1081 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

Optimystic_X wrote...

It sounds as though you're saying the Reapers themselves implanted that function into the Crucible.

But if that's the case, why would they try to stamp out all records of the superweapon? If Synthesis is their goal, why try to stop the Crucible from being built? If the finished product is capable of Synthesis, why present the other options at all (let alone first), and if it is not capable of Synthesis, why not SO BE IT the moment Shepard installs it?


My personal theory is that the device was actually designed for Synthesis from the very beginning. Remember that Starkid's creators DID believe the hostile synthetics hypothesis, as the whole reason behind his creation was to ensure that relations between the two camps didn't sour. I believe it was subsequent cycles who dug up the plans and decided to repurpose the giant battery towards Destroy or Control later.

The first race to begin the design wasn't able (for whatever reason - perhaps the Crucible was very unrefined at that point) to achieve Synthesis. And they got Reaped before they could work out the wrinkles. Leading subsequent races to do exactly what you said - "Oh my god these cuttlefish are trying to kill us," etc.

Did they try to stop the Crucible from being built? Did they try to stamp out all records? Can't really know for sure.

Also, who would have perfected Synthesis then? when they believed the Crucible was for destroying the Reapers?

[ghost9191]

Malditor wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

The problem is almost all opposition to this is emotional only. When in war or making a major decision is it best to follow emotion or logic? Logical opposition like disliking the space magic *though 3 endings use space magic*, not trusting the catalyst *though any decision requires trust of some sort besides refusal*, or just not feeling that synthesis fits the storyline, all are acceptable debate/discussion points. If you simply say "morally wrong", "genetic rape", "eugenics" *which isn't even accurate because you aren't using selective breeding* are simply emotional responses.

In all there is no choice that is inherently wrong. There are drawbacks and untold repercussions to all three original choices with only refusal having obvious problems. You have no right to tell anyone they are wrong or an "absolute disgrace" for what they felt was the best choice available to them.

No, mine was not a post made against the quality of writing, or the viability of a synthetic future, but the morality of the proposition.

And as for your point about eugenics, not only does synthesis require you impose your will over all sentient life in the galaxy, it also requires you change their species without pernission. THEIR SPECIES! Advocating the use of space magic to change the genetic composition of all life is almost the very definition of eugenics Malditor (only synthesis is much, much worse)! 

Malditor wrote...

Their choice has nothing to do with you, it's a game. Stop acting like any of these choices have direct relation to real life.

I can discuss the morality of the game with or without your permission Malditor thank you very much.

Ok, so you can change the definition of eugenics to something it isn't and attack people for a decision they make in a game? How many men hit that annoying reporter in game? Does that mean that they would do so in real life? Taking something done in a game and assuming that has direct bearing on the person in reality is ridiculous.

one i disagree, the way people act in game says alot about how they would act in real life. and i never hit that reporter. that is just rude

not saying your wrong, just in my opinion you can tell a lot from ppl by their choices in game, and how they react to those choices.    Like ppl that try to justify why they picked blue or something. they probably feel guilty about it and are trying to well justify it

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:12 .

[Versus Omnibus]

ghost9191 wrote...

well if u mean destroy, i am fine with choosing it, but the cost of it is a species to save i think 13 others. i just mean that others might see it as genocide, which it is. but i find it as a sacrifice for the better also, and a casualty of war. it is the safer option in my opinion also , gets rid of the reapers, which is what i set out to do. they might be machines doing as they were programmed to do but in synthesis and contro l they are still around, so there is too much risk in them.

i would prefer a better option, but i personally do not see control or synthesis as a better option. maybe i am just like anderson and only able to "see the world down the barrel of a gun"

but yeah i guess i made the best of the choices i think. gave the races (besides the geth i know ) the chance to build their own future, achieve peace on their own terms. but shepard will have some scars because of it

tried to word it the best i could

You're doing a good job. You certainly presented your case very well, and like you chose Destroy I chose synthesis because I saw it as the best choice for peace in the galaxy. I just wished people can see that.

[eye basher]

Zkyire wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

This is 100% fact, shown within the game when the head Reaper itself not only promotes synthesis as the best thing ever, but admits that it tried it before.

No this isn't about the morality or lack thereof of synthesis, there are enough topics about that.
Here I ask.... if we are to believe that the Crucible was designed by some unknown organic race and improved upon in the following eons... why does it have an option for synthesis?

Not only is it what the Reapers want. But think about this. Really think about this. The people who designed/added to the Crucible wouldn't be thinking "We need to merge with synthetics for greater understanding/final evolution of life/blah blah blah!". They'd be thinking "Oh my god those giant metal cuttlefish are going to kill us, we need to build something to stop them."
I really have to wonder what kind of mentality would see giant metal killbots and think "You know what would be a good idea? Merging our bodies with them!".

The only person in game who is speaking from first hand knowledge of what Synthesis does to everyone is EDI.

And she painted it in a very positive light.

Not domination.

Not slavery.

Peace. Happiness. Advancement. Prosperity. Rebuilding what was lost. Advancing beyond it. And learning about all past cultures.

It is *possible* that her thoughts are being influenced, but there's no way to be "100%" certain of any of that.

For reference, I pick Destroy anyways.. cause **** the Reapers.

I'm gonna ask a very simple question if you were crazy how would you know after all you are crazy.

[ghost9191]

KingZayd wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

It sounds as though you're saying the Reapers themselves implanted that function into the Crucible.

But if that's the case, why would they try to stamp out all records of the superweapon? If Synthesis is their goal, why try to stop the Crucible from being built? If the finished product is capable of Synthesis, why present the other options at all (let alone first), and if it is not capable of Synthesis, why not SO BE IT the moment Shepard installs it?


My personal theory is that the device was actually designed for Synthesis from the very beginning. Remember that Starkid's creators DID believe the hostile synthetics hypothesis, as the whole reason behind his creation was to ensure that relations between the two camps didn't sour. I believe it was subsequent cycles who dug up the plans and decided to repurpose the giant battery towards Destroy or Control later.

The first race to begin the design wasn't able (for whatever reason - perhaps the Crucible was very unrefined at that point) to achieve Synthesis. And they got Reaped before they could work out the wrinkles. Leading subsequent races to do exactly what you said - "Oh my god these cuttlefish are trying to kill us," etc.

Did they try to stop the Crucible from being built? Did they try to stamp out all records? Can't really know for sure.

Also, who would have perfected Synthesis then? when they believed the Crucible was for destroying the Reapers?

well from what i got, it is not really the crucible that makes it possible, they use it but ( i mean it does but there is more to it ) the catalyst and shep are the ones that actually make it possible. control and destroy were the main functions for the crucible, if the catalyst wasn't there you could still do them., but not synthesis. might be off topic but that is my take

[Hyrist]

eye basher wrote...
I'm gonna ask a very simple question if you were crazy how would you know after all you are crazy.

Here's a better question: If everyone was crazy yet they were happy, what would it matter if you were crazy?

[ghost9191]

@Hyrist

It would be a lie? maybe

these question are getting to be a bit too philosophical i think

[Malditor]

ghost9191 wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

because i had the ability to, to be honest the geth are just a war asset to me. which is wrong but they are all faceless to me after the death of legion:unsure:

to take out the reapers and give future generations the chance to live without the threat of reapers is worth the sacrifice of the geth

that and my shepard is just a soldier doing whatever he can to stop the reaper threat. everyone in the alliance agreed to use the crucible to destroy the reapers.

I have no delusions that i made the right choice, or that the cost wasn't to high , but my shepard did what had to be done to stop the reapers. Or so i think. the other options seem far to risky

And you made the best with a choice you didn't want to make?

well if u mean destroy, i am fine with choosing it, but the cost of it is a species to save i think 13 others. i just mean that others might see it as genocide, which it is. but i find it as a sacrifice for the better also, and a casualty of war. it is the safer option in my opinion also , gets rid of the reapers, which is what i set out to do. they might be machines doing as they were programmed to do but in synthesis and contro l they are still around, so there is too much risk in them.

i would prefer a better option, but i personally do not see control or synthesis as a better option. maybe i am just like anderson and only able to "see the world down the barrel of a gun"

but yeah i guess i made the best of the choices i think. gave the races (besides the geth i know ) the chance to build their own future, achieve peace on their own terms. but shepard will have some scars because of it

tried to word it the best i could



and i know it is a game, but these choices are still good to talk over. peoples reasoning behind them is interesting. and even if it is a game it still shows how people work and act. the choices you make in game are ones you would normally make in rl:innocent:

well i don't mean you make these choices in rl but it says alot about your character i guess, you morals and such , right and wrong

Not really true, I don't know any man who would strike a woman just because of things she says like just about everyone I know did to the reporter in game.

[Versus Omnibus]

Hyrist wrote...

eye basher wrote...
I'm gonna ask a very simple question if you were crazy how would you know after all you are crazy.

Here's a better question: If everyone was crazy yet they were happy, what would it matter if you were crazy?

I have a better one: If everyone is crazy, then wouldn't that mean crazy is the new normal?

[KingZayd]

ghost9191 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

It sounds as though you're saying the Reapers themselves implanted that function into the Crucible.

But if that's the case, why would they try to stamp out all records of the superweapon? If Synthesis is their goal, why try to stop the Crucible from being built? If the finished product is capable of Synthesis, why present the other options at all (let alone first), and if it is not capable of Synthesis, why not SO BE IT the moment Shepard installs it?


My personal theory is that the device was actually designed for Synthesis from the very beginning. Remember that Starkid's creators DID believe the hostile synthetics hypothesis, as the whole reason behind his creation was to ensure that relations between the two camps didn't sour. I believe it was subsequent cycles who dug up the plans and decided to repurpose the giant battery towards Destroy or Control later.

The first race to begin the design wasn't able (for whatever reason - perhaps the Crucible was very unrefined at that point) to achieve Synthesis. And they got Reaped before they could work out the wrinkles. Leading subsequent races to do exactly what you said - "Oh my god these cuttlefish are trying to kill us," etc.

Did they try to stop the Crucible from being built? Did they try to stamp out all records? Can't really know for sure.

Also, who would have perfected Synthesis then? when they believed the Crucible was for destroying the Reapers?

well from what i got, it is not really the crucible that makes it possible, they use it but ( i mean it does but there is more to it ) the catalyst and shep are the ones that actually make it possible. control and destroy were the main functions for the crucible, if the catalyst wasn't there you could still do them., but not synthesis. might be off topic but that is my take

Problem is, the Starchild said that 
a) the Crucible is "little more than a power source", so the options must come from the Starchild if it's being honest.
Synthesis didn't work in the past because "organics weren't ready" and it can't be "forced" . All Shepard being there shows, is that perhaps 1 organic is "ready", yet the solution is still forced on everybody. Therefore if Synthesis works, the Starchild can't be honest,

[ghost9191]

@Malditor

well that is why i responded to your question earlier,. i didn't really mean like they would make those choices in RL but you can tell a lot about someone by the choices they make and how they respond to them in a game. Like i can't shoot mordin in the back, even if he does cure the genophage because that is just wrong,

what ppl feel as right and wrong can be seen in their cannon play through maybe idk. just remember hearing a argument that people act in games how they wish they could in RL

[ghost9191]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

eye basher wrote...
I'm gonna ask a very simple question if you were crazy how would you know after all you are crazy.

Here's a better question: If everyone was crazy yet they were happy, what would it matter if you were crazy?

I have a better one: If everyone is crazy, then wouldn't that mean crazy is the new normal?

"I'm done. Any more of this and my head's going to explode"   Ken Donnelly

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:26 .

[Malditor]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Ok, so you can change the definition of eugenics to something it isn't and attack people for a decision they make in a game? How many men hit that annoying reporter in game? Does that mean that they would do so in real life? Taking something done in a game and assuming that has direct bearing on the person in reality is ridiculous.

I realise that Mass Effect wasn't designed as a social experiment Malditor, but  understand that people have been defending the logic and ethics of Synthesis in this very thread. Sorry if it offends, but I’m absolutely steadfast in the view that Synthesis is a vile proposition and its supporters.....wrong.

I have no problem with you "feeling" synthesis is wrong, I do however have a problem with you using derogatory terms to describe people who did chose it. Society as a whole is not very accepting of body modification right now, so it's normal that most people would find something like synthesis abhorent. However, in the world of ME people don't have a problem with having synthetic implants and such which led me to believe it would be a more accepted decision. Now, if in the game there were signs that people hated the idea of something like this I would not have chosen to do so. I don't believe in forcing what I believe on other people at all, which is why people saying that synthesis people are egotistical/god complex/immoral etc bothers me. I don't believe in abortion however I don't feel I have the right to make it so nobody can make that decision for themselves.

Modifié par Malditor, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:32 .

[ghost9191]

Rubios wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Like i can't shoot mordin in the back, even if he does cure the genophage because that is just wrong 

Then your Shepard is a useless spectre.

I shot him in the back. Because it was necessary and it had to be me, because someone else may gotten it wrong.

That doesn't mean I liked it nor think it was fair or just, but it had to be done.

think i said it before that , maybe not, but in my cannon shepard, that is just wrong. it wouldn't be the right thing to do. was mainly just saying by choices you make it could show how you react to that kind of situation i guess idk. anyways if i didn't do something because i thought it was wrong i would just stand there as the reapers continued their cycle.

i was making a point and a joke with that post and got lost just like when i said it would be rude to punch the reporter:?. but my shepard in that playthrough would not shoot mordin because that whole time i worked to cure the genophage, from me2 and on. if it was wreav in charge of the krogan then i would shoot mordin. hate to do it but i wouldn't let wreav lead the krogan. but i feel wrex and "eve" might be able to handle it

and if you had paid attention to the rest of my post, which i was mainly just rambling in . i heard a argument before that ppl act games how they wish they coulld in rl, it was a debate. not saying i agree with it, or that choices made in rpg's are how ppl act in rl, if that were the case i would be a pretty terrible person because i get achievments on fallout and i had to do baaaad things

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:46 .

[Allaiya]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

eye basher wrote...
I'm gonna ask a very simple question if you were crazy how would you know after all you are crazy.

Here's a better question: If everyone was crazy yet they were happy, what would it matter if you were crazy?

I have a better one: If everyone is crazy, then wouldn't that mean crazy is the new normal?

This convo reminds me of the part in Brave New World I read today where they are discussing 'modern civilization' versus what came before.
Basically the modern society values stability, youth (no one grows old), & happiness.
However, it comes at the expense of truth, religion, beauty, science, passion, & high art. The people do not know what they are missing because they grew up without it.
The one 'Savage' guy from outside civilization thinks they are all crazy or idiots & vice versa. lol

[MyChemicalBromance]

The Reapers wanted to preserve organic life. If they simply wanted Synthesis, then why did they make a point to "leave younger civilizations alone"? Hell, the Catalyst even says the entire point of the Reapers is to preserve organic life.

You can't just listen to some parts of the conversation and ignore others.

[alienatedflea]

The Angry One wrote...

This is 100% fact, shown within the game when the head Reaper itself not only promotes synthesis as the best thing ever, but admits that it tried it before.

No this isn't about the morality or lack thereof of synthesis, there are enough topics about that.
Here I ask.... if we are to believe that the Crucible was designed by some unknown organic race and improved upon in the following eons... why does it have an option for synthesis?

Not only is it what the Reapers want. But think about this. Really think about this. The people who designed/added to the Crucible wouldn't be thinking "We need to merge with synthetics for greater understanding/final evolution of life/blah blah blah!". They'd be thinking "Oh my god those giant metal cuttlefish are going to kill us, we need to build something to stop them."
I really have to wonder what kind of mentality would see giant metal killbots and think "You know what would be a good idea? Merging our bodies with them!".

angry...reapers want a solution to the problem to end this current cycle...synthesis ends all cycles...you are indoctrinated....

[alienatedflea]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

The Reapers wanted to preserve organic life. If they simply wanted Synthesis, then why did they make a point to "leave younger civilizations alone"? Hell, the Catalyst even says the entire point of the Reapers is to preserve organic life.

You can't just listen to some parts of the conversation and ignore others.

but why let facts get in the way of a s##t arguement?

[ghost9191]

alienatedflea wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

This is 100% fact, shown within the game when the head Reaper itself not only promotes synthesis as the best thing ever, but admits that it tried it before.

No this isn't about the morality or lack thereof of synthesis, there are enough topics about that.
Here I ask.... if we are to believe that the Crucible was designed by some unknown organic race and improved upon in the following eons... why does it have an option for synthesis?

Not only is it what the Reapers want. But think about this. Really think about this. The people who designed/added to the Crucible wouldn't be thinking "We need to merge with synthetics for greater understanding/final evolution of life/blah blah blah!". They'd be thinking "Oh my god those giant metal cuttlefish are going to kill us, we need to build something to stop them."
I really have to wonder what kind of mentality would see giant metal killbots and think "You know what would be a good idea? Merging our bodies with them!".

angry...reapers want a solution to the problem to end this current cycle...synthesis ends all cycles...you are indoctrinated....

yeah until a new organic species shows up or a synthetic race is made:huh:

then reapers be like "whoops" didn't mean to reap them

Modifié par ghost9191, 06 juillet 2012 - 02:13 .

[alienatedflea]

ghost9191 wrote...

yeah until a new organic species shows up or a synthetic race is made:huh:

then reapers be liek "whoops" didn't mean to reap then

impossible...everything is synthesized...

[ghost9191]

but there be more then one galaxy. i mean with how ppl with be all like OVERPOPULATION and all they will probably expand. and those galaxies might have occupants , which will be organic or synthetic. so yeah

basically i mean that if they expand to another galaxy and there are organics will the reapers harvest them

[alienatedflea]

ghost9191 wrote...

but there be more then one galaxy. i mean with how ppl with be all like OVERPOPULATION and all they will probably expand. and those galaxies might have occupants , which will be organic or synthetic. so yeah

basically i mean that if they expand to another galaxy and there are organics will the reapers harvest them

why throw the reapers under the bus...odds are that the whole united galaxy would take over that other galaxy...total destruction...not probably by the hybrids fault but because the organics natural violent nature would shine through...

[Ticonderoga117]

alienatedflea wrote...
angry...reapers want a solution to the problem to end this current cycle...synthesis ends all cycles...you are indoctrinated....

The Reapers are the problem.
The "supposed" problem isn't solved by Synthesis anyway. Pure Synthetics can still be built and the hybrids can prejudice them and then those pure synthetics can still kick our butts.
The Reapers ARE STILL AROUND.
Synthesis makes no bloody sense.