1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Pantegana]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Someone else on this forum put down this idea (sorry, don't know where I've read it or who wrote it), but I really felt that person had a very good point:

You didn't ask to be born. So do you think your parents have violated you, commit some gruesome act by creating your existence?

Horrible analogy, when you are born you havn't known anything else outside of that nanosecond before.

With synthesis you are forcibly changing people who have been alive for a very long time, some far into adulthood. 

Your parents didn't ask you first if you wanted to be born. They just decided that for you. O f course, being born and synthesis isn't the same, but I think it is a damn good analogy for thinking different about "force" in this case.

I wasn't asked, because I wasn't cognitive enough to make a conclusion. The people you synthesized had that ability. 

Well while the rights of the unborn between the time of concieving and the time of birth are a strongly debated matter (about which I won't say a word, because it's a "tough" topic and has nothing to do whith what we're talking about right here, right now), it is widely aknowledged that the unborn and not yet concieved has no rights at all.
So what we can draw from this legal consideration is that is common knowledge that the unborn doesn't exist at all and, for what concerns the topic of this discussion, that comparing synthesis to deciding to concieve or not a child is wrong, because that child doesn't exist yet.

[Forbry]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Someone else on this forum put down this idea (sorry, don't know where I've read it or who wrote it), but I really felt that person had a very good point:

You didn't ask to be born. So do you think your parents have violated you, commit some gruesome act by creating your existence?

Horrible analogy, when you are born you havn't known anything else outside of that nanosecond before.

With synthesis you are forcibly changing people who have been alive for a very long time, some far into adulthood. 

Your parents didn't ask you first if you wanted to be born. They just decided that for you. O f course, being born and synthesis isn't the same, but I think it is a damn good analogy for thinking different about "force" in this case.

I wasn't asked, because I wasn't cognitive enough to make a conclusion. The people you synthesized had that ability. 

I do see the difference (duh, I myself already wrote synthesis and birth are not the same), but that doesn't destroy the analogy for me when it comes to force in this respect.

Hi, hi... I said "destroy" (Yeah, yeah... not really that funny, I know )

[Alushadow]

IscrewTali wrote...

All 3 endings are still better than refusal. Cowardice and inability to make the hard decisions, forcing someone else in the future to do it for you? No matter how someone attempts to justify it, it's still makes you a weakling. I wouldnt be surprised if this gets bombed by arguments of space magic, godmode and genocide.

i beg the differ
all 4 endings are bad
but reject is the only 1 true ending and everyone dies
since you declined the bad story the ME team wrote by taking that option
by saying "NO!" to the bad deus ex machina story you are presented with extermination
which just proves bioware are ****s since they had no intention to change anything regarding the bad ending they made in the first place

[Forbry]

Alushadow wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Alushadow wrote...

Forbry wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Your parents didn't ask you first if you wanted to be born. They just decided that for you. O f course, being born and synthesis isn't the same, but I think it is a damn good analogy for thinking different about "force" in this case.

You have no rights if you don't exist.
I'm amazed you don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm NOT amazed you do not understand this concept 

you sir
are an idiot
you cannot force someone from being born if you do not grant him life he will not live
he will not be in the world he will simply will not exist
but to do something to an entity already alive, one that already exists without asking for permission
means you FORCE it to accept you way , you force it with your thinking, you basically force yourself upon it
like a RAPE so sir
are you a rapist?

Idiot? Rapist? Athough you seem to replying me, I feel not spoken to. Not at all. Gladly, might I add.

actually i as talking to you
you just said "did your parents asked you when they gave birth to you"
you have compared the creation of life
to "a bit like synthesis" where you FORCE everyone with your will
and turn them without question
there is a big difference sir
if you were not aware to the fact you cannot force something on something/someone that does not yet exist

I see the difference... yes, I do... but I still see a comparison anyway.

[The Angry One]

translationninja wrote...

That would make you someone that would rather see all the beings in the galaxy wiped out so you get your sense of right and wrong confirmed.

I rest my case, you just became the new catalyst.

It doesn't matter if the reapers wipe out organics for their own screwed logic or if you wipe them out by inactivity because that feels "more right" in your head.

I rest my case

The Catalyst is the killer, not me. Don't shift the blame onto me.
Again, rejecting is putting your faith in that we'll find another way. Turns out we don't, but why shouldn't we try?

In the end, the next cycle destroys the Reapers and the galaxy is freed of them forever. I don't care what Gamble says.

[Forbry]

translationninja wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...


I do not want to be rude or attack you, but of all the "destroyers" here, you do come across as the most "rigid" one. The one that is the most unwilling to keep an open mind. And no, that does not mean you have to agree with me or agree with synthesis .

Not destroyer, rejector with destroy leanings.

I'm no more rigid than Mass Effect itself is on the subject before synthesis pops up out of nowhere.
It just doesn't fit any theme prior to that, promotes Reaper victory and is a violation of everyone's rights as sapient beings who, you know, exist and all.

That would make you someone that would rather see all the beings in the galaxy wiped out so you get your sense of right and wrong confirmed.

I rest my case, you just became the new catalyst.

It doesn't matter if the reapers wipe out organics for their own screwed logic or if you wipe them out by inactivity because that feels "more right" in your head.

I rest my case

LOL

[IscrewTali]

Alushadow wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

All 3 endings are still better than refusal. Cowardice and inability to make the hard decisions, forcing someone else in the future to do it for you? No matter how someone attempts to justify it, it's still makes you a weakling. I wouldnt be surprised if this gets bombed by arguments of space magic, godmode and genocide.

i beg the differ
all 4 endings are bad
but reject is the only 1 true ending and everyone dies
since you declined the bad story the ME team wrote by taking that option
by saying "NO!" to the bad deus ex machina story you are presented with extermination
which just proves bioware are ****s since they had no intention to change anything regarding the bad ending they made in the first place

Sorry i didnt know we were metagaming towards "BW sucks".

[Sora Shepherd]

I dislike it because I feel it contradicts Mass Effect 1. We spent that entire game telling Saren that Synthesis was a no go. Why would we deliberately pick it now? Just like the Control ending was TIM's goal.

Though I am loosely interested in the consequences going forward. How does a static community without any individuality adapt to the changing problems of life?

[Sisterofshane]

Pantegana wrote...

Well while the rights of the unborn between the time of concieving and the time of birth are a strongly debated matter (about which I won't say a word, because it's a "tough" topic and has nothing to do whith what we're talking about right here, right now), it is widely aknowledged that the unborn and not yet concieved has no rights at all.
So what we can draw from this legal consideration is that is common knowledge that the unborn doesn't exist at all and, for what concerns the topic of this discussion, that comparing synthesis to deciding to concieve or not a child is wrong, because that child doesn't exist yet.

I was hoping someone would point that out.

Before your parents "do the deed", you do not exist.  In any form (except for maybe a potential mother and fathers wish).  How do you violate something that doesn't exist?  That is what makes it a horrible anaolgy, one that is meant to tug at people's emotions as opposed to appeal to logic, and by unfairly comparing a natural stage of life (without reproduction, life would not exist) to a decision made by a singular person at the behest of the enemy that affects every known being in existence.

And I can easily turn that around, as well.  Perhaps you are violating someone's right to live by NOT having sex.  See the moral dilemma?

[Pantegana]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

That would make you someone that would rather see all the beings in the galaxy wiped out so you get your sense of right and wrong confirmed.

I rest my case, you just became the new catalyst.

It doesn't matter if the reapers wipe out organics for their own screwed logic or if you wipe them out by inactivity because that feels "more right" in your head.

I rest my case

The Catalyst is the killer, not me. Don't shift the blame onto me.
Again, rejecting is putting your faith in that we'll find another way. Turns out we don't, but why shouldn't we try?

In the end, the next cycle destroys the Reapers and the galaxy is freed of them forever. I don't care what Gamble says.

I don't know I prefer destroy. That way I'm sure the reapers are dead, right here right now, and that they're not coming back.
Reject would have too many unpredictable consequences.

[Alushadow]

IscrewTali wrote...

Alushadow wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

All 3 endings are still better than refusal. Cowardice and inability to make the hard decisions, forcing someone else in the future to do it for you? No matter how someone attempts to justify it, it's still makes you a weakling. I wouldnt be surprised if this gets bombed by arguments of space magic, godmode and genocide.

i beg the differ
all 4 endings are bad
but reject is the only 1 true ending and everyone dies
since you declined the bad story the ME team wrote by taking that option
by saying "NO!" to the bad deus ex machina story you are presented with extermination
which just proves bioware are ****s since they had no intention to change anything regarding the bad ending they made in the first place

Sorry i didnt know we were metagaming towards "BW sucks".

you dont have to its all in the story the gave us with ME3

[IscrewTali]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

That would make you someone that would rather see all the beings in the galaxy wiped out so you get your sense of right and wrong confirmed.

I rest my case, you just became the new catalyst.

It doesn't matter if the reapers wipe out organics for their own screwed logic or if you wipe them out by inactivity because that feels "more right" in your head.

I rest my case

The Catalyst is the killer, not me. Don't shift the blame onto me.
Again, rejecting is putting your faith in that we'll find another way. Turns out we don't, but why shouldn't we try?

In the end, the next cycle destroys the Reapers and the galaxy is freed of them forever. I don't care what Gamble says.

This is exactly what i talked about when i posted earlier. Attempting to justify the Reject ending to the point where you would not take the blame for the repercussions of your choice. Forcing a future "Shepard" to make the decision due to your inability to do it in the first place.

[Forbry]

Alushadow wrote...

Forbry wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Your parents didn't ask you first if you wanted to be born. They just decided that for you. O f course, being born and synthesis isn't the same, but I think it is a damn good analogy for thinking different about "force" in this case.

You have no rights if you don't exist.
I'm amazed you don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm NOT amazed you do not understand this concept 

Nice counter argument there. I understand it fully. Synthesis violates fully intelligent, independant beings and makes them something else without their consent, body and mind.
Conception is an act of creation. The ovum do not get to vote.

I do not want to be rude or attack you, but of all the "destroyers" here, you do come across as the most "rigid" one. The one that is the most unwilling to keep an open mind. And no, that does not mean you have to agree with me or agree with synthesis .

you are the guy who thinks to create life
is similar to "forcing " someone to accept your way

you don't want me to explain to you what it means sir
better shut it since you are deluded

Well, someone here has already at least one competitor as the new catalyst I see

[Pantegana]

translationninja wrote...

Fair and square answer that doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. I can accept that good sir. We have found enough common ground to agree to disagree.

Well it's nice, and mostly unusual, to keep things civil on an internet forum.
I'm just a big fan of ockham's razor.

[The Angry One]

IscrewTali wrote...

This is exactly what i talked about when i posted earlier. Attempting to justify the Reject ending to the point where you would not take the blame for the repercussions of your choice.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying Shepard is taking the chance that another solution will be found that doesn't involve surrendering to the Reapers.
Herein lies the problem with meta-gaming once again. You are working from the perspective that you KNOW the cycle will lose. Shepard does not. Shepard cannot sit there and believe that doing what the Reapers tell her is the only way forward.

Forcing a future "Shepard" to make the decision due to your inability to do it in the first place.

The future "Shepard" makes the decision to take their fleet and break the Reapers apart piece by piece.
Something we may have had the chance to do if we hadn't built the godforsaken Crucible.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[Forbry]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Pantegana wrote...

Well while the rights of the unborn between the time of concieving and the time of birth are a strongly debated matter (about which I won't say a word, because it's a "tough" topic and has nothing to do whith what we're talking about right here, right now), it is widely aknowledged that the unborn and not yet concieved has no rights at all.
So what we can draw from this legal consideration is that is common knowledge that the unborn doesn't exist at all and, for what concerns the topic of this discussion, that comparing synthesis to deciding to concieve or not a child is wrong, because that child doesn't exist yet.

I was hoping someone would point that out.

Before your parents "do the deed", you do not exist.  In any form (except for maybe a potential mother and fathers wish).  How do you violate something that doesn't exist?  That is what makes it a horrible anaolgy, one that is meant to tug at people's emotions as opposed to appeal to logic, and by unfairly comparing a natural stage of life (without reproduction, life would not exist) to a decision made by a singular person at the behest of the enemy that affects every known being in existence.

And I can easily turn that around, as well.  Perhaps you are violating someone's right to live by NOT having sex.  See the moral dilemma?

Well, that's a nice one too I think!

Modifié par Forbry, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[Kronner]

Because no one has the right to change every organic or synthetic into some kind of hybrid/abomination.

[translationninja]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

That would make you someone that would rather see all the beings in the galaxy wiped out so you get your sense of right and wrong confirmed.

I rest my case, you just became the new catalyst.

It doesn't matter if the reapers wipe out organics for their own screwed logic or if you wipe them out by inactivity because that feels "more right" in your head.

I rest my case

The Catalyst is the killer, not me. Don't shift the blame onto me.
Again, rejecting is putting your faith in that we'll find another way. Turns out we don't, but why shouldn't we try?

In the end, the next cycle destroys the Reapers and the galaxy is freed of them forever. I don't care what Gamble says.

Refresh my memory please, does Shep ask what happens if he rejects?

[IscrewTali]

The Angry One wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

This is exactly what i talked about when i posted earlier. Attempting to justify the Reject ending to the point where you would not take the blame for the repercussions of your choice.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying Shepard is taking the chance that another solution will be found that doesn't involve surrendering to the Reapers.
Herein lies the problem with meta-gaming once again. You are working from the perspective that you KNOW the cycle will lose. Shepard does not. Shepard cannot sit there and believe that doing what the Reapers tell her is the only way forward.

Forcing a future "Shepard" to make the decision due to your inability to do it in the first place.

The future "Shepard" makes the decision to take their fleet and break the Reapers apart piece by piece.
Something we may have had the chance to do if we hadn't built the godforsaken Crucible.

But it is proven time and time again in Mass Effect lore and ingame, that the Reapers cant be won with brute force and military prowess. The Crucible is the key to their destruction, and Shepard knows this. Everyone knows this. There's no metagaming involved in that.

[Gorkan86]

The Angry One wrote...
 I don't care what Gamble says.

He said that we can refuse of using the crucible.

[Forbry]

IscrewTali wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

IscrewTali wrote...

This is exactly what i talked about when i posted earlier. Attempting to justify the Reject ending to the point where you would not take the blame for the repercussions of your choice.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm saying Shepard is taking the chance that another solution will be found that doesn't involve surrendering to the Reapers.
Herein lies the problem with meta-gaming once again. You are working from the perspective that you KNOW the cycle will lose. Shepard does not. Shepard cannot sit there and believe that doing what the Reapers tell her is the only way forward.

Forcing a future "Shepard" to make the decision due to your inability to do it in the first place.

The future "Shepard" makes the decision to take their fleet and break the Reapers apart piece by piece.
Something we may have had the chance to do if we hadn't built the godforsaken Crucible.

But it is proven time and time again in Mass Effect lore and ingame, that the Reapers cant be won with brute force and military prowess. The Crucible is the key to their destruction, and Shepard knows this. Everyone knows this. There's no metagaming involved in that.

Exactly.

[Anti-killer]

the only good thing about Synthesis is that everyone is now a Cyberman. and they'll go around shouting "Delete" and "Excellent" while clenching their fists.

Modifié par Anti-killer, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[DGMockingJay]

Space Magic, thats why!!

Also, Machines have DNA now.. How can we allow Machines to have DNA??

/sarcasm

[Forbry]

Gorkan86 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
 I don't care what Gamble says.

He said that we can refuse of using the crucible.

He said, that according to him, "synthesis" was the best ending:

twitter.com/gamblemike/status/195308506214187008

twitter.com/gamblemike/status/195331064825266176

Modifié par Forbry, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:06 .

[ld1449]

Because it makes no sense...at all.

Shepard's DNA gets scattered throughout the galaxy, and somehow His DNA is what makes the fusion of synthetic and organic possible.

Now unless Shepard's DNA has the God particle, or he's Jesus reborn and I just missed that codex entry, even if one person's DNA could alter anothers so drastically there's no reason it should affect everyone, even people with DNA based on a completely different ameno acid group.

Furthermore, it says we gain the perfection of synthetics and the understanding of organics.

Well, aparently we're more synthetic than human because if I was fighting some walking skyscrapers a few hours ago the last thing I'd be comfortable with is them "helping to rebuild my home"

Furthermore you completely eliminate everything that made the various races interesting. The Krogan? No longer a violent breed that needs to overcome their violent nature, we have synthesis now.

The geth, no longer machines seeking a purpose in life, we have organic understanding now.

The humans the Turians the Salarians the Asari, every race LOOSES what makes them unique and individual within the universe.

We're all now just machine organic hybrids that are "perfect." The so called pinnacle of evolution.

I see no beauty in synthesis. I see only banality coupled with a heavy dose of unbelievability.