ventus wrote...

This requires an alteration of organic life.

No, it doesn't.

Exactly. It's like saying the only way to end racism on earth is to mix all races into one. That wouldn't do it.

Mentality needs to change, but you cannot force it.

[lillitheris]

jtav wrote...

Except it seems to be, judging from what Joker and EDI are doing. Mental capabilities may have been altered, but identity is retained.

Ah, backpedaling now. Everything changes except those parts that you wouldn’t really want to.

…

(Also, it’d be hilarious to see you actually try to defend the decision without relying on any information that you learn after the fact. Like, say, knowing that there’s a fundamental change and rewrite of DNA or whatever…and you’ll just take it on faith that you’ll still be the same person?)

…

Did I mention how great Destroy is? Nobody gets destroyed but the Reapers, definitely not EDI, the geth or the relays. It’s awesome.

[antares_sublight]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
First of all, the offer was to find a post in THAT thread where you walked in and claimed that I was endorsing my supposed dictatorship. But we'll bend the rules a little bit just for you.[/quote]
You're an idiot. Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say you were supporting YOUR dictatorship in THAT thread. Your bet stipulation was about something specific I never said or claimed you said. I said that the way you talk about synthesis in terms of dictatorships sounds like Anakin. That post I quoted, in addition to your comment earlier in that thread are what I was referring to. So, want my paypal address?

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
Now then, you've found a post where I claim that democracy is not the ideal for every culture, in which place dictatorship is a solid solution. So, still not meeting my criteria of trying to prove that I want to impose my own universal dictatorship on the galaxy.[/quote]
Find my quote where I said you want to impose your own universal dictatorship. I'll send you $1000.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
You either have ******-poor reading comprehension or are clutching at straws in a very desperate attempt to prove yourself. Or both![/quote]
Yeah, you're definitely less than 7 years old.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
[quote]My post was also referring to other posts you were making
that day or the day before. Your posts are there, they exist.[/quote]

Well I'm still waiting to see it.[/quote]
Sigh...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

[quote]So, I can't prove my negatives, and pro-synthites have to resort to ignoring in-game canon and inserting their own, unprovable assertions to muster any semblance of a defense. What have we learned? It's all indefensible. BioWare says it's a "winning" ending, but it's a stupid concept that cannot be defended. [/quote]

Well no one here is talking about how good/bad the ending is, so take that convo in a relevant thread.[/quote]
??? Sigh.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
[quote]At least ALL of my questions are grounded in actual queries of what is actually happening. Very few have any actual response outside of hand-waving saying "it'll be ok, it must be - look at the silent 5 second clip: they're happyhappyhappy!"[/quote]

At least that's some concrete evidence, something that anti-Synthesis does not have.[/quote]
It's not evidence of anything. Like I said, if anything they're behaving abnormally given what they've just gone through. And the concrete evidence that it's a genetic change? Pro-synthites have to throw that out.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
[quote]I might still be overestimating your age now that I think about it. [/quote]

And you're getting dominated by someone you think is less than 7 years old? How sad.
[/quote]
Yeah, definitely less than 7 for sure.

[antares_sublight]

With the amount of retconning pro-synthites have to do, it's exactly as fair to say that Destroy doesn't actually kill any geth. The Destroy ending is a happy one, a winning ending and therefore in my universe the geth don't die. Victory!

[clennon8]

Making any sort of judgment of Synthesis based on that clip is really quite absurd. First of all, that's a sample size of three people out of quadrillions of organisms in the galaxy. Second, it's moments after the event. What about a year later? A century later? A thousand years later? What will the long term consequences of merging all synthetic and organic life be?

Modifié par clennon8, 12 juin 2012 - 06:28 .

[jtav]

clen: Because it's a story? Remember when I had you beta Shadow War? I ended with an epilogue showing 15 minutes out of one day. How do you know Matt and Miranda have a happy marriage and fulfilling professional lives and this wasn't just a good day? Because I didn't show you counterevidence. That clip is supposed to be representative of the whole.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

clen: Because it's a story? Remember when I had you beta Shadow War? I ended with an epilogue showing 15 minutes out of one day. How do you know Matt and Miranda have a happy marriage and fulfilling professional lives and this wasn't just a good day? Because I didn't show you counterevidence. That clip is supposed to be representative of the whole.

Yes, but we (the readers) knew Matt and Miranda, and we knew why they were together.  To a certain degree, yes, you take it on faith that they're going to stay together and be happy.  But that faith is based on something.  It was based on their history together and love for one another, which you brilliantly showed us through your words.  You told a good story, which is something that Bioware has failed to do here.

Your faith in Synthesis is based on a few ambiguous words from a ghost who has taken the form of a child who has been appearing in your nightmares.  A move that can only be interpreted as manipulative, or hand-waved away as more "bad writing."  A ghost child that you just met, who doesn't even try to hide the fact the Reapers have been doing his bidding.  I know you want to wave off the Catalyst as an "exposition dump," but I'm not going to let Bioware off the hook that easily.  This isn't a book or a movie that we're reading/viewing from am omniscient viewpoint.  It's a roleplaying game, and I'm going to treat it as such.  I'm going to roleplay.  I'm not going to metagame the ending.  Nor am I going to resort to fantasy-land headcanons to retro-justify a morally reprehensible choice.

[Jagri]

Aye yes, Synthesis...

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: I consider radically altering life perfectly acceptable as long as the situation is grave enough and personhood is retained. I do not consider killing allied people when there are other options on the table justified.

So say for instance synthesis required to permanent lowering of anyindividuals possible IQ to a sufficiently low level where they wouldn't have ability to conceive building AI's. Personhood may very well be intact and they could still hold affection for other individuals. You'd really happily make that sacrifice for all life rather than sacrifice one species for the greater good of the rest of the species?

[lillitheris]

antares_sublight wrote...

With the amount of retconning pro-synthites have to do, it's exactly as fair to say that Destroy doesn't actually kill any geth. The Destroy ending is a happy one, a winning ending and therefore in my universe the geth don't die. Victory!

Destroy is totally the best because only the Reapers are destroyed and nobody else.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

With the amount of retconning pro-synthites have to do, it's exactly as fair to say that Destroy doesn't actually kill any geth. The Destroy ending is a happy one, a winning ending and therefore in my universe the geth don't die. Victory!

Destroy is totally the best because only the Reapers are destroyed and nobody else.

All right. And Shepard comes back after choosing Synthesis. That's the level of retcon you're talking about here.

The synthetics are dead in Destroy, one way or the other. Shepard is dead in Synthesis. Those are core elements you cannot just dismiss. And both fit their particular option rather well.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

All right. And Shepard comes back after choosing Synthesis. That's the level of retcon you're talking about here

Nah. In the Synthesis ending, everyone is perfectly healthy and has super powers, apparently. Shep's death would still be a fair trade-off for that.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 juin 2012 - 07:22 .

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

Except it seems to be, judging from what Joker and EDI are doing. Mental capabilities may have been altered, but identity is retained.

So what? Indoctriantion keeps the persons identity. It that ability to think on there own that's gone.

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

With the amount of retconning pro-synthites have to do, it's exactly as fair to say that Destroy doesn't actually kill any geth. The Destroy ending is a happy one, a winning ending and therefore in my universe the geth don't die. Victory!

Destroy is totally the best because only the Reapers are destroyed and nobody else.

All right. And Shepard comes back after choosing Synthesis. That's the level of retcon you're talking about here.

The synthetics are dead in Destroy, one way or the other. Shepard is dead in Synthesis. Those are core elements you cannot just dismiss. And both fit their particular option rather well.

why? there's no evidence that the Geth are dead.

[Ieldra]

Opsrbest wrote...
We should skip all the banter and jump right to the heart of the issue and discuss: The paradigm of Synthesis.

Banter? It's an all-out witch hunt by people unable to accept that others might have a different take on things, that others might dare take something positive away from a choice *they* don't like. As soon as someone says anything good about Synthesis, these people descend like vultures on them. Pfft. Contemptible. 

As for the paradigm of Synthesis, I believe I've touched on that in my thread A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium.

@KingZayd:
It fits the theme. You make a choice in favor of organics' purity and complete freedom. Neither is there a change like in Synthesis nor is there a pseudo-synthetic guardian who guides the development of organic civilization. The theme is freedom from synthetic interference unless you choose to re-introduce them. It's also a balance issue. For those who just want to kill the Reapers, the Destroy choice would have no significant downside if synthetics weren't dead. Just the same with Synthesis: for those who think it's generally a good thing, having Shepard alive would make it a perfect ending. I don't have anything against a perfect ending, but it should not depend on a specific choice.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 juin 2012 - 07:25 .

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

clen: Because it's a story? Remember when I had you beta Shadow War? I ended with an epilogue showing 15 minutes out of one day. How do you know Matt and Miranda have a happy marriage and fulfilling professional lives and this wasn't just a good day? Because I didn't show you counterevidence. That clip is supposed to be representative of the whole.

How do you even know what you see is real?

[antares_sublight]

KingZayd wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

With the amount of retconning pro-synthites have to do, it's exactly as fair to say that Destroy doesn't actually kill any geth. The Destroy ending is a happy one, a winning ending and therefore in my universe the geth don't die. Victory!

Destroy is totally the best because only the Reapers are destroyed and nobody else.

All right. And Shepard comes back after choosing Synthesis. That's the level of retcon you're talking about here.

The synthetics are dead in Destroy, one way or the other. Shepard is dead in Synthesis. Those are core elements you cannot just dismiss. And both fit their particular option rather well.

why? there's no evidence that the Geth are dead.

Exactly! Destroy doesn't actually kill anyone! I saw the clip at the end, I didn't see any dead Geth, did you? Therefore, using the same logic and conclusion-leaping-to as Pro-Synthites, no genocide actually occurs in Destroy either!