231 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Synthesis imposes the Reaper's vision of "understanding" and negates her efforts. How do you know how long it would take? Who are you to judge that? 

Who am I to judge?  Apparently the same thing that gives you the power to choose to do nothing.

You know what? That's it. If the only way you can defend synthesis is by bashing the other options, you have no case.
I've humoured this long enough. Do what BioWare doesn't and prop up synthesis on it's own terms.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

You know what? That's it. If the only way you can defend synthesis is by bashing the other options, you have no case.
I've humoured this long enough. Do what BioWare doesn't and prop up synthesis on it's own terms.

...That's all you do.  You bash all over Synthesis based on what you THINK happens because of your interpretation of the Catalyst.

And really, I'm not bashing anything:

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.

If you're going to make the "Who gave you the right to choose?" argument, it applies -everywhere else too-.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...That's all you do.  You bash all over Synthesis based on what you THINK happens because of your interpretation of the Catalyst.

And really, I'm not bashing anything:

I call synthesis on the appalling, racist, oppressive, nightmarish outcome it is, and I use evidence from synthesis and events of the game to back this up.
I do not criticise synthesis to defend other options.

If you're going to make the "Who gave you the right to choose?" argument, it applies -everywhere else too-.

No, it doesn't. No matter how many times you think it does.

[Heeden]

RiouHotaru wrote...

If you're going to make the "Who gave you the right to choose?" argument, it applies -everywhere else too-.

The "Who gave you the right to choose?" argument is pretty bogus anyway. The Council, as de facto leaders of the galaxy, empowered Shepard to use whatever means and methods he believes are necessary to maintain the stability of the galaxy.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...
I call synthesis on the appalling, racist, oppressive, nightmarish outcome it is, and I use evidence from synthesis and events of the game to back this up.
I do not criticise synthesis to defend other options.

Uhhh, the game doesn't back up anything.  The game clearly states that Synthesis produces a utopia of understanding and cooperation.  That you interpret it as something else is a matter of your personal views and bias, which you're entitled to.  But all you do is continue to state is as fact.  And techically, you are bashing.  Because for a lot of people, Refuse is indefensible.

You're technically defending Refuse by calling Synthesis something it isn't, claiming Refuse means something different.  Doesn't keep Refuse from being a valid option, but it is what it is.

No, it doesn't. No matter how many times you think it does.

I could make the same argument for the Catalyst, or Synthesis.

[The Angry One]

Heeden wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

If you're going to make the "Who gave you the right to choose?" argument, it applies -everywhere else too-.

The "Who gave you the right to choose?" argument is pretty bogus anyway. The Council, as de facto leaders of the galaxy, empowered Shepard to use whatever means and methods he believes are necessary to maintain the stability of the galaxy.

I'm pretty sure that didn't include "genetic violation".
I'm sure they would've added a clause to that effect, but they were sure Shepard wouldn't be that stupid.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...


Uhhh, the game doesn't back up anything.  The game clearly states that Synthesis produces a utopia of understanding and cooperation.  That you interpret it as something else is a matter of your personal views and bias, which you're entitled to.  But all you do is continue to state is as fact.  And techically, you are bashing.  Because for a lot of people, Refuse is indefensible.

The ending itself claims that. The rest of the trilogy exposes it for the sham that it is.

You're technically defending Refuse by calling Synthesis something it isn't, claiming Refuse means something different.  Doesn't keep Refuse from being a valid option, but it is what it is.

I defend refuse because it's the only option that comes close to doing what we were supposed to do all along - defy the Reapers.
It's not my fault that Walters threw it in there as a take that to the fans who know more about the series than he does.

I could make the same argument for the Catalyst, or Synthesis.

You could, but you'd be wrong. Because unlike you I've fully explained why several times.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm pretty sure that didn't include "genetic violation".
I'm sure they would've added a clause to that effect, but they were sure Shepard wouldn't be that stupid.

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm pretty sure that didn't include "genetic violation".
I'm sure they would've added a clause to that effect, but they were sure Shepard wouldn't be that stupid.

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Yes it can, because this is a permanent violation of all species.
I've already pointed out numerous times that control is arrogant totalitarianism and destroy is genocide, but synthesis is far, FAR worse than those. The end.

Modifié par The Angry One, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:23 .

[mass perfection]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm pretty sure that didn't include "genetic violation".
I'm sure they would've added a clause to that effect, but they were sure Shepard wouldn't be that stupid.

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Synthesis is worse than all of that.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

The ending itself claims that. The rest of the trilogy exposes it for the sham that it is.

I defend refuse because it's the only option that comes close to doing what we were supposed to do all along - defy the Reapers.
It's not my fault that Walters threw it in there as a take that to the fans who know more about the series than he does.

Actually, the rest of the trilogy makes very little statement on Synthesis.  It makes PLENTY of statements on the Catalyst's Reaper Solution.  But there's only a few things about Organics and Synthetics coming to an understanding.  One of which is the Quarian/Geth conflict.

And the Walters things is again, an opinion.  Not fact.

You could, but you'd be wrong. Because unlike you I've fully explained why several times.

Shepard has moral agency, the Catalyst does not.  Shepard is responsible for whichever choice he or she makes, even if the action is nothing.

[Heeden]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm pretty sure that didn't include "genetic violation".
I'm sure they would've added a clause to that effect, but they were sure Shepard wouldn't be that stupid.

They probably don't want Spectres commiting genocide or taking control of the most destructive force in the galaxy either; but when it's a matter of choosing one of the three or allowing the galaxy to die a Spectre is supposed to make the difficult choices to ensure galactic stability.

[Heeden]

mass perfection wrote...

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Synthesis is worse than all of that.

I disagree, Synthesis does the most to preserve the life and freedoms of Sentient beings.

Modifié par Heeden, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:27 .

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Actually, the rest of the trilogy makes very little statement on Synthesis.  It makes PLENTY of statements on the Catalyst's Reaper Solution.  But there's only a few things about Organics and Synthetics coming to an understanding.  One of which is the Quarian/Geth conflict.

It has shown numerous times that organics and synthetics can co-exist, that synthetics are alive, that synthetics can care for organics, that "harmony" with the Reapers is the goal of the antagonists, that synthesis is their ideal.

And the Walters things is again, an opinion.  Not fact.

No, it's fact. The endings demonstrate this, as well as his treatment of Shepard, mishandling of the Rachni, Kai Leng, and so on. I know more. You know more. He doesn't, because he doesn't care. He probably thinks this is a step up to something more artistic.

Shepard has moral agency, the Catalyst does not.  Shepard is responsible for whichever choice he or she makes, even if the action is nothing.

The Catalyst is responsible, whether you like it or not. Whatever Shepard is responsible for, synthesis is still far worse than the other choices.

[The Angry One]

Heeden wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Synthesis is worse than all of that.

I disagree, Synthesis does the most to preserve the life and freedoms of Sentient beings.

Synthesis destroys all life, replaces it with the Reaper ideal and removes their freedom to choose. So yeah, right. Sure.

[RiouHotaru]

Heeden wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Synthesis is worse than all of that.

I disagree, Synthesis does the most to preserve the life and freedoms of Sentient beings.

Indeed, from a strictly moral and utilitarian standpoint, Synthesis produces the most beneficial effects, for the least amount of cost (Shepard must die to make it work).  Of course, it requires a MASSIVE leap of faith to assume it will work as intended, but it's no less a leap of faith than Control or Destroy, it just has the most uncertainty due to the esoteric end result.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Heeden wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Synthesis is worse than all of that.

I disagree, Synthesis does the most to preserve the life and freedoms of Sentient beings.

Indeed, from a strictly moral and utilitarian standpoint, Synthesis produces the most beneficial effects, for the least amount of cost (Shepard must die to make it work).  Of course, it requires a MASSIVE leap of faith to assume it will work as intended, but it's no less a leap of faith than Control or Destroy, it just has the most uncertainty due to the esoteric end result.

Least amount of cost? It violates all life and removes all organic life from the galaxy permanently and that's the "least amount of cost"?

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst is responsible, whether you like it or not. Whatever Shepard is responsible for, synthesis is still far worse than the other choices.

The rest is arguing in circles, so there's no point, put this is important.

You believe that, however responsible Shepard is or isn't, that Synthesis is a worse outcome than everyone in the current cycle being killed off/Reaperized?

Do I have this right?

[mass perfection]

Heeden wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Well, if that's the case, it didn't include "Become the next AI controlling the Reapers", "Genocide an ally to stop the Reapers" or "Do nothing and let everyone die."

Again, the logic can't JUST apply to Synthesis.

Synthesis is worse than all of that.

I disagree, Synthesis does the most to preserve the life and freedoms of Sentient beings.

Irony.

[WidePaul]

My main gripe with the synthesis ending is that after the Reapers have killed countless millions/billions across the galaxy everyone's suddenly all "Hey let's be bestest friends forever just because we all have glowing green eyes now. We're not angry or bitter that you murdered our friends and loved ones, honest".

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The rest is arguing in circles, so there's no point, put this is important.

You believe that, however responsible Shepard is or isn't, that Synthesis is a worse outcome than everyone in the current cycle being killed off/Reaperized?

Do I have this right?

Yes it is. Because in the end, that only harms this cycle. The next will be free.
Synthesis destroys all organic life. FOREVER.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

Least amount of cost? It violates all life and removes all organic life from the galaxy permanently and that's the "least amount of cost"?

One, informed consent is once again, debatable.  The cutscene shows people acting surprised at the change, but no one appears "violated" (Seriously, you're treating Synthesis like rape).  And "removes all organic life"?  I don't see humans turning into geth.  The addition of synthetic components or attributes doesn't make them STOP being organic.  Hybrids, yes.  But are you really arguing they turn fully synthetic?

And yes, least amount of cost.  Or did you miss the "utilitarian" part of my post?  In Synthesis, nobody dies.  In Refuse, everyone dies.

[mass perfection]

The Angry One wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

The rest is arguing in circles, so there's no point, put this is important.

You believe that, however responsible Shepard is or isn't, that Synthesis is a worse outcome than everyone in the current cycle being killed off/Reaperized?

Do I have this right?

Yes it is. Because in the end, that only harms this cycle. The next will be free.
Synthesis destroys all organic life. FOREVER.

Don't forget synthetic life.

[RiouHotaru]

mass perfection wrote...
Irony.

Not really.  It's clear from the slideshow that the organic-hybrids are still free to pursue what ambitions or goals they desire.  At no point is anyone shown being unable to do what they want to do.  As such, their freedom is still very much preserved.  They may not be the same being biologically as they once were, but there's nothing to indicate they were altered on a personal/intellectual level into something else.

Memorial scene alone indicates as such.