1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Krunjar wrote...

Yeah the rules change when survival is whats on the table all im sayin.

Depends on the mindset of the individual.

Some have the view "It is better to die free, than to live on your knees."

Yeah thats a belief and if you  believe it then by all means pick a different ending  But in my experience especially seeing as we are talking not about the survival of an individual but the survival and possible evolutionary scope of billions ... I am not saying that synthesis is best for everyone or anything like that just that it IS a valid choice. And I reject the idea that conventional morality applies to the situation shepard is in. Don't get me wrong I don't have any fascist tendencies. I support synthesis primarily because of the irrational debates against it. I also like the control and destroy endings. Even the refuse ending was fairly cool.

[OnlyHazeRemains]

The Angry One wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
We do not need the Reapers to achieve cybernetic augmentation and understanding between synthetics and organics.
You want to force it because you fear a future unguided by machine gods.

Quite on the contrary.
I envision  future where organics stand as equals amongst synthetics and the Reapers.

There are no more organics and synthetics in synthesis. You made them the same.

You're just interpreting synthesis in a very subjective and biased way.
I could say youre just not understanding Synthesis at all, but that would be wrong.

Except from EDI herself, whats show to us in the EC is just so insubstantial, placative and incoherent that it completely depends on the viewers interpretation.
Thats the main problem with Synthesis, it can be interpreted in completely different ways and thats why you keep rabbling about it for 18 pages.

[The Angry One]

Xilizhra wrote...

You directly contradict what the narrative implies because of your preference for mass murder and love of the status quo.

Again, I love, LOVE how some will project the Catalyst's crimes onto the Shepards who refuse to cooperate with it.
And yet, the Shepards who bend knee to it have their hands clean, right? Unbelievable.

So what you're saying is that Saren was right and surrender was the only way for anyone to survive? Except, wait, his means were completely different and doomed to failure.

The Catalyst wanted synthesis. Saren wanted synthesis. Nothing says they wouldn't have reached that goal together in the end.

[IscrewTali]

Zelto wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

What is good for the species as a whole takes precedence over individual rights.

Terrifying that you actually believe that.

But it's true. If all humans are taken away the right to own anything using fossil materials, so that Earth would survive, it takes precedence. The only reason this hasnt already happened is due to corrupt governments, and greed. And this is only 1 example of endless examples.

If we took away the right of people to breed because they are pre-disposed to cancers through genetics, because it is the best thing for the species, then we become monsters.

if it becomes a pandemic, YES.

And welcome to the argument for **** steralisation of any undesirables. You do realise thats what you just said right. Extend your argument and disabled people, steralised, people with undesirable physical trates (i.e not Arian) steralised, people with undesirable religion (i.e Jew's) steralised. Congradualions, in the name of humanity you just repeated every atroccity the ****'s ever commited. IMO synsysis is little better than the **** purges.

Comparing a pandemic cancer to religious or or nonfatal physical traits is retarded.

[Carlthestrange]

IscrewTali wrote...
Then it is a vast minority. If most thought this way, there would have never been large scale slavery. As an ideal it is great, but ideals dont win wars, or in this case, defeat the Reapers.

To understand that, you must travel back in history and understand the mindset of the people back then. These people didn't even know what Slavery was. They remained alive, hopeful of freedom one day. When everyone else knew that wasn't going to happen.

Later on, their children are born into slavery. Its all they ever knew. To them it was normal. So they never rebeled. Well, until nations finally abolished slavery.

Times have changed, as has our perception on slavery, freedom, etc.

[CELL55]

McCredie64 wrote...

Because it's a terrible concept, it's like the writers are trying to say that the only way everyone can get along is to make them all the same. Homogenization I believe it's called. For example, it's as if they're telling us the best solution to stopping racism is to make everyone white.

Oh dear Lord, that is the best metaphor ever. Please never stop using it.
 

Modifié par CELL55, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:51 .

[The Angry One]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

You're just interpreting synthesis in a very subjective and biased way.
I could say youre just not understanding Synthesis at all, but that would be wrong.

Except from EDI herself, whats show to us in the EC is just so insubstantial, placative and incoherent that it completely depends on the viewers interpretation.
Thats the main problem with Synthesis, it can be interpreted in completely different ways and thats why you keep rabbling about it for 18 pages.

Except, this is what the game says. Organics will be combined with synthetics. Synthesis. To end the conflict. That's the whole point. That's why it uses Shepard, who is a cyborg, as a template.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:52 .

[Carlthestrange]

Forbry wrote...
My reaction was meant in general, not really in particular towards you and rejecting your opinion wasn't my goal, just giving my opinion was.

Okay then, I can accept that. My apologies if I seemed to fly off the handle.

[translationninja]

You know, I just felt like throwing this in, for those who try to make the "free will" case, you know that there is no "free will" involved in evolution either.

We don't get to pick whether our species will be subjected to whatever triggers a freak mutation.

In that light, one could argue that synthesis is merely a kickstarted form of evolution. Who knows, maybe the races in the ME galaxy themselves were the result of some crucible-like event in some cycle millions of years in the past.

You may resent the notion of Shep/Star Brat/Crucible being the mutation-causing factor at that point in time, but come to think of it, has any species ever gotten a say whether they want to mutate and evolve into something else?

Ah, more philosophical ambiguity.

Wonder if this was the type of "lots of speculation from everyone" they envisioned

[IscrewTali]

Carlthestrange wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...
Then it is a vast minority. If most thought this way, there would have never been large scale slavery. As an ideal it is great, but ideals dont win wars, or in this case, defeat the Reapers.

To understand that, you must travel back in history and understand the mindset of the people back then. These people didn't even know what Slavery was. They remained alive, hopeful of freedom one day. When everyone else knew that wasn't going to happen.

Later on, their children are born into slavery. Its all they ever knew. To them it was normal. So they never rebeled. Well, until nations finally abolished slavery.

Times have changed, as has our perception on slavery, freedom, etc.

And comparing the mindset of the modern human to that of 2186 is also false. Times change.

[Gorkan86]

The Angry One wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

You're just interpreting synthesis in a very subjective and biased way.
I could say youre just not understanding Synthesis at all, but that would be wrong.

Except from EDI herself, whats show to us in the EC is just so insubstantial, placative and incoherent that it completely depends on the viewers interpretation.
Thats the main problem with Synthesis, it can be interpreted in completely different ways and thats why you keep rabbling about it for 18 pages.

Except, this is what the game says. Organics will be combined with synthetics. Synthesis. To end the conflict. That's the whole point. That's why it uses Shepard, who is a cyborg, as a template.

Good thing we left the melting topic.

[Krunjar]

JackumsD wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I don't know who I find scarier, the people who think synthesis is good, or the people who recognise it as the violation it is but promote it's use anyway "for the greater good" and "tough decisions that must be made."

Again, it's sad that Mass Effect of all things is what people can now use to promote these... views.

I don't know what I find sadder. The people who find Refuse intelligent, or the people who recognise it as a total failure but try to justify it with morals and by headcanoning the other endings as something worse.

Ieldra2 wrote...

People invent bad consequences for Synthesis because they are in denial about the fact that something brought about by morally questionable means may actually have a good outcome. It feels bad, thus it must be bad. It's the same when people complaining that Control!Shepard will go insane and reinstate the cycle.

From the EC onward, I like all three main choices. As I see it, whatever you believe -or rather what your Shepard believes - gives the best future for the galaxy, and is the best way for dealing with the Reapers, that it's the option you must take. If you don't, you are not true to yourself.

My thoughts are exactly the same. It's refreshing to meet an objectively thinking member amidst the zealous anti-enders and people headcanoning everything they don't like as bad out of some petulant denial.

I will add my voice to this the endings are fine. Destroy is fine, Control is fine, Synthesis is fine, Even refusal isn't bad. It's time to let it go.

[Ieldra]

Krunjar wrote...
Individual rights have always been sublimated in extreme situations. It's sad but it's also the way the world has to work. Because the universe doesn't care about our morality. That's why even good intentioned politicians must sometimes do evil things. The people at the top have to make the big decisions. So that everyone else can go around believing that the universe is fair and just. And that is what is reflected in the star child he gives you a choice. And making any choice even refusal is by very definition trampling on the rights of everyone not present to voice their opinion. But this is how it has to be because the universe doesn't care about our morality. And even refusing to make a choice IS a choice with it's own consequences. Choosing for everyone is already inevitable from the moment Shepard is given it. It has nothing to do with conventional morality. I don't mind if people want to choose any other ending. They are all fine but stop bashing synthesis! I could just as easily bash the bad points of destroy. Shall I post up a wallpaper with loads of dead geth and a catchy "Does this unit have a soul?" line for those who love destroy?

Yeah. I've said from day one that all endings are supposed to be good endings in their own rights. I'd rather people support their own choices by telling us how it's a good choice instead of bashing the others.

[Carlthestrange]

IscrewTali wrote...

And comparing the mindset of the modern human to that of 2186 is also false. Times change.

Not really. Just look at how the Batarians treated slaves. Would you shoot yourself in the head rather than have a batarian bore a slave collar into your brain?

Besides, the game was made NOW. So the humans have the mindset of now. So your argument doesn't work there.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

If you have an issue with what I say, take it up with me and don't me too onto a pic spammer that I ignore due to his harassment issues. It makes it appear like you have no argument.

Harassment issues? I constantly respond to your arguments with valid points. You respond until I question where your evidence is, then you stop replying. Ad hominem some more.

This is the only time I will respond to you.
In this entire topic, you have responded with nothing but insults and pic spams, and have done so in several others after your arguments were defeated. You have been suitably reported. Good day, continue if you want but I won't respond to your provocations again.

Again, how responding to your arguments on the topic are considered "harassment", I don't know. Multiple times have I supplied valid, canon-based refutes to your points in this thread. It's on-topic and flame-free, so your attempts at labeling me have failed. If you lack evidence for you claims, you need only say so.

[Xilizhra]

Again, I love, LOVE how some will project the Catalyst's crimes onto the Shepards who refuse to cooperate with it.
And yet, the Shepards who bend knee to it have their hands clean, right? Unbelievable.

The state of Shepard's hands is utterly irrelevant. Only the state of the galaxy matters. And the fact that Shepard doesn't personally kill everyone in Refusal doesn't make them any less dead, or change the fact that Shepard could have saved them but didn't. Any Shepard who cares more about personal "honor" than the lives of trillions is an idiot fanatic who shouldn't even be running a war, just dying in a trench where they don't have to make the decisions they're clearly incapable of making.

The Catalyst wanted synthesis. Saren wanted synthesis. Nothing says they wouldn't have reached that goal together in the end.

The Catalyst wanted Synthesis in ME3; in ME1, it seemed to still want to continue the cycle. Synthesis back then seems unlikely, especially without the Crucible.

[Forbry]

The Angry One wrote...

 

Everything I have said is shown in the game, you simply want to interpret it differently.

Really, this is just plain and pure BS. That's a shame, because overall you really don't come across that stupid. Stop writing and start thinking for a moment. Real thinking, you know with an open mind and alike. You're really making things up here and there. Things NOT shown in the game, not even the slightest glimpse of it.

[ghost9191]

translationninja wrote...

You know, I just felt like throwing this in, for those who try to make the "free will" case, you know that there is no "free will" involved in evolution either.

We don't get to pick whether our species will be subjected to whatever triggers a freak mutation.

In that light, one could argue that synthesis is merely a kickstarted form of evolution. Who knows, maybe the races in the ME galaxy themselves were the result of some crucible-like event in some cycle millions of years in the past.

You may resent the notion of Shep/Star Brat/Crucible being the mutation-causing factor at that point in time, but come to think of it, has any species ever gotten a say whether they want to mutate and evolve into something else?

Ah, more philosophical ambiguity.

Wonder if this was the type of "lots of speculation from everyone" they envisioned

there are many paths to the same end, synthesis end is forced on you, it isn't natural. i get it but it is forced on you, you don't adapt overtime to overcome something, when you select synthesis you throw evolution out the window

[Zelto]

IscrewTali wrote...

Comparing a pandemic cancer to religious or or nonfatal physical traits is retarded.

No its a direct extension of your argument. Simple fact is if you start down that path, then there is no end untill every little unwelcome aspect is removed. Cancer may kill you, sever physical disability without external help will kill you.

If you want to be cold and clinical, cancer kills but you will be usefull for a time, sever physical or mental disability and you are not ever going to be useful. So steralise to stop cancer, then steralise to stop sever physical and mental disabilities aswell right...
Give one reason why you think that there is any difference at all.

And once you are there, well its a short jump to more trivial disorders, learning disabilities, minor physical disabilities, then onto cosmetic... end of the day it leads to something very similar to the ****'s and pol pot.
(Please note, what I'm saying is not my personal opinion)

[IscrewTali]

It is possible to make a valid, good game/movie based on a world after the event from all 3 Crucible endings. Great potential if you ask me.

[ghost9191]

Xilizhra wrote...

Again, I love, LOVE how some will project the Catalyst's crimes onto the Shepards who refuse to cooperate with it.
And yet, the Shepards who bend knee to it have their hands clean, right? Unbelievable.

The state of Shepard's hands is utterly irrelevant. Only the state of the galaxy matters. And the fact that Shepard doesn't personally kill everyone in Refusal doesn't make them any less dead, or change the fact that Shepard could have saved them but didn't. Any Shepard who cares more about personal "honor" than the lives of trillions is an idiot fanatic who shouldn't even be running a war, just dying in a trench where they don't have to make the decisions they're clearly incapable of making.

The Catalyst wanted synthesis. Saren wanted synthesis. Nothing says they wouldn't have reached that goal together in the end.

The Catalyst wanted Synthesis in ME3; in ME1, it seemed to still want to continue the cycle. Synthesis back then seems unlikely, especially without the Crucible.

well maybe by metagaming synthesis might seem good, ends justify the means, not saying it is though. But in the moment there is nothing that would make me think it is best option

and that just raises more questions about the crucible, like how it makes synthesis possible and what not

[Carlthestrange]

IscrewTali wrote...

It is possible to make a valid, good game/movie based on a world after the event from all 3 Crucible endings. Great potential if you ask me.

I'd rather not see a ME movie even if the series is good. Besides, i'm yet to see a -good- video game movie conversion.

But regardless, straying off topic. Sorry 'bout that.

[Forbry]

ghost9191 wrote...

well can't we just agree that all endings are bad in there own way, if you want to do the least dmg go with control , but it is the only one that doesn't talk about a better future.

In both destroy and synthesis hacket and edi both say that we can achieve a future far greater then anyone can imagine. i see destroy as hope for the future, our own future. whereas synthesis is a future that the catalyst feels is the best, and i mean by that that teh reaper believe synthesis to be the peak of evolution. But the problem for me is it blinds ppl to alternative paths.

control seems like a keep it the way it is, no advancing really just reapers playing daddy for all the galaxy, and well refusal is for those who wish not to sacrifice their ideals.

in short they are all crappy options, none can be justified , not really. all have a sacrifice that comes with it, well besides control but again that is iffy

I can agree with that, sir!

[Jackums]

Krunjar wrote...

I will add my voice to this the endings are fine. Destroy is fine, Control is fine, Synthesis is fine, Even refusal isn't bad. It's time to let it go.

I agree that they're all valid, though I've yet to see any convincing argument for Refuse. The Crucible is just used to defeat the Reapers in a later cycle, therefore those who select Refuse are effectively ending trillions of lives for no reason.

Though I do find people get too caught up in the speculation of potential future outcomes beyond the Reapers.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
Their choice.

They won't choose to be left behind. They will have to be upgraded because it will be the only of being employed.

A husk by any other name.

An husk capable of speech, phylosophical tought, reproduction, achitecture...a person?

No. Seriously. No. As sapient species the right of the individual is paramount.
Otherwise we might as well be a dictatorship. Or a collective. Or a Reaper.

Yes, do you know what else limits the freedom of individuals? Laws but we can't exactly abolish those.
What favors the species as a whole must take precedence over the individual.

It ends in all 3 choices. Yet, it specifically mentions it here? Why? Because it's talking about the cycle of organics and synthetics.

Because it is the only ending where we are not sure what will happen to the Reapers. It is speaking of the Cycle of Preservation since there is no cycle of synthetic vs organic conflict. Synthetics, win, organics are extinct. Simple.

While Reapers happily stomp around perfectly docile people. No conflict and no issues. Yeah, right.

The Destroy ending does not show any resentment towards salarians for not assisting with the war effort. Should we assume they were all brainwashed to forgive them or simply that Bioware chose not to include bleakness because happy costumers tend to complain less?

Irrelevant. The fact remains, achieving peace was it's directive. Organic life was not in danger, it's creators were simply tired of conflict.

And how do you know organic life wasn't in danger?

Technical genocide =! actual genocide.

Also, stop with this Reaper nonsense. I've had enough. It's nonsense.
The civilisations used to construct Reapers are DEAD. You can no more commit genocide on a Reaper because of it's construction material than you are commiting murder on a dinosaur because you blow up a car that's using fossil fuel.

Genocide is genocide.

A fossil can't speak or reason. A Reaper can. It is alive.

Eugenics.

More fallacy by association?
What now? The National Socialists?