381 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

I cannot see how you can disregard destroy as unethical and then CHOOSE SYNTHESIS?

That just makes you a hypocrit.

[Vigilant111]

Yeah, as if synthesis is ethical<_<

[Rhazeal]

It is comepletely ethical to destroy an enemy which has stated it will utterly destoy you and backed up said words by doing this to countless organics for millenia. It is unethical to leave Reapers functional because they will always have the capacity to return to that which they have been doing for eons.

Presuming that the reapers will just stop reaping even though they still exist is as rediculous as green faster than light explosions that can give robots naughty bits and organics wifi.

It's unfortunate that we were given these horribly thought out endings in the first place but there is only one ending where the cycle has a 0% chance of being perpetuated.

Control leaves the Reapers intact and ready to resume reaping in any eventuality where Reapershep is removed from the equation. You know like the way that the Catalyst was removed?

Synthesis solves the issue for the current cycle only. Even if you can swallow the unfathomable level of derp inherent in Synthesis, reapers and the catalyst will resume their harvest because organic life will eventually evolve again and pure synthetic life will be created again.


One thing is for certain; Its crying shame that they put the ending in the hands of journeyman writers who spent their time playing Human Revolution instead of writing the end of Mass Effect.

Modifié par Rhazeal, 16 juin 2012 - 06:49 .

[Armannen]

In control, my bet is that shep will eventually see things from a "eternal machine" point of view rather than a sentient organic and soon continue the reaping because it would be for the greater good of the galaxy or something. I absolutely have no idea what really synthesis does, except make us "evolve" in a way merciless space cthulhus approve of.
So destroy means we might all destroy ourselves soon enough, maybe the geth will rebel. But that chaos would be our future, our own fate rather than let some harsh, unfeeling AI decide our future for us.
That's why i chose destroy, but if bioware explain what the hell Synth means in Extended Cut, I might give that one a chance. 

Modifié par Armannen, 16 juin 2012 - 06:53 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Nice thread. I'll pitch in. Why I can't ethically choose Destroy:

I think Destroy does more harm than good, because it gains us nothing. Nothing that the other paths can't accomplish, while doing more. To me, that kind of harm is worse than some change in physiology. And control is just a bit more risky to me than synthesis, so my choice becomes green.

Come at me.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Come at me.

You were the one who basically said that tyranny and dictatorship was a good thing.

I think you came at yourself already.

[Tealjaker94]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Nice thread. I'll pitch in. Why I can't ethically choose Destroy:

I think Destroy does more harm than good, because it gains us nothing. Nothing that the other paths can't accomplish, while doing more. To me, that kind of harm is worse than some change in physiology. And control is just a bit more risky to me than synthesis, so my choice becomes green.

Come at me.

"It gains us nothing." You sound just like TIM. Always looking for some way to take advantage of the situation. Sometimes you just need to solve the problem at hand instead of getting ahead of yourself. I personally see the elimination of the robo-cthulus as a good thing.

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Nice thread. I'll pitch in. Why I can't ethically choose Destroy:

I think Destroy does more harm than good, because it gains us nothing. Nothing that the other paths can't accomplish, while doing more. To me, that kind of harm is worse than some change in physiology. And control is just a bit more risky to me than synthesis, so my choice becomes green.

Come at me.

Doing more ain't always good, sometimes its about damage control, not to make the situation worse

What is this "harm" u are talking about? Nice way to downsize synthesis  - "SOME change in physiology"

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Come at me.

You were the one who basically said that tyranny and dictatorship was a good thing.

I think you came at yourself already.

This.

[jtav]

Regarding "we must choose Destroy because it's the most certain means of solving the problem."

For three games, Paragon was always about trying to find the best solution, rejecting the most expedient path again and again even if it was risky. The rachni, Feros, The Council, Wrex, Maelon, the geth Heretics, Veetor, the pattern is overwhelming. That the subject is now the Reapers doesn't change my obligation. I'm supposed to believe, just this once, that the harder path that doesn't kill my allies is the path of the villain? No. I will not be ruled by fear.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis sets them free

Speculation.

[Taboo]

I don't see Destroy as doing that.

It resolves MY issue, with the least amount of damage to the GALAXY.

You have essentially killed someone if they are unhappy with Synthesis. It is permanent. And you have affected all things for ALL time. You have to differentiate between a "good" and "bad" life.

It doesn't matter if they live,if they are unhappy all you've done is made their existence unbearable.

[Tealjaker94]

jtav wrote...

Regarding "we must choose Destroy because it's the most certain means of solving the problem."

For three games, Paragon was always about trying to find the best solution, rejecting the most expedient path again and again even if it was risky. The rachni, Feros, The Council, Wrex, Maelon, the geth Heretics, Veetor, the pattern is overwhelming. That the subject is now the Reapers doesn't change my obligation. I'm supposed to believe, just this once, that the harder path that doesn't kill my allies is the path of the villain? No. I will not be ruled by fear.

While your idealism is admirable, there comes a point when there is no better way. If you have the conversation with vega about sacrificing his squad to get data on the collectors, both the paragon and renegade options tell him he made the right decision. Shepard's job is to make the hard decisions, not gamble the existence of organic life on a hope that we can coexist with the reapers. This decision is by far the most far-reaching and impactful of the entire series. You cannot afford to mess up.

[jstme]

jtav wrote...
I have been told repeatedly that I am fascist, insane, a monster, and not a true fan for not choosing Destroy. The truth is, when attempting to make a decision from anything like my RL morals, I can’t ethically choose Destroy.
1. It is vengeance driven.

 
There is such a concept as justice. Murdering multitude of innocents in horrible ways demands justice.
 

 
Destroy-ers say I should kill the Reapers because “they deserve it.” Well, they are under control of the Catalyst the same way the indoctrinated are under control of the Reapers. The fact that Shepard can make them fly off in Control means that killing them is not necessary to ensure galactic stability or the survival of life.
 

If reapers were nothing more then an indoctrinated tool, they were Catalyst tools. Catalyst still needs to answer for what he did. Whether reapers are indoctrinated or are just a tool of catalyst - you had no ethical problem of killing indoctrinated living creatures or husks. How different is destroying the reapers to get the catalyst and kill indoctinated cerberus troops?

  
2. I deliberately killed an ally. Let’s make this as hard on me as possible and say the geth have already been wiped out. EDI still dies. People die in war, you say? EDI’s death is justified under the principle of double effect? Except there are other means to eliminate the threat that don’t result in EDI dying. Her death is not necessary and therefore not justified. And by the way, I just gave the next generation of AIs a good reason to hate organics.

Instead you deliberately killed entire form of existence that you were part of. You just killed organic life as a concept.  I would say that ethics and formoflifecide do not go hand in hand. 

3. I just trashed galactic civilization and offered nothing in return. The relays are gone. The Citadel is gone, as they are in Synthesis (Control is ambiguous, so let’s set that aside). But in Synthesis, I at least try to give organic life a leg up via upgrades. Destroy leaves them only with what they already had. Mass starvation and other ills are a direct and foreseeable consequence of my actions. Unlike any suicides, which are ultimately the responsibility of the suicider.

You just gave entire galatcic civilisation future and hope. Realys are gone, citadel is gone but people are alive, trees are green in normal way and reapers et Catalyst and their solutions are no more.
In synthesis you killed all organic life. And organo-synthetics ,via those precious upgrades, will become full synthetics in a short time. Plus ,all the suicides due to choice to rape  their organism with green wave are ultimately your moral responisbility.

[Vigilant111]

jtav wrote...

Regarding "we must choose Destroy because it's the most certain means of solving the problem."

For three games, Paragon was always about trying to find the best solution, rejecting the most expedient path again and again even if it was risky. The rachni, Feros, The Council, Wrex, Maelon, the geth Heretics, Veetor, the pattern is overwhelming. That the subject is now the Reapers doesn't change my obligation. I'm supposed to believe, just this once, that the harder path that doesn't kill my allies is the path of the villain? No. I will not be ruled by fear.

You are ruled by fear of being wiped out by evil synthetics

Less risky ways get least people killed, don't overrate synthesis in that way please

[What a Succulent Ass]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It doesn't matter if they live,if they are unhappy all you've done is made their existence unbearable.

Considering the hamfisted Eden undertones and the utopian bent, I assume that no one is supposed to be unhappy with the change...in which case it's valid to suspect that synthesis is psychological as well as physical.

...Which is worse, really.

[Baa Baa]

Xellith wrote...

Its not vengeance driven unless you make it that. Legion and Edi are willing to die for what they believe. I honestly think if they have to be the one to make the choice - they would have chosen destroy also.

I believe that not choosing destroy is a direct insult to EDI and the Geth. But thats just me.

Synthesis is just abhorantly disgusting.  Id rather you just choose control instead of genetically raping everyone.

This

[Taboo]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It doesn't matter if they live,if they are unhappy all you've done is made their existence unbearable.

Considering the hamfisted Eden undertones and the utopian bent, I assume that no one is supposed to be unhappy with the change...in which case it's valid to suspect that synthesis is psychological as well as physical.

...Which is worse, really.

Yes. Yes it is.

[KDD-0063]

Why I can't ethically choose Control
Why I can't ethically choose Synthesis
Why, ethically, choosing any of them doesn't matter
...

[Thor187]

IMO this video makes allot of sense and it's apropos to the conversation.

I'll just leave it here in case some people haven't seen it. It's long but well worth it.

Mass Effect 3: There is only ONE choice by pro781623

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Thor187, 16 juin 2012 - 07:37 .

[ardias89]

Xellith wrote...

Its not vengeance driven unless you make it that. Legion and Edi are willing to die for what they believe. I honestly think if they have to be the one to make the choice - they would have chosen destroy also.

I believe that not choosing destroy is a direct insult to EDI and the Geth. But thats just me.

Synthesis is just abhorantly disgusting.  Id rather you just choose control instead of genetically raping everyone.

The last conversation with EDI actually confirms what you say there.

Edit: At least the part about sacrifising herself so the Reapers die.

Modifié par ardias89, 16 juin 2012 - 07:33 .

[Taboo]

ardias89 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Its not vengeance driven unless you make it that. Legion and Edi are willing to die for what they believe. I honestly think if they have to be the one to make the choice - they would have chosen destroy also.

I believe that not choosing destroy is a direct insult to EDI and the Geth. But thats just me.

Synthesis is just abhorantly disgusting.  Id rather you just choose control instead of genetically raping everyone.

The last conversation with EDI actually confirms what you say there.

Edit: At least the part about sacrifising herself so the Reapers die.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Inb4 Synthesis fallacies.

[jtav]

Does Synthesis seem unpleasant to you from the few seconds we see? Do you have any reason to believe it is unpleasant, particularly? More unpleasant than erasing an entire class of people? I say no. And I will not kill an innocent or ally while other options remain.

And killing the Reapers was never our goal. Let me explain: suppose the Crucible wiped out all life in the galaxy along with the Reapers. Would you not say it's better for the non-spacefaring species to exist another 50k years? For more life to evolve. So no, our goal was to prevent the Reapers from harvesting us. I choose the leasy violent method.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Come at me.

You were the one who basically said that tyranny and dictatorship was a good thing.

I think you came at yourself already.

Slander! Shame on you, Ventus.

[ardias89]

Taboo-XX wrote...

ardias89 wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Its not vengeance driven unless you make it that. Legion and Edi are willing to die for what they believe. I honestly think if they have to be the one to make the choice - they would have chosen destroy also.

I believe that not choosing destroy is a direct insult to EDI and the Geth. But thats just me.

Synthesis is just abhorantly disgusting.  Id rather you just choose control instead of genetically raping everyone.

The last conversation with EDI actually confirms what you say there.

Edit: At least the part about sacrifising herself so the Reapers die.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Inb4 Synthesis fallacies.

Yeah but we can only take make arguments that are in the game or synthesis people go "Blocking and ignoring all information due to things that is not advised to see. Scanning. All information has been found suficient and we have gained no new perspektive. Succes."
Peace