1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Kalundume]

I am, against synthesis ending, because it is pure space magic, pure deus ex machina delusional stupidity that does not match at all ME setting and a common sense. Even in EC, I pretend that "synthesis" ending does not exist or that it is a reaper indoctrination ...

[The Angry One]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Shepard doesn't know they'll die. Shepard only knows she must resist the Reapers as she always has before.
If in the end we die fighting them, at least we died trying to stop them. Not bowing down to them.
Was Shepard a fanatic when she fought Sovereign? Harbinger? No? Then why now?

Those deaths remain, forever, on the Catalyst's hands.

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.

Sigh. It says quite clearly in ME3 that it has tried synthesis before, but organics weren't "ready".
Well since we're apparently "ready" now, Saren could've facilitated that.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

Is this... Xilizhra? Who once upon a time was so Paragon she repeatedly renounced Ends Justify the Means moralities?

I feel so proud.

[Xilizhra]

Shepard doesn't know they'll die. Shepard only knows she must resist the Reapers as she always has before.
If in the end we die fighting them, at least we died trying to stop them. Not bowing down to them.

Shepard is a complete moron if she can't figure that much out, and how they died is utterly irrelevant. Dead is dead is dead, and apparently you'd rather see death than life.

Sigh. It says quite clearly in ME3 that it has tried synthesis before, but organics weren't "ready".
Well since we're apparently "ready" now, Saren could've facilitated that.

So perhaps ME1 was a waste of time. If so, that too is irrelevant because we can't change the past in ME3.

[Aylyese]

IscrewTali wrote...

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.

Cancer cannot be Pandemic, but anyway. Zelto is right. You have stepped onto a slippery slope and stuck your middle finger up at the Declaration of Human Rights. If this is the mindset that one must have to see Synthesis as a good ending, then Bioware should hang its head in shame.

Modifié par Aylyese, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:07 .

[Forbry]

Carlthestrange wrote...

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.

No harm done, my apologies too if I came across agressive!

[Krunjar]

I believe Carthestrange made the most compelling argument for it. That for some it is better to die than to submit to the design of the catalyst. If that is you're shepard's ethos then it's probably the ending for you. Personally I thaught it was the worst ending. But that is my OPINION. I am not going to bash it just because I don't agree with it.

Modifié par Krunjar, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:09 .

[The Angry One]

Xilizhra wrote...

Shepard is a complete moron if she can't figure that much out, and how they died is utterly irrelevant. Dead is dead is dead, and apparently you'd rather see death than life.

I'd rather see resistance against the Reapers than slavery.
"Is not submission preferable to extinction"? I say no. You may disagree, but don't you dare, don't you DARE label my Shepard a criminal and a fanatic because she isn't a coward who does the bidding of the things the galaxy came together to fight against.

So perhaps ME1 was a waste of time. If so, that too is irrelevant because we can't change the past in ME3.

By your logic it was.

[IscrewTali]

Zelto wrote...

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)

Let's not stop a fatal illness thats spreading through our race like wildfire, instead try to live with it and doom the species to extinction. Id say that's different from trivial disorders. Dont assume i'd start seeking perfection in individuals, when all i'm after is prevent total extinction.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Is this... Xilizhra? Who once upon a time was so Paragon she repeatedly renounced Ends Justify the Means moralities?

I feel so proud.

To clarify, I only denounced those when better means would achieve the same ends. Refusal is a means that does nothing except kill everyone.

[Forbry]

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

This. Also one of many reasons I have for choosing synthesis.

[Carlthestrange]

Lets just face it, all the endings have a bad side to them, and we're just going to spend the rest of the forum time here debating how "wrong" they all are...

Destroy: Organics survive, at the cost of the Sentient Toaster army. (Debate most commonly about the Geth/EDI being "alive".)

Control: Space God Shepard imposing will on the Reapers, and turning the galaxy into some kind of police state. (Debate most often either "Is it actually Shepard" or "Wouldn't Shepard eventually become another Starchild?")

Synthesis: Forcefully turn every life form in the galaxy into the same sort of thing. As well as giving life to the Sentient toasters. (Debates on this one vary between "It makes no sense", "Is it natural?" "How can a green light turn everything into a half machine half organic?" And a few other topics that I can't be bothered to list.)

Reject: Tell the Starkid to go to hell, Reapers win the war. (Debates range between the idea of conventional victory and the idea that Refusal is a "middle finger" to fans.)

Four endings. All the subject of massive controversy. And none of the ending factions will ever agree with each other. So, this forum is in for some fun times ahead.

[Krunjar]

The Angry One wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Shepard is a complete moron if she can't figure that much out, and how they died is utterly irrelevant. Dead is dead is dead, and apparently you'd rather see death than life.

I'd rather see resistance against the Reapers than slavery.
"Is not submission preferable to extinction"? I say no. You may disagree, but don't you dare, don't you DARE label my Shepard a criminal and a fanatic because she isn't a coward who does the bidding of the things the galaxy came together to fight against.

So perhaps ME1 was a waste of time. If so, that too is irrelevant because we can't change the past in ME3.

By your logic it was.

Hypocrisy again. This topic was never about arguing against other endings from the beggining. It's about defending synthesis as a viable choice and you have done nothing but label "other peoples shepards" as fascists and violators.

[The Angry One]

Forbry wrote...

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

This. Also one of many reasons I have for choosing synthesis.

Evolution is a natural process. It is not conciously chosen. Also, evolution is not moral.
There's a reason why social Darwinism is frowned upon. Honestly...

[Xamufam]

every one seemed to get along in synthesis, the war would have continued if it wasn't.there has to be
some kinda "sub mission/brainwashing" going on there is just "too much bad blood"

Modifié par Troxa, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:17 .

[The Angry One]

Krunjar wrote...

Hypocrisy again. This topic was never about arguing against other endings from the beggining. It's about defending synthesis as a viable choice and you have done nothing but label "other peoples shepards" as fascists and violators.

I'm not labelling anyone. I am stating that synthesis is a violation and removal of self-determination, because it is.
If you infer anything from that upon your Shepard, well, that's your guilt talking. Maybe part of you sees synthesis for what it is after all.

[Xilizhra]

I'd rather see resistance against the Reapers than slavery.
"Is not submission preferable to extinction"? I say no. You may disagree, but don't you dare, don't you DARE label my Shepard a criminal and a fanatic because she isn't a coward who does the bidding of the things the galaxy came together to fight against.

I just did. And you can still pick Destroy; it'll both satisfy some of your bloodlust and kill all the Reapers so they won't have any input on things anymore. I still consider it suboptimal unless IT is canon, but it's at least something.
In any case, it's only temporary submission because the Catalyst is expended. In Synthesis, it's equality thereafter; in Control... well, then maybe the galaxy is submitting to the Reapers, but they're no longer conducting the cycle and may be a force for good.

By your logic it was.

Why does this even matter?

[d-boy15]

I though this thread was about "what is the reason many people don't like synthesis?"

[IscrewTali]

Aylyese wrote...
Cancer cannot be Pandemic, but anyway. Zelto is right. You have stepped onto a slippery slope and stuck your middle finger up at the Declaration of Human Rights. If this is the mindset that one must have to see Synthesis as a good ending, then Bioware should hang its head in shame.

It is not a take on any specific Crucible ending, more of an anti-refuse take.

[Carlthestrange]

d-boy15 wrote...

I though this thread was about "what is the reason many people don't like synthesis?"

Once Synthesis is mentioned, it becomes another Philosophical debate.

[The Angry One]

Xilizhra wrote...

I just did.

And that's why your argument is so weak.

And you can still pick Destroy; it'll both satisfy some of your bloodlust and kill all the Reapers so they won't have any input on things anymore. I still consider it suboptimal unless IT is canon, but it's at least something.

I'm sorry, bloodlust? What? Me wanting to defy a threat that wants to corrupt and destroy everything is bloodlust?
Are you serious?

And no. I will not sacrifice the Geth because the spacebaby tells me to.

In any case, it's only temporary submission because the Catalyst is expended. In Synthesis, it's equality thereafter; in Control... well, then maybe the galaxy is submitting to the Reapers, but they're no longer conducting the cycle and may be a force for good.

There's no equality when everything is forced to become the same, and destroy is still submission, because you're allowing the Catalyst to dictate the future of the galaxy.

Why does this even matter?

My mentioning of Saren serves to remind how pointless synthesis is as a choice.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:16 .

[Aylyese]

IscrewTali wrote...

Aylyese wrote...
Cancer cannot be Pandemic, but anyway. Zelto is right. You have stepped onto a slippery slope and stuck your middle finger up at the Declaration of Human Rights. If this is the mindset that one must have to see Synthesis as a good ending, then Bioware should hang its head in shame.

It is not a take on any specific Crucible ending, more of an anti-refuse take.

Sorry, I am really not following you now. Could you add a little more context in how we ended up back at Refuse? I thought we were talking about Synthesis.

[Sheepie Crusher]

Here are SOME of the logical gaps in this ending

- What stops the new synthesized civilization from constructing normal synthetics again?

- What happens to all the primitive civilizations that don't even know what a computer is? how will they react to the  change?

- how does the beam differenciate between AI and VI? or do all VI become self aware as well

- Why do everyone just agrees to forget and forgive the Reapers?

- How do you combine DNA with a computer program?

- Do the Geth platforms also gain DNA? does every Geth program permanently bound to it's current platform?

Modifié par Sheepie Crusher, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[Krunjar]

The Angry One wrote...

Krunjar wrote...

Hypocrisy again. This topic was never about arguing against other endings from the beggining. It's about defending synthesis as a viable choice and you have done nothing but label "other peoples shepards" as fascists and violators.

I'm not labelling anyone. I am stating that synthesis is a violation and removal of self-determination, because it is.
If you infer anything from that upon your Shepard, well, that's your guilt talking. Maybe part of you sees synthesis for what it is after all.

Once again stating youre own opinion as fact. I am out of here. I do not see synthesis as a violation or a removal of self determination any more than puberty is. It is a phase that all life must eventually go through when it is read. If you disagree with that then fine that's youre prerogative. But you are repeatedly hypocritical and slanderous at anyone who argues against you so I think this will be my final word in this topic.

@ Sheepie Crusher, Yeah there are gaps in the logic of all the endings but that's what speculative sci fi is about right? It's about exploring possibilities that can't yet be logically explained. That's why it's so cool. At least for me.

Modifié par Krunjar, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:19 .

[translationninja]

The Angry One wrote...


Evolution is a natural process. It is not conciously chosen. Also, evolution is not moral.
There's a reason why social Darwinism is frowned upon. Honestly...

That argument only works as long as you don't know what has caused previous mutations that survived and propagated.

What is "occured naturally"? What does that constitute? So you would say a massive solar flare pumping out a tremendous amount of radiation incidentally producing a mutation in...say...a frog is natural, but a guy making a choice (right/or wrong) is not "natural".

These are again oversimplified human definitions born in one-dimensional moralities.

What if the frog liked how he was, what if he knew the sun was responsible, would he have a rightful beef with the sun for altering his species in the long run?

What if Shep didn't "choose" synthesis but walked backwards in "refusal" and tripped into the beam by accident? Would that occuring mutation then be anymore "natural" because no one made a concious choice to trigger it?

Aaah moral dilemmas.

But then, as long as you are stone-set to think that the result is everyone is a green husk (which I still find not one iota of evidence for in the game canon) then of course it is not a dilemma at all.