381 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Uh, how can you say that killing the reapers was never our goal? What was your mission?

Admiral Hackett: "Dead Reapers is how we end this."
Admiral Anderson: "Dead Reapers is how we end this."

These are your superior officers. You are an Alliance officer. You report apparently directly to Admiral Hackett. This is your mission: Find a way to kill the reapers. You are a Spectre which gives you access to other resources.

This might be an alien concept to you, but some Shepards have a mind of their own.

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Then why is a technological singularity a problem? If organic life isn't inherently better why should you care if it might be replaced by synthetic life sometime in the future? 

Because I'm organic and we side with what is similar.

Then why do you support replacing all organic life with these "hybrids?" You want to save organic life by eliminating it?

I want to save organic life by improving it. Synthetic upgrades can be, objectivelly, determined as good. I'm not interested in "organic purity" in the sligthest.

Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Then why is a technological singularity a problem? If organic life isn't inherently better why should you care if it might be replaced by synthetic life sometime in the future? 

Because I'm organic and we side with what is similar.

Then why do you support replacing all organic life with these "hybrids?" You want to save organic life by eliminating it?

I want to save organic life by improving it. Synthetic upgrades can be, objectivelly, determined as good. I'm not interested in "organic purity" in the sligthest.

Okay then. 

I'm going to replace your eyes with machine lenses, like a camera, and place a third arm with two thumbs on your forehead. 

Would you consent to this? 

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically choose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

Modifié par iAFKinMassEffect3, 16 juin 2012 - 08:57 .

[o Ventus]

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically chose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

It isn't hypocritical at all.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically chose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

It isn't hypocritical at all.

Don't worry, your newly synthesized penis is WAY cool.

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

That will be their choice and it is likely inevitable even without Synthesis. At least, this way, it will be a technological singularity that will benefit  us.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

That will be their choice and it is likely inevitable even without Synthesis.

Conjecture.

At least, this way, it will be a technological singularity that will benefit  us.

A technological singularity will already benefit us, so why do I need synthesis? 

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

It isn't going to happen in the near future.

Stop bull****ting me.

Oh please. The tacked-on Stargazer scene is hardly evidence of ANYTHING. We have no information on what's going on.

How about if I use it as evidence that people post-synthesis are functioning completely the same way they would pre-synth, and therefore, proves that it was not a terrible/traumatic change - would you accept it?

The Stargazer scene is there to canonize ALL Shepards. Or were you not paying attention?

Not true, it only appears if imported or NG+

That's why it's there. People who are importing ARE canonizing their Shepards. Do you understand?

Yes in that light I do, it's when you say ALL Shepards that I got confused. What you meant was, The stargazer scene is there for canonized Shepards?

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

That will be their choice and it is likely inevitable even without Synthesis. At least, this way, it will be a technological singularity that will benefit  us.

Are you psychic? How do you know?

What am I thinking about at this point in time?

[MisterJB]

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically choose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

Abominations? Is Shepard an abomination too, because he is the template for Synthesis.

[jstme]

]MisterJB wrote...

I think your Shepard is wrong. Altough its methods were brutal, the Catalyst might have saved organic life. Its motives mittigates its crime.

Lol. Catalyst the saviour. Saved organic life. Hahaha. No, this is gold. I start to understand why you like green ending, i really do.
Catalyst is paranoid murderer. The problem he seeks to solve does not exist in ME universe, because there was organic life prior to King Catalyst The Saviour. 
 

 
The Citadel is destroyed. That is a reason to assume it's gone.
It could have survived, sure.

Last breath scene in "most violent" destroy ending. Parts of citadel survive in twitterland. Shall i say more? 

  
There is nothing innherently good about a pure organic, nothing that makes its existence worthier than that of an hybrid.
Life is changed, yes, but I interpreted as the organic species being given synthetic upgrades that will enable us to compete with synthetics thus ensuring our survival. I saw it this way because of the original script that mentioned a technological singularity, not rebellious synthetics.

It is not about being better or worse. It is about right to enjoy existing as is. For individuals and tenfolds for species and hundredfolds for form of existense.
As for upgrades and competing against synthetics - it is called cyborg. No need to merge DNA, and certainly no need to stuff implants into a tree to make it compete with,say, Geth.
You have to understand, Catalyst looks for solutions to organics creating synthetics and on and on problem. So in green ending it removes organic life. In destroy it removes the reapers. In control it keeps the same system only with different Catalyst.

I never understood this. Freedom to kill ourselves, to commit our species to extinction? How is this good when there are other options?
And the children will be the first to go. They are weaker. I expect the female krogan will eat theirs, for instance.

Freedom - is freedom to do good and bad. Extinction of organic life is green ending, famine and destruction left by war is a mere obstacle that will be overcome eventually. There will be kids and there will be hope. 

Unless Synthesis creates immortality and invicibility, reproduction is still necessary.
And, even if what you speak was true, Henry Lawson proved children can just be created.

This is my speculation, i am willing to accept that we see it this way. But an organism that can plug in implants on will ,will be immortal. And the technology capable to create kids does not need that there will be a will to create kids.

People have free will and whatever will happen, happens on their terms.
Besides, that might be where we are headed, even without Synthesis.

And exactly the opposite to free will happens in synthesis.
Green ending removes free will, this is the whole point. Individual deciding to go on this path - is totally fine. Forcing all living creatures that now walk on other paths and are completely satisfied with it,to now be on the green highway - is removing free will.
As for our future, yes i believe it is our future. We will not take butterflies, fish, oak and ctr with us though. Green ending is horrible because it sweeps all the organic life that is enojoying its existance as it is and does not wish to be improved, only left alone. Digitalised leaves is beyond wrong.

Modifié par jstme, 16 juin 2012 - 09:06 .

[Taboo]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Yes in that light I do, it's when you say ALL Shepards that I got confused. What you meant was, The stargazer scene is there for canonized Shepards?

Yes. Exactly. It means you succeeded. It means nothing to the people who aren't going to import or play through again with the same character.

New Players for instance.

[DarkBladeX98]

I told people for three games I'd destroy the Reapers. I'm a man of my word.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

That will be their choice and it is likely inevitable even without Synthesis. At least, this way, it will be a technological singularity that will benefit  us.

Are you psychic? How do you know?

What am I thinking about at this point in time?

I know what you're thinking about.

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

That will be their choice and it is likely inevitable even without Synthesis. At least, this way, it will be a technological singularity that will benefit  us.

So a technological singularity was bad, but now it's good? You just said you wanted to save organics and this would eliminate all organic life.

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically choose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

Abominations? Is Shepard an abomination too, because he is the template for Synthesis.

So Shepard has circuit boards under his skin now?

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
So a technological singularity was bad, but now it's good? You just said you wanted to save organics and this would eliminate all organic life.

If the geth achieve technological singularity, then it's our extinction. Humans replacing body parts with synthetic parts could be seen as such but I disagree.

[moater boat]

tekkaman fear wrote...

Hopes OP is never the spear of a galactic resistance war.

Or placed in any position where difficult decisions must be made, and unfair sacrifices must be asked of others.

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically chose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

It isn't hypocritical at all.

Don't worry, your newly synthesized penis is WAY cool.

That's the thing, there are ethical issues associated with both sides, if you disagree then you're wrong because it's just plain fact. The only thing that makes one more tempting than the other for most people is that they can have a metal penis. Although being a female I really don't see the plus side of that, boys are horny enough without having to be 'hard' permanently.

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
So a technological singularity was bad, but now it's good? You just said you wanted to save organics and this would eliminate all organic life.

If the geth achieve technological singularity, then it's our extinction. Humans replacing body parts with synthetic parts could be seen as such but I disagree.

Then let us do that ourselves. There's no reason to cause a change to our DNA. That takes the choice out of it entirely.

[Taboo]

I don't think I like the idea of a synthesized vagina.

Also, depending on the woman...

Oh my.....

No, I like my vaginas as they are right now.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Yes in that light I do, it's when you say ALL Shepards that I got confused. What you meant was, The stargazer scene is there for canonized Shepards?

Yes. Exactly. It means you succeeded. It means nothing to the people who aren't going to import or play through again with the same character.

New Players for instance.

Which could be argued that the endings are there for at face value, to appease the 'new players'.

Edit: I'm glad we are in agreeance^

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 16 juin 2012 - 09:10 .

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
So a technological singularity was bad, but now it's good? You just said you wanted to save organics and this would eliminate all organic life.

If the geth achieve technological singularity, then it's our extinction.

That's hilarious. 

What's the meaning of the second word in the phrase 'technological singularity'? 

What does the phrase itself mean? 

You seem to have forgotten, and are using it as an explanation despite the Catalyst not actually talking about it. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 16 juin 2012 - 09:10 .

[Han Shot First]

Destroy is the only ending that actually guarantees that the Reapers won't at some point return to old habits, as it is the only ending that actually kills the Reapers. In the other two endings the Reapers survive, running the risk that the galaxy will never truly be safe from them.

I choose destroy every time because it is the only ending that feels like a victory. The other two at best are stalemate endings.

It also doesn't turn Shepard into a Reaper (a horrifying end for the hero) or turn every sapient creature in the galaxy into an cyborg, which are also major points in favor of the Red Ending for me.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 16 juin 2012 - 09:10 .