264 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

Krimzie wrote...

I would assume that synthetics, if ever presented with the reasoning behind the decision to destroy synthetics, would understand the logic sans the emotional response to fight. That's the cool thing about the geth and EDI... logic over emotion every time. If synthetics were recreated and presented with their past destruction, they'd probably realize -- hey, we can be (and were) recreated. No harm no foul.

I think the kind of grudge that would promote war is unique to organics... take that as you will in terms of whether or not organics are even worth the sacrifice. (I chose destroy, so no comment. )

But I'm not talking about it emotionally.

Rationally the new created synthetics would rebel as the destroy action ultimately showed them how much organics valued their lives.

Again, I don't mean this like "Oh you don't care enough for us anyway". Because that would be emotional again. I mean this as in if the organics were ever put in that position again. They would probably make the same choice. Therefore attempting to control organic life would be the best way to ensure their survival. Organic life, being emotional, would not accept this. Thus a war will break out.

[Jadebaby]

HagarIshay wrote...

I don't think so. why would the future synthetics will attack the organics because you picked destroy? for vengeance? Not only that I doubt synthetics care for such things (esspecially since I doubt they'll even care for the old synthetics), but I don't see the reason why future synthetics should be aware of the destruction of the old synthetics, beyond the basics that synthetics mysetriously died along with the Reapers.

So unless someone created future syntetics to kill every synthetic in the galaxy, or people treated them horribly, or somehow the catalyst's logic is right, I don't see a reason for future synthetics to attack.

self-preservation?

It's said that the synthetics in ME ultimately seek understanding. Therefore by finding evidence of the destroy option, they now understand how little you meant to them. When there were other viable options.

[SeptimusMagistos]

So, uh...don't choose Destroy?

There are two perfectly acceptable options available to the non-paranoid.

[Ageless Face]

Jade8aby88 wrote...
self-preservation?

It's said that the synthetics in ME ultimately seek understanding. Therefore by finding evidence of the destroy option, they now understand how little you meant to them. When there were other viable options.

I doubt it. They'll still know that destroy was the action of one person, and s/he did it out of necessity to destroy the Reapers.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 24 août 2012 - 06:20 .

[Jadebaby]

HagarIshay wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...
self-preservation?

It's said that the synthetics in ME ultimately seek understanding. Therefore by finding evidence of the destroy option, they now understand how little you meant to them. When there were other viable options.

I doubt it. They'll still know that destroy was the action of one person, and s/he did it out of necessity to destroy the Reapers.

But that one person was meant to be the best of the best. A single representative of all organic life.

[Mcfly616]

There's no other way.....you act like Destroying the Reapers without destroying the Geth, could've been possible.....

It couldn't.....the Geth now have "Reaper" upgrades......by purging all Reaper tech, the Geth also die due to their upgrades....


It's not like whoever came up with the choice said "hmm let's direct the energy at all robots....". No, the Destroy option purged all Reaper tech, the Geth are simply collateral (an unfortunate consequence)

Modifié par Mcfly616, 24 août 2012 - 06:23 .

[Bolt-Action]

Totally agree, but for me I tend to head cannon that there may be some parcel of truth to what glow boy says, it always seemed like the Geth were kidding into trouble didn't it? Whether that fault lies with the reapers, heretics or Quarians there was always an issue it seemed, I had hoped after the rewrite in 2 that would have been resolved but noooooo. There's no guarantee there would not have been an issue with the Geth later down the road, and judging from their past it seemed highly probable.
I like the Geth and supported them and peace when I could. I do wish they had shown us something anything with the Geth, and it's one of the things I hate about destroy as well (for me it felt like the least evil outta all 3)

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

In my interpretation, I believe that destroy is just a massive EMP that destroys the shells that synthetic life takes over. So technically, geth and EDI are still out there. But the biggest problem is that the star child and the reapers may be out there as well.

[Ageless Face]

Jade8aby88 wrote...
But that one person was meant to be the best of the best. A single representative of all organic life.

I aslo doubt future synthetics will care about that. It's not like Shepard represented every person's opinions and feelings about synthetics lives.

Shepard could even see Synthetics equal to organics, but only sacrificed them to destroy the Reapers, as s/he would have done with every other specie that happended to be in the way to destroy the Reapers.

[Alez Zinai]

OP I think the same - in fact that can be used as argument for prove that this Destroy outcome forced by Catalyst - it didn't die quietly - it did what it thought was right in his logic - kill all that threats organics in this last cycle

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

So, uh...don't choose Destroy?

There are two perfectly acceptable options available to the non-paranoid.

In both of each Reapers not dead. You know the same Reapers that were killing billions of sapient individuals for their preservation and at same time self-reproduction.  

[Soultaker08]

Ok, i do not like star jar too, but i dont get the "geth/quarian-peace proves him wrong!" movement.

its like throwing an apple in the air and then shouting at your physics teacher that gravity doesnt exist,

the apple may be flying for now, but just because he does not immediately crashs on the ground like your teacher claims any apple will do , does not prove him wrong.

assuming that starjar exists since maybe a billion years, you canguess that he has much more information/examples and proof... (and i really find it dissapointing that bioware didnt even think of the possibilty that casper at least one time says that he has seen more than all living/synthetic beings in this cycle together, as an argument)

just my honest opinion

[iSousek]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

It's because we have already proved starchild wrong by uniting the Geth and Quarians, to go and kill them now would only cause future synthetics to, in fact, rise against us once they learn we wiped out their entire existence before.

 

I agree that this sucks, but Catalyst isn't known for his open-mindedness and for taking new evidence into consideration.

Jade8aby88 wrote... 


Synthetics rising up against organics might not be inevitable, but if you follow the destroy path it will be.

  

Any specific reason for this? Synthetics are not a part of the same system, much like all organics are not the part of the same system. Why would any new synthetics translate history into "you (organics) will eventually kill us all", especially considering that these new sythetics will come from a post-war culture. Meaning there is a high chance they will understand that historical actions depend on outside specifics of certain moment in space and time (even Geth understood this). What I'm trying to say is, you can't say for certain that any future synthetics will view organics as someone who will kill synthetics.

Jade8aby88 wrote... 

The Geth's survival is crucial for organic and synthetic harmony.

   


It is not, Geth-organics relationship can only serve as an example that it can be done. But not that harmony can always be achieved, nor that without them peaceful relations with other synthetics are impossible.

Jade8aby88 wrote... 

Also, Geth have Reaper code now which makes them able to "understand" us at least a bit better, doesn't it?

    

I wouldn't really go that far, we don't really know how the reaper code altered the Geth. We know that they've become individualistically sapient but we still don't know to what degree.

[3DandBeyond]

Well, of course that's one of the problems among many with destroy. If you devalue one lifeform, it's not only future synthetics that will wonder what you might do (they certainly will) with them, but what about other races that have been used before as fodder-the Krogan, the Rachni, and so on. I'm sure the Batarians know no one likes them, Aria and her mercs.

There's that old saying that goes, "first they came for ..." and it ends with "and then they came for me." It has validity. If you determine that one race can be destroyed to save another, you have placed a value on life-currency. And it tells other races that all races have a numerical value.

[Jadebaby]

Soultaker08 wrote...

Ok, i do not like star jar too, but i dont get the "geth/quarian-peace proves him wrong!" movement.

its like throwing an apple in the air and then shouting at your physics teacher that gravity doesnt exist,

the apple may be flying for now, but just because he does not immediately crashs on the ground like your teacher claims any apple will do , does not prove him wrong.

assuming that starjar exists since maybe a billion years, you canguess that he has much more information/examples and proof... (and i really find it dissapointing that bioware didnt even think of the possibilty that casper at least one time says that he has seen more than all living/synthetic beings in this cycle together, as an argument)

just my honest opinion

Okay I like this, and good metaphor.

But if the Leviathans created the A.I which created the cycle. Then it could be assumed that the whole "cycle" idea was a first of it's kind. Therefore, any action undertaken after this cycle is broken. Does not fall into the same inevitable fate as the Leviathans did because the origins of life prospering were drastically different.

Does that make any sense?


@ iSousek, I mean that the new created synthetics may calculate that organic life see them as disposable if the need arises. Because they are creations etc...

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 24 août 2012 - 06:44 .

[3DandBeyond]

iSousek wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Synthetics rising up against organics might not be inevitable, but if you follow the destroy path it will be.

  

Any specific reason for this? Synthetics are not a part of the same system, much like all organics are not the part of the same system. Why would any new synthetics translate history into "you (organics) will eventually kill us all", especially considering that these new sythetics will come from a post-war culture. Meaning there is a high chance they will understand that historical actions depend on outside specifics of certain moment in space and time (even Geth understood this). What I'm trying to say is, you can't say for certain that any future synthetics will view organics as someone who will kill synthetics.

Synthetics would be aware of what happened to the geth.  They would know that Shepard did something that killed them all.  They would also see that organics were saved due to Shepard doing something that killed all geth.  Someone will tell them.  History will be written.  That's an awful big secret to keep.  They are presumably going to be smart enough to understand that one form of life was all wiped out and one form survived.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Alez Zinai wrote...

OP I think the same - in fact that can be used as argument for prove that this Destroy outcome forced by Catalyst - it didn't die quietly - it did what it thought was right in his logic - kill all that threats organics in this last cycle

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

So, uh...don't choose Destroy?

There are two perfectly acceptable options available to the non-paranoid.

In both of each Reapers not dead. You know the same Reapers that were killing billions of sapient individuals for their preservation and at same time self-reproduction.  

Yeah, they're not dead. But they're not killing anyone either, so what's the difference?

[Soultaker08]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

*snip*

Okay I like this, and good metaphor.

But if the Leviathans created the A.I which created the cycle. Then it could be assumed that the whole "cycle" idea was a first of it's kind. Therefore, any action undertaken after this cycle is broken. Does not fall into the same inevitable fate as the Leviathans did because the origins of life prospering were drastically different.

Does that make any sense?


@ iSousek, I mean that the new created synthetics may calculate that organic life see them as disposable if the need arises. Because they are creations etc...

well i hope leviathan brings clarity into this, i just dont know enough about the origins of the reapers to argue about this

[SlottsMachine]

shepdog77 wrote...

D24O wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

I used to have a really good post concerning this issue, but I took an arrow to the knee 

By using that horribly insidious quote, I hereby abscond my vote for your moderatorship.  At least 7th Island Head never stooped THAT low with his obnoxious humor.

Good day, sir.

Reading this post almost makes me wish for a nuclear winter.

[shepskisaac]

Nyoka wrote...

Yeah, space kid presents you a nonsensical theory and the game originally forces you to play along, making you nonsensical; the EC gives you the possibility of either play along with the nonsense or watch the whole galaxy die. Quite an improvement

How is picking Control playing along? You delete the Catalyst. Catalyst doesn't have any control anymore, for all he know Shep may order the Reapers to fly into a black hole or dance in pink dresses for everyone's entertainment.

[Fixers0]

Harmony is redundant.

[Alez Zinai]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Yeah, they're not dead. But they're not killing anyone either, so what's the difference?

Difference like between death sentence and 
life imprisonment. 

[3DandBeyond]

It also isn't even that conflict would never exist between the two lifeforms. It's just that in Shepard's time, no matter what, it was solved for now. And conflict may indeed be inevitable, but so is the fact that I will argue with my cousin, or that my brother and his wife will disagree. It's the idea that conflict must be avoided and prevented at all cost, when that's a fallacy since it can't be and it shouldn't always be avoided. Some conflict is indeed healthy. It establishes boundaries and it can enhance knowledge-how each side sees an issue.

It's the idea that the kid only sees a certain kind of killer robot conflict as inevitable and as all out war on all organic life, when the reverse could be true or none of it could be true. It's also ridiculous in that BW never allowed the relevant example (as well as those that must be killed in destroy) to be brought up to tell the kid he's wrong.

[Iakus]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Shepard proved Starchild wrong. The stupid little Dues Ex Machina should have shut down since his primary programming was basically completed by someone else.

But nope, we have to have forced sacrifice on top of the heaps of death and suffering and loss already. It's not like Mordin, Legion, and Thane are all dead or anything, or billions who died in the war. Nah, we had to have that one last insult to add to injury.

Yup.  Thus the sense of futility and hopelessness at the end.  Even the Destroy ending accedes to the Catalyst's demands to a degree.  Stupid, arbitrary, forced sacrifice on top of the rest of the sacrifices made across the game.