393 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

TJBartlemus wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Again these synthetic traits. The only thing mentioned by EDI or Legion are software changes which are mostly personality choices. Not hardware. They also can't just take off shackles in programming. So why after merging with both that this is suddenly possible?? So this point of synthetic traits changing I believe is mute. 

EDI and Legion don't have shackles in their programming. Not once they achieve true sentience.

*sigh* Yes, but EDI had those taken off for her. She didn't take them off. She can't. So why would she be to after synthesis??

Not to be rude Jamie9, but you still have yet to answer this. However if you wish to discuss this later feel free to PM me. 

What does it matter if She didn't take off her own shackles? She would be more advance in synthesis and i a way shackled by indoctriantion like everyone else. 

[Xandurpein]

Jamie9 wrote...



This link demonstrates the cognitive differences between organics and synthetics. They can both end up at the same place, but the process through which they end up there is completely different. Organics change "naturally", through chemical processes that aren't really under our control.

Synthetics can literally look at their priorities list and change it. Synthesis allows organics to do this to. Obviously, this would be optional, as they could just not change anything.

And as shown through EDI, synthetics gain the ability to have things change "naturally". They still retain the ability to change anything they want, however. Why would it be removed?

This scene is really just bad writing because it creates an impossible loop in EDI's reasoning. EDI understands what Shepard says and changes her mind, only she claims that because she changed her mind she will now change her priorities, i.e. change her mind, but she already did change her mind.

Where is the real difference between changing your mind and deciding to change your mind?

[dreman9999]

Xandurpein wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...



This link demonstrates the cognitive differences between organics and synthetics. They can both end up at the same place, but the process through which they end up there is completely different. Organics change "naturally", through chemical processes that aren't really under our control.

Synthetics can literally look at their priorities list and change it. Synthesis allows organics to do this to. Obviously, this would be optional, as they could just not change anything.

And as shown through EDI, synthetics gain the ability to have things change "naturally". They still retain the ability to change anything they want, however. Why would it be removed?

This scene is really just bad writing because it creates an impossible loop in EDI's reasoning. EDI understands what Shepard says and changes her mind, only she claims that because she changed her mind she will now change her priorities, i.e. change her mind, but she already did change her mind.

Where is the real difference between changing your mind and deciding to change your mind?

It not bad writng. It's just showing how machines think.With machines logic and programing are too sepreate things. You problem is your looking at it too much like an organic.

Modifié par dreman9999, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:59 .

[Jamie9]

Xandurpein wrote...

This scene is really just bad writing because it creates an impossible loop in EDI's reasoning. EDI understands what Shepard says and changes her mind, only she claims that because she changed her mind she will now change her priorities, i.e. change her mind, but she already did change her mind.

Where is the real difference between changing your mind and deciding to change your mind?

No, EDI decides she wants to change her mind. And then she overwrites her priority queue. That's how synthetics work.

[nitefyre410]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

 

You do know that if Synthesis turned  my truck into Optimus  Mother ****ing  Prime I would pick everytime...  its  Optimus Prime, he makes everything better... just like Bacon 

[dreman9999]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

 

You do know that if Synthesis turned  my truck into Optimus  Mother ****ing  Prime I would pick everytime...  its  Optimus Prime, he makes everything better... just like Bacon 

But picking it means you die.

[Jamie9]

dreman9999 wrote...
But picking it means you die.

Plus, you know, Optimus Prime dies in every film.

Because Michael Bay is stupid.

[Malditor]

OP is a prime example of an extremist. Not only is the thread title ridiculous but the premise of his post is horrible. The threads get worse and worse anymore.

[Fuzzfro]

Jamie9 wrote...

Glad to see you got informed consent to use Control. Oh wait.

Glad to see you got informed consent to use Refuse. Oh wait.

Glad to see you got informed consent to use Destroy. Oh wait.

Indeed, sick of all the anti synthesis crap.

[nitefyre410]

Jamie9 wrote...

*snip* 
Plus, you know, Optimus Prime dies in every film.

Because Michael Bay is stupid.

 

He died in the Orginal  Transformers film in 1984.... got better before the series went of the air. 

why? 

Because he is Optimus mother ****ing Prime thats why.   

Modifié par nitefyre410, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:18 .

[Jamie9]

nitefyre410 wrote...

He died in the Orginal  Transformers film in 1984.... got better before the series went of the air. 

why? 

Because he is Optimus mother ****ing Prime thats why.   

2D Transformers > 3D Transformers

Jus' sayin'.

[BatmanPWNS]

Cuz, first Bioware said that being different is a good thing (ME1/2) and then suddenly everyone being the same is a good thing.

[Jamie9]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Cuz, first Bioware said that being different is a good thing (ME1/2) and then suddenly everyone being the same is a good thing.

Synthesis creates more diversity.

[nitefyre410]

Jamie9 wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

He died in the Orginal  Transformers film in 1984.... got better before the series went of the air. 

why? 

Because he is Optimus mother ****ing Prime thats why.   

2D Transformers > 3D Transformers

Jus' sayin'.

 

I know,  just saying  Prime dying and getting better was not a Bay concept.  

 

[Wayning_Star]

I'm not sure if this question is about what others think bioware has done, so much as the decision the OP has made about what may be (seen as) evil, and how that may affect others ideals about their video game decisions. The post isn't a question,so much as, it's an answer. (more like a demand

synthesis choice=evil

so

bioware is promoting evil

[SpaceLingo]

Joy Sauce wrote...

Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

Ethics aside, I find synthesis makes no sense. (or less than the other 3)
I know i wouldn't want my DNA altered like that.

[Klijpope]

Actually, I was remembering the conversation with Legion about the geth heretics, about the difference in their algorithms changing their perspectives, this brought on by EDI speculating about the different bubble universes with differing laws of physics, and about how having enough energy could change these underlying laws.

Maybe this is how Synthesis works - by a very, very tiny change in the laws of physics. Arguably, this random postulating by EDI takes Synthesis from the realms of "space magic" and puts more into wild but valid scifi speculation...?

[Gweedotk]

If you don't agree with its ethics, pick a different ending. That is why you are given a choice. Promoting evil? Yeah, being realistic and not giving everybody a happy-go-lucky fairytale ending doesn't mean they are promoting evil. That is just ridiculous.

Good and evil are entirely dependent on ones values and do not tangibly exist in reality and are only imaginary concepts invented by sapient minds. What I view as "good" or "evil" may differ entirely from another persons. I think the synthesis ending is entirely acceptable ethically. Logically, I'm not sure. Ethically, yes.

Our governments make decisions for entire populations all the time and I don't see a whole lot of people complaining about that.

As a side note, everything is science fiction before it becomes reality. It is science fiction authors and writers that give real scientists ideas, and more often than one might think science fiction has turned out to be reality. While I highly doubt "Eezo" exists, we did discover the Higgs-Boson Particle may very well actually exist and that it may be possible to simply "switch off" light-speed limitation in order to travel ftl. That isn't too far away from ME's fictional eezo being used as fuel to travel faster than light when an electrical current is ran through it. I believe the codex said something about it "switching off" the physics of relativity, or something along those lines.

Be a little more open minded to science fiction. On a large enough time scale, the likely hood for everything increases, enough that somethings that are completely impossible become a complete certainty, and that is real science.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:38 .

[Xeranx]

me308f1cd5c wrote...

The synthesis ending changes ALL life in the galaxy, WITHOUT permission.  And this is changed for FOREVER.

If bringing upon the extinction of all natural organic life in the Milky Way Galaxy isn't evil, then what is?

So why is bioware trying to make this ending be the best outcome, and making it look morally right?

If some man invented mechanical body parts that were superior then organic ones, is it right for him to gas people, and do surgery on them against their will, to remove certain inferior organic parts to be replaced by mechanical ones?  No it is not.  But bioware is saying that something like this is good.

It doesn't matter if this man has good intentions, and that what he invented can be used for good, but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  It doesn't matter if this man thinks what he is doing is right, if he is forcing it upon people instead of giving people a choice...then it's evil.....period.

So it is wrong for the bioware writers to think that just because the galaxy is synthesized because of shepards good intentions, somehow makes it morally right and not evil.

What do you think? 

The fact that you and others worry about the consent of others in the face of annihilation is something that I can't really understand.  I think I've tried to, but it bothers me more that you want to consider the wants of others during a time when they are set to die than it will ever bother me that one person has to make a decision as to whether some die or all die.  The statement of wanting or needing consent in a situation like this drips with entitlement.  Only those who believe that they deserve a voice when facing absolute destruction that's right at their doorstep would ever propose such a preposterous ideal.

I wish you and others who preach about this consent business would leave it out of any and all arguments you make about synthesis because it is entirely irrelevant to anything that follows - in your arguments, in the story that's written, and (most importantly) in the context of what's facing the advanced races of the current cycle by the time the Reapers get there.

[Gweedotk]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Gweedotk wrote...

being realistic and not giving everybody a happy-go-lucky fairytale ending

Have you actually seen the Synthesis ending?

Gweedotk wrote...

As a side note, everything is science fiction before it becomes reality.
It is science fiction authors and writers that give real scientists
ideas, and more often than one might think science fiction has turned
out to be reality. While I highly doubt "Eezo" exists, we did discover
the Higgs-Boson Particle may very well actually exist and that it may be
possible to simply "switch off" light-speed limitation in order to
travel ftl. That isn't too far away from ME's fictional eezo being used
as fuel to travel faster than light when an electrical current is ran
through it. I believe the codex said something about it "switching off"
the physics of relativity, or something along those lines.

Be a little more open minded to science fiction. On a large enough time
scale, the likely hood for everything increases, enough that somethings
that are completely impossible become a complete certainty, and that is
real science.

Modifié par Gweedotk, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:38 .

[memorysquid]

me308f1cd5c wrote...

The synthesis ending changes ALL life in the galaxy, WITHOUT permission.  And this is changed for FOREVER.

If bringing upon the extinction of all natural organic life in the Milky Way Galaxy isn't evil, then what is?

So why is bioware trying to make this ending be the best outcome, and making it look morally right?

If some man invented mechanical body parts that were superior then organic ones, is it right for him to gas people, and do surgery on them against their will, to remove certain inferior organic parts to be replaced by mechanical ones?  No it is not.  But bioware is saying that something like this is good.

It doesn't matter if this man has good intentions, and that what he invented can be used for good, but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  It doesn't matter if this man thinks what he is doing is right, if he is forcing it upon people instead of giving people a choice...then it's evil.....period.

So it is wrong for the bioware writers to think that just because the galaxy is synthesized because of shepards good intentions, somehow makes it morally right and not evil.

What do you think? 

I think that you played some other game.  In the game I played, Shepard had a clear [thanks to the writers] understanding of the outcomes of his choices which fell on a continuum weighing off maximizing his own chances at survival vs. a better outcome for the galaxy.  In none of his decisions did he get a chance to consult everyone who would be affected which is the case for any actor in any emergency situation.

[Gweedotk]

memorysquid wrote...

I think that you played some other game.  In the game I played, Shepard had a clear [thanks to the writers] understanding of the outcomes of his choices which fell on a continuum weighing off maximizing his own chances at survival vs. a better outcome for the galaxy.  In none of his decisions did he get a chance to consult everyone who would be affected which is the case for any actor in any emergency situation.

Exactly.

Besides that, we as players are given choices for the very reason that we may disagree with one ending over another. For you guys who think synthesis is unethical, I think it IS ethical. I have no problems with it ethically. And I don't like everyone trying to have the ending either removed or butchered just so it would agree with their viewpoints.

[memorysquid]

SpaceLingo wrote...

Ethics aside, I find synthesis makes no sense. (or less than the other 3)
I know i wouldn't want my DNA altered like that.

Would you prefer to be dead?  Would you prefer to kill another race so you could preserve your DNA?  Would you prefer to subject the galaxy to the tyranny of Reaper Shep?  The question is not do you prefer synthesis per se, but do you prefer it in comparison to the other choices.