406 réponses à ce sujet

[Hackulator]

bump, needs more votes

[Spartas Husky]

Just voted

[Moirai]

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

[Hackulator]

Moirai wrote...

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

The question is, if that is what you think about the Catalyst, why would you believe him when he tells you how to destroy the reapers? Isn't he obviously lying about that?

[Vigilant111]

Hackulator wrote...

Moirai wrote...

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

The question is, if that is what you think about the Catalyst, why would you believe him when he tells you how to destroy the reapers? Isn't he obviously lying about that?

The difference is, I do not believe one word it said, but I am gambling don't u see? If I get screwed, then its IT, the war continues, if destroy indeed did destroy reapers, then its a "win", if I choose other options and the Catalyst is lying then I am screwed again, if Catalyst wasn't lying, it will still take a long time to prove if the Catalyst is right and the Catalyst is clearly NOT right, so take your pick

[Moirai]

Hackulator wrote...

Moirai wrote...

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

The question is, if that is what you think about the Catalyst, why would you believe him when he tells you how to destroy the reapers? Isn't he obviously lying about that?

A valid question.

However, my implication wasn't that he/it is lying, full stop. Only that he is not trying to hard sell Shepard  the Synthesis option purely because it's in our best interests. Bear in mind that both he/it and the Reapers continue to exist under that choice.

Destroy has tangible consequences. With Synthesis, and Control, the full consequences are completely unknown without a considerable period of time passing, and I doubt you can change your mind after the fact.

The point being, how far do you trust an AI in choosing something that is apparently in your best interests long-term, after he/it has already attempted to convince you that slaughtering you en masse was in your best interests as well?

Personally, I don't feel that is a basis for instilling trust in choosing an option that fundamentally changes something as important as the evolutionary development of every species in the galaxy.

If the Catalyst were a salesman, he'd be the most inept salesman ever.

It's like a thief trying to sell you a burglar alarm as an alternative to him breaking into your home and stealing from you.

Would you trust him that the alarm actually worked properly...? [rhetorical]

Modifié par Moirai, 30 juin 2012 - 07:44 .

[Shadowvalker]

To me choosing synthesis is taking side opposite of evolution - a fight against nature. Synthesis is the ultimate fight against natural selection - a war on evolution it self.

Even if it is as stated by starbrat that it is the final state of life then it to me can't be the way forward - For my part I do like the journey it self when ever I decide to move from one place to another.
The destination may be the goal but it is the journey from which I learn and grow as a person. I make mistakes - from which I learn - pain - shame - knowlege - joy - sadness - etc.
Being handed all the answers is a hollow victory - like cheating on an exam. You haven't learned anything - you haven't earned anything besides mistrust and you have shown you have no respect of it.

Regarding the control option then I have a bad feeling: if I can be turned into the "core program" that controls the reapers then someone else also can do this - if this next person has other values - values of lesser kindness then I would state that the consequences are NOT predictable as other might think.

Besides reapers are made from living beings, essens of life form species long dead - my moral is of such a make that I think they have "earned" the right to som rest now - their time is over. I would like to state I am NOT a religious person. But I do recognize that if I am dead - my time is over - others must step up and take the steering wheel.

[Caenis]

 Yes I would choose Synthesis. Actually if it were me and NOT Shepard I would choose either Control or Synthesis, because:

• I have a god complex, and the thought of ruling over humanity as I see fit would be pretty cool to me (BOW DOWN to your HOLINESS hehe doesn't work in real life). In a way that's why I play games. For my Ego, I'm the center of the universe, saving the day, kicking butt and taking names---in real life, it's usually me who is most likely to get my ass kicked because there's always someone more powerful than you...soooo Games feeds the primitive part of me that wnats Power.
• I would choose Synthesis because I have a problem with authority figures, and ideally a world where everyone is smart enough and connected enough to make decisions for themselvvves without compromising "Freedom" in exchange for "Security" and Big Brother...well that'd be the perfect world for me. It's a "Technological Utopia" which I'm all for at least until the next "Atlantis", something to work for and experiment in this life I suppose before something like "Fallout" happens.

<-- (formatting messed up new paragraph) --->

But yeah Shepard has my premission to use Synthesis, better than a global genocide, which I would NEVER approve, not for any group in humanity and not for A.I's. Refusal well, sure someone else gets to live in a future generation, BUT I'd feel like I failed my people. Control is out as a choice I would let Shepard choose, "Power corrupts", so Synthesis is the only viable option as it IS Utopia, albeit Techno Utopia, which fits in with the SCI FI theme and modern philosophies and predictions related to the current trend that "Technology will lead us to Glory".

Modifié par Caenis, 30 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[MegaSovereign]

s8383783 wrote...

Mckay91 wrote...

Hmmm... Access to infinite knowledge spanning the entire course of Galactic History, borderline immortality and a free life. Or a violent death, most likely being turned into a Husk.

I can see why people are struggling with the choice.

Don't you realise?! People will lose their "individuality"! We'll all be the same green eyed-rash having beings! 

My dream girl has green eyes.

Mmmmmm mmm

[Uncle Jo]

NO.

[Versus Omnibus]

If it means peace then I would say yes. Synthesis doesn't turn you into a Husk, and anybody who believe it does are just being negative and are ilinformed.

[Skyhawk02]

I want to point out (in case someone hasn't already) that in the context of the game, the Catalyst says that Synthesis won't work if people don't want it. Also, in the Extended Cut Epilogue, we see clear evidence that the people did want it. I just wanted to point that out since the companion poll is a little misleading in that regard.

This was a great idea for a poll!

[Redbelle]

MegaSovereign wrote...

s8383783 wrote...

Mckay91 wrote...

Hmmm... Access to infinite knowledge spanning the entire course of Galactic History, borderline immortality and a free life. Or a violent death, most likely being turned into a Husk.

I can see why people are struggling with the choice.

Don't you realise?! People will lose their "individuality"! We'll all be the same green eyed-rash having beings! 

My dream girl has green eyes.

Mmmmmm mmm

I think that 'to lose their individuality' is a statement that needs further context. Yes synth alters the individual, but not in the way that their genes lose the ability to express themselves through, as an example, different hair or skin colour.

However their is also the self, i.e. personality that could also be affected....... and this I think holds a deeper consequence by going synth.

Let's think about this for a moment. Everyone get's synthed and war/disagreements are a thing of the past. Really? Disagreements are fought over many more things than simple genetic compatibilty. The organics of ME have been fighting, arguing or genophaging each other for centuries.

The catalyst's goal was to prevent Synthetics from fighting Organics on the basis that Organics would lose, be wiped from the galaxy and Synthetics would take their place, thereby losing biological variety. His solution, that basically equates to burning down a forest so all that biomass becomes available to new seeds, then gets upgraded to making everything Org/synth. Thereby eliminating any reason for conflict...........

..........How does this eliminate conflict as Organic life has shown itself capable of conflict? Two posiibilities.

1. At a point in the future there will/will not be a conflict between org/synth life and we just didn't get shown it in the epologue, or

2. The mindset of all those synthed has been altered so that conflict is no longer viewed as a viable alternative in liu of the possibilities now open to them having been synthed. I.e. Reapers knowledge. Or

2.a. Same as 2 except this happens because of a some induced change in mentality.

By synthing the galaxy the Cat may have stopped the most serious and potentially fatal result of org's going extinct....... but the nature of conflict, i.e. 2 opposing view points that can not be resolved peacefully, still remains, as does a single species going extinct. But what the hey! At least if one species drops dead the others will still be Org/Synth hybrids.

Modifié par Redbelle, 30 juin 2012 - 03:29 .

[3DandBeyond]

Moirai wrote...

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

This is so right.  Synthesis and Control are still based upon the perceived need to solve a problem that is being perpetuated by the being that most wants Synthesis.  He may not have come up with those choices, but their existence are in response to his flawed logic and his flawed existence.  They are both the choices of a child or the reaction to children that cannot get along.  They both also seek to keep the children immature.  Even reject falls into this because the way they created it says that Shepard's too stupid to decide so DIE. 

Synthesis and Control are two immature ideas.  They are like the solutions of a too busy parent.  One is also forcibly invasive with no implied or given consent.  They both indicate that people cannot be trusted to either do anything for themselves or to mature in ways that are beneficial.  One also uses the flawed idea that perfection is a goal, attainable, and achieved through tech.  No it isn't on all counts.  One is the godhood of one individual (and it is ominous as presented), and it also means that people are incapable of doing anything on their own.  They can't fix or create things like relays and they certainly would be unable to fend off any other threat to the galaxy, even if they have proven currently that they can work together and achieve many things.  Even though they have proven they could destroy the biggest threat to date.

Destroy becomes the choice of the adult.  It's the one with the highest cost and potentially the biggest payoff, and I don't mean that gasp.

Destroy also has something Synthesis does not, implied and even stated consent.  EDI said she would die for the crew of the Normandy.  It tore me apart for this to happen.  Legion showed that the geth could choose death as sacrifice too.  But furthermore destroy is the one thing everyone wanted to do.  It was always thought to be a suicide mission.  And it was even what Shepard was ordered to do.

It's not a renegade option at all, because it isn't something done lightly and it carries the biggest dire consequences.  But, the bad things that it makes happen are also good things in the long run for the galaxy.  Destroy gets rid of the reapers.  They will not be there to fix or to protect or to create anything.  Their tech that has allowed civilizations to limp along under someone else's knowledge will most likely be gone or not be working.  For the first time since the kid and reapers have been in existence, the galaxy will be truly on its own and will sink or swim on its own merits.  It is the ultimate decision that leads to self-determination.  It is similar to EDI becoming unshackled, and the geth becoming alive.  It also horribly means they must be sacrificed, but in some ways this too is important.  The quarians must learn on their own without the geth as sentient servants or as the foe they hid behind as keeping them from becoming something better than they were-their excuse for everything. 

And yes, Shepard can live, but only because it is necessary.  Shepard, in this brave new galaxy will be needed more than ever not as an overseer god, but as a human that is a force for good and example of how to be and how to act and what can be accomplished if you are willing to think and do things for a reason and not expediency.  This is why Destroy, as awful as it is is the Paragon option.  You can't choose it without thinking and it is the one that most pains Shepard's heart and soul, because it is the only one that allows Shepard to remain Shepard.  It is the only one that allows people to progress the way they should have done all along.

[Uncle Jo]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

If it means peace then I would say yes. Synthesis doesn't turn you into a Husk, and anybody who believe it does are just being negative and are ilinformed.

It's not the problem of being turned into a husk or not (with the EC, it's clearly not the case), it's the problem of free will. You can't change me without asking me before. You have no right to decide what is good or bad for me. To dictate my fate. I take my own decisions and determine my own path. Not you.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 30 juin 2012 - 04:21 .

[Redbelle]

Moirai wrote...

I would not, no. And I disagree strongly with the Synthesis option as a whole.

As I've mentioned elsewhere:

Synthesis, like Control, is just a bad idea. Unlike Destroy, neither of them have any tangible consequences to them. You have to base your entire judgement of the benefits and downsides of such changes purely on the word of an arguably psychotic AI who thinks that murdering you in your trillions is a legitimate course of action and is in your best interests.

So, would I genetically violate every species in the galaxy based on what I'm told by the very same AI, who has just used broken logic and presented no evidence to justify that slaughter...?

You have got to be kidding me...

The thing is........ and this is based on environmental theory........ killing the advanced races who could make AI does make sense. It is the logic pathway of having one problem and coming up with one solution.

Now before I saw this branch I'm hanging off from behind me, consider this. The Cat was given a probelm and told to come up with a solution........ and that's it. No criteria such as, 'don't make sentient robot ships made out of the pureed corpses of advanced races'.  Just a straight forward, 'here is the problem, what is the best solution?'

If only the 1st race had programmed a sliver of understanding as to organic life tendency to preserve itself in it's own form the Cat may not have constructed a plan that marginalised the basic rights of all living races that may equate to the bill of human rights we have today.

The reason why the Cat's solution to the problem is so problematic is that it ignores the problems that it's solution will cause...... because it was never programmed to consider those problems as being detrimental to the life it was trying to preserve. The additional problems created by the solution are merely a by product of the solution itself which answers the intial problem. Or to put it another way.......... It's first priority is to take care of the problem is was given to solve by any method that results in a solution......... it's second priority? See first priority.......... it's third....... etc etc.

The other reason why the Cat's logic is so warped is that is has no empathy. No logic pathway that says 'If you reach this point.......... Stop!'

Lemme put it this way. When we burn down a forest to release biomass and permit seeds that require extreme temperatures to being viable for germination........... do, we care? Do we wring our hands and wail over the loss of tree life and the wildlife that get's caught in the blaze? Or do we closely monitor the situation so that a controlled burn does not esculate into a wildfire?

This is the Cat's perspective........ Our's is shock and horrer but the Cat........ this is just another day at the office and any protestations are deemed as of secondary concern to the task at hand. The Cat lacks the empathy of a living being.

Which in itself is an argument for pro control as Shep has this capacity. He may be an overlord who get's to decide what is right and wrong.......... but his empathy should make him open to arguments for and against............. unless like the Catalyst he is also set on a fixed solution to a problem that could see problems arise around the solution as time moves forward and species wants and needs alter the situation that made Shep becoming the Catalyst neccessary.

Modifié par Redbelle, 30 juin 2012 - 04:27 .

[ArchDuck]

Really who would give permission to a plan entirely created by the greatest murder in all history, the Overlord of your most recent, most deadly enemies... who is currently trying to exterminate you? Oh and its going to be implemented by him and his structure too, we just hooked up the generator.

If you view it from an in game universe perspective, no rational being would say "yes" to it (without metagaming).

Modifié par ArchDuck, 30 juin 2012 - 04:21 .

[Hackulator]

ArchDuck wrote...

Really who would give permission to a plan entirely created by the greatest murder in all history, the Overlord of your most recent, most deadly enemies... who is currently trying to exterminate you? Oh and its going to be implemented by him and his structure too, we just hooked up the generator.

If you view it from an in game universe perspective, no rational being would say "yes" to it (without metagaming).

The plan is created by every cycle that has come before working together to create the Crucible. The Catalyst only says it once tried a SIMILAR option. All the choices come from the Crucible, not the Catalyst.

Also, needs more votes.

[3DandBeyond]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

If it means peace then I would say yes. Synthesis doesn't turn you into a Husk, and anybody who believe it does are just being negative and are ilinformed.

It's not the problem of being turned into a husk or not (with the EC, it's clearly not the case), it's the problem of free will. You can't change me without asking me before. You have no right to decide what is good or bad for me. To dictate my fate. I take my own decisions and determine my own path. Not you.

Exactly, Shepard was never given permission for this.  In fact, the goal only ever was to destroy the reapers.  If you could use conjecture here and say this is real life, I wouldn't want it, but it is being forced on me.  I'd rather die.  I want to remain human.  Consider just how serioiusly people even take their citizenship.  They are willing to die for that.  If you told some people they had the choice of not being American, or French, Australian, or whatever, and dying, there are many that would choose death.  Many wouldn't and others would be happy about that.  With Synthesis if even one person wouldn't want it, it is wrong.

Even if Synthesis and sure death were the only options (I don't know what you get with really low EMS), the call isn't easy and Synthesis is not a call for Shepard to make.

You can even say that Destroy is what Shepard was ordered to do-I do say it.  That was why they were building the Crucible.  If there was another really viable alternative that is better then there might be leeway, but really Destroy is there and is viable.  Synthesis is not allowable and is forcibly invading other's bodies without consent.  Control has other problems.

[Versus Omnibus]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

If it means peace then I would say yes. Synthesis doesn't turn you into a Husk, and anybody who believe it does are just being negative and are ilinformed.

It's not the problem of being turned into a husk or not (with the EC, it's clearly not the case), it's the problem of free will. You can't change me without asking me before. You have no right to decide what is good or bad for me. To dictate my fate. I take my own decisions and determine my own path. Not you.

I'm not saying forcing it on the galaxy is a good thing; just that people saying synthesis turns them into Reapers or Husks is incorrect.

Is forcing synthesis on everybody wrong? Yes.
Are any of the other choices any better? That depends on who you ask.

All of the choices lead to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario but in my opinion Synthesis offers the best future for the galaxy.

[3DandBeyond]

Hackulator wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

Really who would give permission to a plan entirely created by the greatest murder in all history, the Overlord of your most recent, most deadly enemies... who is currently trying to exterminate you? Oh and its going to be implemented by him and his structure too, we just hooked up the generator.

If you view it from an in game universe perspective, no rational being would say "yes" to it (without metagaming).

The plan is created by every cycle that has come before working together to create the Crucible. The Catalyst only says it once tried a SIMILAR option. All the choices come from the Crucible, not the Catalyst.

Also, needs more votes.

No one knows where the crucible's plans originated from.  The choices given are solutions to a problem posited by the kid that he interpreted from his directive.  This problem is flawed and has no credibility in the current cycle, because such a fatalistic view of things has been shown not to rely on fate, but could be avoided with a common purpose and communication.  The problem then becomes not of fixing what the kid sees as wrong, but in fixing what is really wrong-the kid and the reapers. 

The kid is perpetuating an issue that may have not even been a problem-something his creators wanted to keep from happening, but that did not exist.  The kid actually created the problem by turning on his creators and so now he seeks a solution to himself.  And Synthesis is his idea of a solution.  He says he tried it but it couldn't be forced.  But it's a response to a problem that is HIM.  Get rid of him and his reapers and there's no more problem.  People can sink or swim on their own, find their own way, grow, achieve, learn, on their own.  And so what if synthetics try to kill organics in the future.  It is what it is.  It means that people chose their own fate, did the best they could, and well maybe they failed.  I don't see that as a certainty, but I do see that killing the synthetics that are killing organics NOW must die along with their nutty leader.

[Uncle Jo]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Is forcing synthesis on everybody wrong? Yes.
Are any of the other choices any better? That depends on who you ask.

All of the choices lead to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario but in my opinion Synthesis offers the best future for the galaxy.

I wrote quite a lot about synthesis and I don't want to quote myself once again. So if you're interested on my thoughts about it, I'll simply give you this link : social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12885661/5.
That's my stance over this option. Please don't take it as offense, but as I said I don't want to bring a wall of text and repeat the same things in every threads over again.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 30 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[Hackulator]

Need more votes

[The Night Mammoth]

roryw2203 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

You believe in synthesis.... u didn't pay attention to any of the game at all. Plus you believe in eugenics which is just disgusting.

So you equal eugenics to synthesis and tell us we didn't pay attention to the game.

LOL

Well.......... Synthesis is essentially eugenics. 

Eugenics is the forced sterilisation or mass murder of those whose genetic traits are 'undesirable'.  

Not it's not. 

It's simply the forced improvement of a population's genetics or gene-pool. 

The methods to achieve that are obviously many. 

Synthesis directly alters the genetics of everything in the galaxy to foricbly improve them. It IS eugenics. 

It's not an inherently negative thing, but since it's forced from a very sketchy position with unknown effects, you can surely see how some might take issue with it. 

[roryw2203]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

roryw2203 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

You believe in synthesis.... u didn't pay attention to any of the game at all. Plus you believe in eugenics which is just disgusting.

So you equal eugenics to synthesis and tell us we didn't pay attention to the game.

LOL

Well.......... Synthesis is essentially eugenics. 

Eugenics is the forced sterilisation or mass murder of those whose genetic traits are 'undesirable'.  

Not it's not. 

It's simply the forced improvement of a population's genetics or gene-pool. 

The methods to achieve that are obviously many. 

Synthesis directly alters the genetics of everything in the galaxy to foricbly improve them. It IS eugenics. 

It's not an inherently negative thing, but since it's forced from a very sketchy position with unknown effects, you can surely see how some might take issue with it. 

And how do you think they forced the improvement of a population's gene-pool back when eugenics was created in the 20s or 30s?  They forcibly sterilised those whose genes were considered to be 'undesirable', they didn't just force people with 'desirable' genes to procreate, they attempted to eliminate the possibility of 'bad' genes mixing further into the population.

Wasn't much genetic engineering at the time I'm afraid.

Modifié par roryw2203, 30 juin 2012 - 10:01 .