1256 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I do, and everytime I mention it, all the Synthesis people leave.

With all due respect, having the last word doesn't mean you chased away all the moths with the bright flame of your logic. It merely means that you could stay up past your bedtime longer than the people you're arguing with.

Case in point - I don't know what time it is where you are, but if I vanish from the boards now I might get 5 hours of sleep if I'm lucky.

[ZIPO396]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

A leader shouldn't be making decisions based on what people in general want, it should be based on what he thinks is best.

So a dictator then?

...

Somebody missed the part where I quoted the founder of a democratic society supporting this idea.

I swear, westerners have no clue about their own democratic systems any more. People see it as a means to decide on what's popular, not what's actually good/effective. No wonder our societies are going down in favor of China.

Actually the main reason we're gong down to places like China is greed. Happened before it's how America became a super power in the first place. Off source work and factories to lower costs and sooner or later you won't have your own inferstructure for it anymore and the guys across the pond just happen to. You're people are suddenly in need of employment and will work crappy wages to get it and then it slips again. It's actually more the fault of Capatalism and greed than Democracy.

[o Ventus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

That doesn't make your case any stronger.

You choose not to believe it because you're grasping for any straw that could potentially cause them to scrap Synthesis. Tough, because Bioware isn't changing the endings.

o Ventus wrote... 
Melting people into goop and saying they're still alive is also nonsense.

Who ever said that Reaped races are still alive?

o Ventus wrote... 
Space rocks that give people cancer and other telekinetic powers is also nonsense, but it's at least sort of believable since they bothered to offer exposition on how it works and it sounds vaguely (if laughably) scientific.

No, it's space magic. You were just willing to tolerate it then because reasons.

o Ventus wrote... 
With Synthesis you have... A talking hologram who thinks it's Shakespeare. Yes, I think Bioware actually CAN go full retard on this.

Uh... all the endings have a talking hologram. Not sure if you noticed.

1. You have nothing to say and just wanted to fill space. Gotcha.

2. The Catalyst. The Reapers. A surprising number of people on BSN. If the Catalyst is to be taken at face value, then it must mean the harvested species are alive, to some extent. If they're dead, then there's no reason to be harvesting them instead of just slaughtering them wholesale. It would be a less efficient way to accomplish the world's easiest task.

3. See #1.

4. I'm aware of this. Just because I didn't mention Control or Destroy in a Synthesis based thread doesn't mean I agree with them. What you're doing here is called a logical fallacy, namely a strawman.

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote... It would be like a GM of a sports team making decisions based on what fans want rather than what the coaches want. He'll drive the club into the ground.

I don't know at least we get to elect the guys who have to make the crappy decisions. I don't remember a galactic vote. Also that quote implies what's right is more often what is also popular.

Democracy is a privledge, not a right. And in this circumstance, we do not have the luxury of a galactic vote.

So, this is more like the example of the pro sports GM. And I can tell you this, in the world of sports at least, what's popular is rarely right.

WRONG, DEMOCRACY IS A RIGHT, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Democracy is a privledge, not a right. And in this circumstance, we do not have the luxury of a galactic vote.

So, this is more like the example of the pro sports GM. And I can tell you this, in the world of sports at least, what's popular is rarely right.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Stop right there. Right ****ing there. Democracy is a right for all. People have every right to reach a conensus by being sentient and having an opinion. No one should have to "gain" that ability. The Geth's vote is just as valuable as the Quarians. The general consensus was to stop the Reapers, and the most common agreed upon method was destruction.

Don't straw man either. This is NOT a discussion about sports.

[ZIPO396]

Heeden wrote...
Those souls are freed with the breaking of the cycle as the Reapers are no longer shackled to the Catalyst's programming. Technically that makes each one a post-scarcity society, removing the constraints of resources by existing in virtual space (the other way of reaching post-scarcity status is having fully automated means of production available to all and a near-limitless source of energy). Destroy would eliminate the newly-freed slaves, Control immediately reshackles them.

Oh wow how did I miss that massive chunk of speculation. It's just as possible the Catalys only gives them basic directions and the Reapers themselves are a dictator in charge of all the little trapped souls of entities in there.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Vigilant111 wrote...

It is how democracy works...even if it is the wrong choice, and BTW who said that destroy is WRONG???

WRONG! Democracy fails when its citizenry believe that it's okay to make the wrong choice if it's what most people want.

Democracy works when its leaders step up and convince their citizens to support them to make the right, but unpopular, decisions. And, when their citizens are smart enough to support the leaders who consistently make the right decisions.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 juin 2012 - 05:43 .

[ZIPO396]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote... It would be like a GM of a sports team making decisions based on what fans want rather than what the coaches want. He'll drive the club into the ground.

I don't know at least we get to elect the guys who have to make the crappy decisions. I don't remember a galactic vote. Also that quote implies what's right is more often what is also popular.

Democracy is a privledge, not a right. And in this circumstance, we do not have the luxury of a galactic vote.

So, this is more like the example of the pro sports GM. And I can tell you this, in the world of sports at least, what's popular is rarely right.

You changed my quote that's not what I sid. I was answering directly to this.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

"What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right."

Who said that? Based on the diatribes we've seen posted in this thread,
most would probably guess that it came from some dirty facist or
dictator. But they would be wrong, it was Thomas Jefferson, the
architect behind the world's greatest (or once-greatest) democratic
system.

Modifié par ZIPO396, 13 juin 2012 - 06:13 .

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

It is how democracy works...even if it is the wrong choice, and BTW who said that destroy is WRONG???

WRONG! Democracy fails when its citizenry believe that it's okay to make the wrong choice if it's what most people want.

Democracy works when its leaders step up and convince their citizens to support them to make the right, but unpopular, decisions. And, when their citizens are smart enough to support the leaders who consistently make the right decisions.

That last paragraph is impossible in Western society. You know that.

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

It is how democracy works...even if it is the wrong choice, and BTW who said that destroy is WRONG???

WRONG! Democracy fails when its citizenry believe that it's okay to make the wrong choice if it's what most people want.

Democracy works when its leaders step up and convince their citizens to support them to make the right, but unpopular, decisions. And, when their citizens are smart enough to support the leaders who consistently make the right decisions.

Your point? the bolded text is not about democracy, its about a leader caring for his /her people, it is still up to the people to decide, in fact, tyranny happens when leaders don't ask the people what they want or what they are about to get into... a leader is forgiven if no loss is caused, but synthesis effects are a utter unknown, evidence gathered is trival, and fan fiction doesn't tell u crap

[OMTING52601]

clennon8 wrote...

Brutal calculus of war. I would rather sacrifice a few million geth and permanently eliminate the Reapers than biologically alter quadrillions of organisms and keep the Reapers around.

Aside from the looming issue of consent, there is the matter of simply not knowing what Synthesis does. Any Shepard who chooses it is taking a ridiculous and unwarranted leap of faith. Shepard can't possibly know what it does. Even the short term consequences of it are a completely unknown to Shepard. All he has are vague reassurances from the master of the Reapers. Never mind the long term consequences of the decision, which can't possibly be known even to a super-intelligent AI. It's just absurd.

True, but no Shep knows exactly what Control or Destroy(okay, the writer in me hates that - it should be Destruction - sorry for the segue) do either. Shep can only go on what the Catalyst says will happen in any of the three scenarios. Catalyst says Control gives Shep control of the Reapers and that Shep will become their new leader. Catalyst says Destroy will eliminate all synthetic life in the galaxy.

There's no evidence to suggest Catalyst is lying - aside from fan created theories. Further, if Catalyst IS lying about Control and/or Synthesis, why would a Shep assume he isn't lying about Destroy as well? Again, it's all or nothing, mostly because Shep doesn't have enough information about Catalyst and his machinations/motivations to make an informed decision about whether or not Catalyst might indeed be lying about anything. In short, if we can't take Catalyst's word about Control/Synthesis, why should we take his word in regards to Destroy?

The hard choices of war, that's a different entity altogether. If you feel sacrificing the few for the many is the best option, then that's what you pick. No judgment here. But not every Shep is going to see things in that same light. That doesn't make their choice any better, or worse, than yours. Or mine. FWIW, YMMV.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
Clearly I can change everyone without their consent - I just walk in to the green beam. Whether you find that preferable to genocide or enslavement is up to you. 

Just because the game allows you to do it, does not mean you should do it. Again I don't think Bioware wanted to make the choice come off as a violation of consent but their execution of it does make it one. Your statement does not prove that an individual has the right to choose everyones fate, it just proves you look at the choice differently. I understand why you don't want to see it that way and no one should agree with that. At least I hope people don't. I hope they can fix it so it comes off better as well, but as it is now the choice can be seen as fascism. 

Heeden wrote...
In this situation I rather think it does. It took the combined efforts of almost the entire galaxy to put Shepard in that situation, and he was placed at the spear-point because through words and deeds Shepard has earned their trust and respect (or fear and contempt, however you play). 

Being a leader in a battle does not give you a right to play god. A person can respect and trust me, but I cannot take it upon myself to change them to what I see fit without their consent. No matter how much I think it will help them. If I give them the choice and they consent to it,  then I can change away.

Heeden wrote...
There's no mention of changing anyone on a genetic level - when the Catalyst mentions the "new DNA" he's either talking allegorically or the entire sentence is nonsense.

Sorry but making a new DNA is changing everyone on the genetic level. You are doing this, you are changing what they once were to something else entirely. I agree it's is nonsense.

Heeden wrote...I dislike up-lift because I feel it takes something away from the culture being accelerated. It could be well-earned pride or foolish arrogance, but I believe if the species of our cycle can evolve to a higher level (whatever that may entail) we can do it independantly, in our own way, and the end result - whilst less certain and further away - will be richer because of it. But even as I paint my Shepard's future in the happiest colours I know his dreams will be forever haunted by the untold billions of individuals lost because of his choice. 

Now we are agreeing, good point. I agree with this part though…


"I believe if the species of our cycle can evolve to a higher level (whatever that may entail) we can do it independantly, in our own way, and the end result - whilst less certain and further away - will be richer because of it."

This is not arrogant at all, this why we should give everyone the right to evolve independently and give them the choice to evolve in their own way naturally. If they want to do it with Synthesis then fine but if a person does not that is fine too. That is their right not to accept it. 

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 05:54 .

[PsyrenY]

o Ventus wrote...

1. You have nothing to say and just wanted to fill space. Gotcha.

2. The Catalyst. The Reapers. A surprising number of people on BSN. If the Catalyst is to be taken at face value, then it must mean the harvested species are alive, to some extent. If they're dead, then there's no reason to be harvesting them instead of just slaughtering them wholesale. It would be a less efficient way to accomplish the world's easiest task.

3. See #1.

4. I'm aware of this. Just because I didn't mention Control or Destroy in a Synthesis based thread doesn't mean I agree with them. What you're doing here is called a logical fallacy, namely a strawman.

1. I do have something to say. The Catalyst's use of "A new... DNA" is a metaphor, pure and simple.

2. Their minds are uploaded, per Legion. The beings themselves are dead, but their knowledge, their experiences? Why wouldn't those still be around, and able to be channeled through the synthetic shell? Destroy the Reapers, and you lose all of that.

3. You can rationalize biotics all you want, but they're still space magic. Why the double-standard? 

4. So if you're aware that the other two endings have a talking hologram, why bring that up as a downside of Synthesis at all? Double-standard again.

[ZIPO396]

OMTING52601 wrote...

There's no evidence to suggest Catalyst is lying - aside from fan created theories.

Actually there is one little piece. Sheppard can live in Destroy. He implies as you have synthetic parts (the ones you need to live) they'll break and you'll die. If you have high enough EMS you don't die so it can be assumed they didn't break. So either The Catalyst was lying out of fear or it's an idiot.

[Taboo]

The Catalyst does not lie. Ever. He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

And he needs that fallacy. And Bioware isn't going to address it either I would surmise, so Control and Destroy will remain just as valid as Synthesis.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 

Vigilant111 wrote...

WRONG, DEMOCRACY IS A RIGHT, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT

 

Taboo-XX wrote...

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Stop right there. Right ****ing there. Democracy is a right for all. People have every right to reach a conensus by being sentient and having an opinion. No one should have to "gain" that ability. The Geth's vote is just as valuable as the Quarians. The general consensus was to stop the Reapers, and the most common agreed upon method was destruction.

Don't straw man either. This is NOT a discussion about sports.

The indoctrination of western thought is apparent. But, it's incorrect. Democracy is not a right, it's a privledge -societies that are democratic EARN their sovereignty, when they prove they are capable of having it.

People who think everyone is entitled to democracy obviously pay 0 attention to the world. Most countries are not democratic. And in two different countries where the US has tried to implement one from a dictatorship, it has either not worked yet (Iraq) or is very corrupt and unstable (Afghanistan).

When a country is ready for it, when it's citizens prove smart/responsible enough and demand it of their government, they will get it. Like Egypt. But others require the rule of a dictator where a country's citizens haven't proven capable of governing themselves.

So no. Don't believe what you've been taught to think about "Democracy = good, Dictatorship = bad." That's an ideal, but it's not the reality. The sooner you learn it, the better off you'll be.

[PsyrenY]

ZIPO396 wrote...

Actually there is one little piece. Sheppard can live in Destroy. He implies as you have synthetic parts (the ones you need to live) they'll break and you'll die. If you have high enough EMS you don't die so it can be assumed they didn't break. So either The Catalyst was lying out of fear or it's an idiot.

He implies that you might die. And he is right, because you can die with low EMS. There was no lie.

[ZIPO396]

Optimystic_X wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Actually there is one little piece. Sheppard can live in Destroy. He implies as you have synthetic parts (the ones you need to live) they'll break and you'll die. If you have high enough EMS you don't die so it can be assumed they didn't break. So either The Catalyst was lying out of fear or it's an idiot.

He implies that you might die. And he is right, because you can die with low EMS. There was no lie.

Just like he implies you can control the Reapers or might not be able to if some want to take his sarcatic remark into account. He also implies that Synthetics will be given DNA.

[Taboo]

Are you serious? Really? People NEED a dictator?

Both Democracy and Dictatorships can be bad. Sometimes, they are so close they begin to look the same.

People have the right to choose what they want. Democracy can oppress, as can a Dictator.

[Hey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Democracy works when its leaders step up and convince their citizens to support them to make the right, but unpopular, decisions.

This sounds like the Catalyst.  This possibly answers some questions about reaper politics.  I would not reelect the catalyst if I were a reaper citizen

[OMTING52601]

ZIPO, we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether or not Shepard lives in Destroy.

That scene, IMO, is an easter egg bonus for players who choose to play MP and up their GaW to 56-60%(depending on the War Asset number accumulated to that point). I do not include the breath scene as 'proof' of Shepard's miraculous life by fact that anyone who plays a single player game without any outside extras cannot get that scene. Just like I don't take the grandpa/grandson scene as proof some of the Normandy's crew survived and went on to create some kind of outpost among the stars. The scene is an easter egg bonus for players who choose to play an NG+ or chose to import an ME 2 Shep.

So, an SP only play through, upon choosing Destroy, will not see a chest move. And, as an aside, there is zero evidence that chest belongs to Shepard. There are no defining characteristics, there are no name tags, the dog tags cannot be read, there is nothing conclusively stating the chest belongs to Shep. If you play a FemShep(which I did on my Destory ending) the body is also clearly not female.

Players can infer anything they like - just like tons of people infer that the top stopped spinning at the end of Inception - but nothing on-screen happens to prove that inference.

[o Ventus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

1. You have nothing to say and just wanted to fill space. Gotcha.

2. The Catalyst. The Reapers. A surprising number of people on BSN. If the Catalyst is to be taken at face value, then it must mean the harvested species are alive, to some extent. If they're dead, then there's no reason to be harvesting them instead of just slaughtering them wholesale. It would be a less efficient way to accomplish the world's easiest task.

3. See #1.

4. I'm aware of this. Just because I didn't mention Control or Destroy in a Synthesis based thread doesn't mean I agree with them. What you're doing here is called a logical fallacy, namely a strawman.

1. I do have something to say. The Catalyst's use of "A new... DNA" is a metaphor, pure and simple.

2. Their minds are uploaded, per Legion. The beings themselves are dead, but their knowledge, their experiences? Why wouldn't those still be around, and able to be channeled through the synthetic shell? Destroy the Reapers, and you lose all of that.

3. You can rationalize biotics all you want, but they're still space magic. Why the double-standard? 

4. So if you're aware that the other two endings have a talking hologram, why bring that up as a downside of Synthesis at all? Double-standard again.

1. Whatever. It's your belief and I can't take it from you.

2. Because you need something to contain those memories from the start. Unless they're somehow transferred BEFORE being melted down, then NOTHING AT ALL WAS ACCOMPLISHED.

3. It isn't "magic" when it's given a vaguely scientific explanation on how it works (Unlike Synthesis). Do you know what magic is? Synthesis will cease to be space magic as soon as some exposition is given.

4. I wasn't even saying it was related to Synthesis, only that it fueled the absurdity of the notion. I mentioned the Catalyst because Synthesis is the only option it apparently talks in metaphor when referring to it.

Modifié par o Ventus, 13 juin 2012 - 06:05 .

[Taboo]

Bioware has all but confirmed that Shepard lives in Destroy. Weekes even responded about him breathing in a tweet, asking the tweeter to "wait".

It WAS an Easter Egg, but now Bioware has to deal with it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 13 juin 2012 - 06:07 .

[ZIPO396]

OMTING52601 wrote...
And, as an aside, there is zero evidence that chest belongs to Shepard.

Actually funny you should say that. I do believe there is a pic circling around here of the names of the movie files and the one with the breath is labeled something like "ShepBreath" Or some such.

But I get your point. It's even more likely not to be "cannon" if you take into account they say you don't need multiplayer to get the best ending.

[OMTING52601]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst does not lie. Ever. He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

And he needs that fallacy. And Bioware isn't going to address it either I would surmise, so Control and Destroy will remain just as valid as Synthesis.

To clarify, you mean fallacy as in a plausible argument using false or invalid references?

What false or invalid references, then? And if the Catalyst presents a fallacy in regard to Synthesis/Control, what exactly should Shep think about Destroy? If you're reasoning is based on the chest scene, I will politely agree to disagree, since fundamentally I don't think the chest scene should have any relevance. Of course, IMO, YMMV.