6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Okay, dreman9999 is a broken clock.

First I don't buy this moral relativism stuff. You can justify anything with moral relativism. So let's break this down. Let's make this more personal and less space magic. We cannot comprehend things like "The Geth", or "Everyone in the galaxy". Those are abstract. Just numbers like Stalin said: "The death of one is a tragedy. The deaths of 10,000 a statistic."

You're on the level of the Citadel with the Catalyst. You arrived with your best friend in the world who has saved your life time and again.

"I know you want to destroy us. To do so you must murder your best friend."

"Here is another of your best friends. She is unconscious and you cannot wake her. I want you to cut open her spine and place this metal implant in it which will cause circuits to grow throughout her body. Everyone in the world will experience this same thing when you do this except they will be awake. You will die afterward. Then there will be peace between machine and humans and the cycle will end." -- this is Synthesis. (oversimplified, but you get the idea)

"Grab these two electrodes and electrocute yourself and transmit your mind into me and you will rule over all my dominion and wield all of my power, but you will die in the process and you will lose all that made you who you are in the process. You will cease to exist. Your mind's programming will become part of me. Then you will control us." -- This is Control. ("Fool. You have changed nothing. Soon, you will begin the cycle again. There is no alternative.")

"Do nothing and I will kill everyone in the world, including you and your best friends. Make your choice."

I find all of these choices vile and unethical. They are essentially the same as the game's.

EDI? In my game, at least she said on her last lines "I would rather become non-functional than be reprogrammed." And given her past statements she made about the reapers, I took that to rule out synthesis. I had done a lot of renegade stuff with her.

The ending was just horrible. The dilemma? There is no dilemma. Which is the least of the evils? I can tell you which it is. You know that big "X" button in the middle of the controller? You press that, and this screen pops up that gives a choice that has at the top "XBox Home". Select that. Then another screen comes up and says "All unsaved progress will be lost." Select OK. Done. That's the least of the evils. That is the only correct moral choice for the ending.

Basically, given what's put in front of us, there is no moral choice.They're all morally bad.

If they wanted to do the right thing they'd write an entirely new ending, or do something entirely different with the one they have in place -- i.e. make it an indoctrination dream and if you picked destroy you wake up in one state, and if you picked another, you wake up in a different state of mind and have to break indoctrination -- both handled in another expansion DLC with a real ending.

It nothing to justifly . It's their story, they can take it any direction they want.  And the ending has delama in it, it matter not if they are all moaly bad choices. All that matter is which your willing to do. There are time where you have to do something that can be viewed as moraly bad to get to a goal. That is tha law of nature.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:16 .

[dreman9999]

o Ventus wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

And you have a hard time grasping that just because you can't grasp the depth of the ending, it does not mean the ending stupid, but it might mean you are.

You might have a point, but only if the endings had depth to begin with.

There is depth but you not willing to see it.

[AresKeith]

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

Modifié par AresKeith, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[o Ventus]

dreman9999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

And you have a hard time grasping that just because you can't grasp the depth of the ending, it does not mean the ending stupid, but it might mean you are.

You might have a point, but only if the endings had depth to begin with.

There is depth but you not willing to see it.

If all you have to say is "it's there, you just cant see it", then I am further led to believe that it is not there, because you cannot point it out.

[IamDanThaMan]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Basically, given what's put in front of us, there is no moral choice.They're all morally bad.

That is exactly the point, just like with Japan in WW2, the choices were either to invade Japan, basically eactly how we had to invade France by storming the beaches of Normandy, resulting in thousands of casualties on both sides and months or years of the war continuing while we blockaded japan and their population starved to death, or drop the atomic bomb, killing thousands, but ending the war quickly.

There was no moral choice, both were morally bad. But there was no other choice, so they made the one they felt would be the best.

I just don't understand how you can all think that there can be some magical choice in war that can just solve the problem without stepping into a morally grey or black area. it just doesn't exist. and you are living in a dream world if you actually think that Bioware should even consider putting that crap into their game.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Nope, no moral dilemma-you can't have one if you don't finish the game.

And others don't have a moral dilemma.  A lot of people choose destroy with no problem at all-that means the moral dilemma is not 100%, so that means it's not necessary for everyone to face such a dilemma to finish the game.

So, a moral dilemma is not a requirement which means there doesn't need to be any at all for all endings.  Ipso facto, BW could easily make additions to what we have (maybe just for you to play them too) where the moral issue isn't so predominant. 

Doesn't this post negate a large portion of your OP here?

3DandBeyond wrote...
I want to appeal to Bioware, one last time to please reconsider all this. The endings as they are ask many of us to do things we cannot in all good conscience do and so they ruin what has been the favorite game of all time for many of us. Many of us have said this repeatedly-the endings are genocide, totalitarianism, and forced eugenics, along with suicide.

whose uncle was under age and lied about it to fight against the things that this game's endings force me to decide between, I don't feel the heart of ME at the end of ME3. I'm sorry, but it does come down to being forced into genocide, totalitarianism, or forced eugenics on an uninformed galaxy

 In leaving Shepard in a heap in the only possible way for Shepard to live, after committing an unconscionable act,

I don't hate you, but I've been called a hater, a whiner, a complainer, and worse. I'm a human being with feelings and ME appealed to my feelings. I loved it and loved you for creating it. I do hate what you did to it. I hate what you seem to be saying about the aspirations, goals, and the ideals of people. You seem to be saying that people will always only ever choose the easy way out, even if this includes ruining all that they hold dear to get it. I truly wish you had chosen someone without depression issues to write ME3's ending

sourceSorry for the snip job, but trying to keep this post less wall of text, and more to the point.

All of these represent moral dilemmas, and you posted all of them, including calling them unconscionable.  That is a moral stance.  I dislike agreeing with arguementative people on principle.  However, in this case, you are stepping away from the context of your original post in a broad sense.  This is what I meant earlier by not wanting to get their hands dirty.  It is precisely a request to make an ending that is "feel good", if not rainbows and butterflies.  Whether that's what BioWare wanted or not, we can see from what we got, ending wise, that that's not where they were headed.  Good bad or indifferent, it is what it is, and you're asking them to change it, and a large percentage of your post is asking for that on a moral ground.  Otherwise comments about your uncle would be unnecessary. 

Even the titles given to the endings are meant to evoke emotional responses based on morality.  You can choose to overlook, or deny this, but that's what they are for, shock value.  How does genocide not evoke a moral response?  How does totalitarianism not evoke an emotional response, after some people go look it up to see what it means?  The same for forced eugenics, and suicide.  So you start out appealing these endings on moral grounds, but then claim that there are no moral grounds?  In my case, you are right.  10 of my games never got this far, and I have a couple more that are close that won't.  I have a couple more that will, eventually.  Of the two that did, one didn't have the moral dilemma of the geth, they were already dead, at the hands of the Quarians, not my fault, really, although, had I done things differently in ME 2 I could have prevented it.  I didn't do them differently, primarily because I didn't know I would have to face that decision later.  My second did have the dilemma, and chose Destroy anyway, since it was better to sacrifice the Geth and EDI than to swing my moral compass too far from where it was to choose the other two methods that using the Crucible provide, and Refusal wasn't an option.

Truth in advertising, I see this as a complaint about ME 3.  Why is dishonesty in asking them for cookies acceptable?  Disclaimer:  Despite how it looks, I am not agreeing with certain other posters who can't seem to understand the concept of dialog.  I am merely pointing out a perceived contradiction, and asking for clarification.

Don't nuke me bro'!

[3DandBeyond]

UnbornLeviathan wrote...

I've thought about this for a while, and while I am disappointed with the endings, I've been disappointed with many endings of many games, mostly the ones where I spend a great deal of time making my character make the choices I would make and not be able to do that at the key moments.

Knights of the Old Republic's use of Revan after the game (The novel brought a lot of rage from people) as well as Fable 2 and 3.

But I do realize that taking the entire ending, re-writing it, re-animating and programming it, getting the voice actors in to do all the work, would cost a lot of money with almost no return on this game. Now some people might say 'Oh, well it'll make the fans loyal for future games' but honestly most of EA's money comes from their sports and sim franchises. Not to mention the fact that in retrospect, when this was going on, I'm sure the company was losing money.

You don't go up for sale and not see the signs. So the fact that they did what they did, gave us the extended ending with extra content and options, as well as all this free MP DLC means they were doing this WHILE they knew they were going under.

It means a lot more in retrospect. I still can't say EA is in my top gaming companies, so I choose to believe a lot of this came from Bioware and I salute them for it.

Don't ask for a company who's owner is up for sale to hemorrhage more money with little return promised. It won't happen because right now it CAN'T happen, and even if it could, I don't expect it would.

You didn't read what I asked them to do-I never asked for them to rewrite the ending.  I asked them to consider adding additional content that would not change the endings people now have-it would add to one of them and people could pay for it.

I asked them to consider it and evaluate the cost vs. benefits.  You and others are reading things into what I said. 

[IamDanThaMan]

AresKeith wrote...

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

All good science fiction ever has always dealt with real, current time problems. Causality does not dissapear in the future, and karma does not exist there anymore than it does today.

Any writing that ignores realism and opts to give a fairy dust ending where everything ends in the best way it can is bad writing.

[WhiteKnyght]

I think Mass Effect has almost topped Star Trek on creating whiny delusional zealots of its fanbase.

[AresKeith]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

All good science fiction ever has always dealt with real, current time problems. Causality does not dissapear in the future, and karma does not exist there anymore than it does today.

Any writing that ignores realism and opts to give a fairy dust ending where everything ends in the best way it can is bad writing.

funny you should say that, Synthesis

Modifié par AresKeith, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:36 .

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...


sourceSorry for the snip job, but trying to keep this post less wall of text, and more to the point.

All of these represent moral dilemmas, and you posted all of them, including calling them unconscionable.  That is a moral stance.  I dislike agreeing with arguementative people on principle.  However, in this case, you are stepping away from the context of your original post in a broad sense.  This is what I meant earlier by not wanting to get their hands dirty.  It is precisely a request to make an ending that is "feel good", if not rainbows and butterflies.  Whether that's what BioWare wanted or not, we can see from what we got, ending wise, that that's not where they were headed.  Good bad or indifferent, it is what it is, and you're asking them to change it, and a large percentage of your post is asking for that on a moral ground.  Otherwise comments about your uncle would be unnecessary. 

Even the titles given to the endings are meant to evoke emotional responses based on morality.  You can choose to overlook, or deny this, but that's what they are for, shock value.  How does genocide not evoke a moral response?  How does totalitarianism not evoke an emotional response, after some people go look it up to see what it means?  The same for forced eugenics, and suicide.  So you start out appealing these endings on moral grounds, but then claim that there are no moral grounds?  In my case, you are right.  10 of my games never got this far, and I have a couple more that are close that won't.  I have a couple more that will, eventually.  Of the two that did, one didn't have the moral dilemma of the geth, they were already dead, at the hands of the Quarians, not my fault, really, although, had I done things differently in ME 2 I could have prevented it.  I didn't do them differently, primarily because I didn't know I would have to face that decision later.  My second did have the dilemma, and chose Destroy anyway, since it was better to sacrifice the Geth and EDI than to swing my moral compass too far from where it was to choose the other two methods that using the Crucible provide, and Refusal wasn't an option.

Truth in advertising, I see this as a complaint about ME 3.  Why is dishonesty in asking them for cookies acceptable?  Disclaimer:  Despite how it looks, I am not agreeing with certain other posters who can't seem to understand the concept of dialog.  I am merely pointing out a perceived contradiction, and asking for clarification.

Don't nuke me bro'!

Ha ha, robert-understand the context of what I'm saying.  If I was forced to make those choices puts me in a dilemma so I choose nothing-I don't finish the game.  But the game isn't forcing others to have any such moral dilemma.  Others are asserting that it does.  My point is if the moral dilemma is not so for everyone then it isn't really a stance you can take.  You can't say the endings are meant to be moral dilemmas if the game allows you to not care about EDI and the geth.  If the destroy ending was based on you having to destroy someone you cared about in all cases for every Shepard, that would be true.  But since the game does not require people to care about the ones they will destroy, then it isn't a moral dilemma for everyone.

Yes, if I play through to the end I do reach a sort of a dilemma, but not really.  A dilemma is having to choose between 2 things when neither is acceptable.  I don't have to - I quit the game and don't choose.  If I would get an electric shock if I didn't make a choice, that might create a dilemma, but I do have a choice to quit so the dilemma is averted. 

[IamDanThaMan]

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

All good science fiction ever has always dealt with real, current time problems. Causality does not dissapear in the future, and karma does not exist there anymore than it does today.

Any writing that ignores realism and opts to give a fairy dust ending where everything ends in the best way it can is bad writing.

funny you should say that, Synthesis

I have already dealt with the explanation of how synthesis works, and since nobody disputed it, I can only assume that you are unable to refute it. It is not space magic, it is reaper nanites, a concept that was introduced before ME2. It did not come out of nowhere unless you weren't paying attention or were just too dense to get it. It is also not a perfect, ideal ending, since everyone in the galaxy is getting infected with reaper technology without their consent.

[o Ventus]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have already dealt with the explanation of how synthesis works, and since nobody disputed it, I can only assume that you are unable to refute it. It is not space magic, it is reaper nanites, a concept that was introduced before ME2. It did not come out of nowhere unless you weren't paying attention or were just too dense to get it. It is also not a perfect, ideal ending, since everyone in the galaxy is getting infected with reaper technology without their consent.

If it were Reaper nanites, it wouldn't require Shepard's "essence", nor would it require the Crucible.

[3DandBeyond]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

I think Mass Effect has almost topped Star Trek on creating whiny delusional zealots of its fanbase.

Uh, in your tagline you ignored one Olympics-the one in 2014.  Sochi. 

[IamDanThaMan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ha ha, robert-understand the context of what I'm saying.  If I was forced to make those choices puts me in a dilemma so I choose nothing-I don't finish the game.  But the game isn't forcing others to have any such moral dilemma.  Others are asserting that it does.  My point is if the moral dilemma is not so for everyone then it isn't really a stance you can take.  You can't say the endings are meant to be moral dilemmas if the game allows you to not care about EDI and the geth.  If the destroy ending was based on you having to destroy someone you cared about in all cases for every Shepard, that would be true.  But since the game does not require people to care about the ones they will destroy, then it isn't a moral dilemma for everyone.

Yes, if I play through to the end I do reach a sort of a dilemma, but not really.  A dilemma is having to choose between 2 things when neither is acceptable.  I don't have to - I quit the game and don't choose.  If I would get an electric shock if I didn't make a choice, that might create a dilemma, but I do have a choice to quit so the dilemma is averted. 

I don't see the problem then, you gave up when you were force to make a decision you didn't want to have to make. So you got your ending and I got mine. Everybody's happy.

[IamDanThaMan]

o Ventus wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have already dealt with the explanation of how synthesis works, and since nobody disputed it, I can only assume that you are unable to refute it. It is not space magic, it is reaper nanites, a concept that was introduced before ME2. It did not come out of nowhere unless you weren't paying attention or were just too dense to get it. It is also not a perfect, ideal ending, since everyone in the galaxy is getting infected with reaper technology without their consent.

If it were Reaper nanites, it wouldn't require Shepard's "essence", nor would it require the Crucible.

It required Shepard and the crucible to be able to reprogram the nanites so that it wouldn't turn everbody into husks. Try to keep up.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

robertthebard wrote...


sourceSorry for the snip job, but trying to keep this post less wall of text, and more to the point.

All of these represent moral dilemmas, and you posted all of them, including calling them unconscionable.  That is a moral stance.  I dislike agreeing with arguementative people on principle.  However, in this case, you are stepping away from the context of your original post in a broad sense.  This is what I meant earlier by not wanting to get their hands dirty.  It is precisely a request to make an ending that is "feel good", if not rainbows and butterflies.  Whether that's what BioWare wanted or not, we can see from what we got, ending wise, that that's not where they were headed.  Good bad or indifferent, it is what it is, and you're asking them to change it, and a large percentage of your post is asking for that on a moral ground.  Otherwise comments about your uncle would be unnecessary. 

Even the titles given to the endings are meant to evoke emotional responses based on morality.  You can choose to overlook, or deny this, but that's what they are for, shock value.  How does genocide not evoke a moral response?  How does totalitarianism not evoke an emotional response, after some people go look it up to see what it means?  The same for forced eugenics, and suicide.  So you start out appealing these endings on moral grounds, but then claim that there are no moral grounds?  In my case, you are right.  10 of my games never got this far, and I have a couple more that are close that won't.  I have a couple more that will, eventually.  Of the two that did, one didn't have the moral dilemma of the geth, they were already dead, at the hands of the Quarians, not my fault, really, although, had I done things differently in ME 2 I could have prevented it.  I didn't do them differently, primarily because I didn't know I would have to face that decision later.  My second did have the dilemma, and chose Destroy anyway, since it was better to sacrifice the Geth and EDI than to swing my moral compass too far from where it was to choose the other two methods that using the Crucible provide, and Refusal wasn't an option.

Truth in advertising, I see this as a complaint about ME 3.  Why is dishonesty in asking them for cookies acceptable?  Disclaimer:  Despite how it looks, I am not agreeing with certain other posters who can't seem to understand the concept of dialog.  I am merely pointing out a perceived contradiction, and asking for clarification.

Don't nuke me bro'!

Ha ha, robert-understand the context of what I'm saying.  If I was forced to make those choices puts me in a dilemma so I choose nothing-I don't finish the game.  But the game isn't forcing others to have any such moral dilemma.  Others are asserting that it does.  My point is if the moral dilemma is not so for everyone then it isn't really a stance you can take.  You can't say the endings are meant to be moral dilemmas if the game allows you to not care about EDI and the geth.  If the destroy ending was based on you having to destroy someone you cared about in all cases for every Shepard, that would be true.  But since the game does not require people to care about the ones they will destroy, then it isn't a moral dilemma for everyone.

Yes, if I play through to the end I do reach a sort of a dilemma, but not really.  A dilemma is having to choose between 2 things when neither is acceptable.  I don't have to - I quit the game and don't choose.  If I would get an electric shock if I didn't make a choice, that might create a dilemma, but I do have a choice to quit so the dilemma is averted. 

Yep, I can verify, there are no electric shocks for quitting before you have to listen to SC.  I do it a lot...

Thanks for the clarifications, I'll have to consider them later, as my migraine is starting to kick in at full power, might have to go get happy shots.  I love those, you sitll have the migraine, but you don't care.  It's not fun on voice chat either, although my mmo friends used to find it hilarious.

[3DandBeyond]

o Ventus wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have already dealt with the explanation of how synthesis works, and since nobody disputed it, I can only assume that you are unable to refute it. It is not space magic, it is reaper nanites, a concept that was introduced before ME2. It did not come out of nowhere unless you weren't paying attention or were just too dense to get it. It is also not a perfect, ideal ending, since everyone in the galaxy is getting infected with reaper technology without their consent.

If it were Reaper nanites, it wouldn't require Shepard's "essence", nor would it require the Crucible.

And if it is reaper nanites or Shepard's essence then perhaps the poster will explain the non-magical process of how it is flung out and inserted into every organic being in the galaxy.  And he has yet to explain the dissemination of full understanding of organics to synthetics-where it comes from and even why it would be relevant when organics no longer exist.  As well I want to know how that would stop the understanding synthetics from becoming killer robots in outer space.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[Kabraxal]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

All good science fiction ever has always dealt with real, current time problems. Causality does not dissapear in the future, and karma does not exist there anymore than it does today.

Any writing that ignores realism and opts to give a fairy dust ending where everything ends in the best way it can is bad writing.

First... disbelief in karma isn't a proven fact. 

Second... it's bad writing to throw in a last minute character throwing in solutions that make no sense and rely more on magic and just purely not caring why by the audience.  The endings are less realistic now than many other theories out there, so this argument fails already.

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

Yep, I can verify, there are no electric shocks for quitting before you have to listen to SC.  I do it a lot...

Thanks for the clarifications, I'll have to consider them later, as my migraine is starting to kick in at full power, might have to go get happy shots.  I love those, you sitll have the migraine, but you don't care.  It's not fun on voice chat either, although my mmo friends used to find it hilarious.

Sorry about the migraine...

[AresKeith]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

All good science fiction ever has always dealt with real, current time problems. Causality does not dissapear in the future, and karma does not exist there anymore than it does today.

Any writing that ignores realism and opts to give a fairy dust ending where everything ends in the best way it can is bad writing.

funny you should say that, Synthesis

I have already dealt with the explanation of how synthesis works, and since nobody disputed it, I can only assume that you are unable to refute it. It is not space magic, it is reaper nanites, a concept that was introduced before ME2. It did not come out of nowhere unless you weren't paying attention or were just too dense to get it. It is also not a perfect, ideal ending, since everyone in the galaxy is getting infected with reaper technology without their consent.

there is no Reaper nanites involved the Synthesis ending

[3DandBeyond]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

@IamDanThaMan once again trying to insult someone because you refuse to see everything we say. We didn't say its not there, we said its not full relevant because not everyone had onedealing the ending, and IMO I think only a few people actually had a Moral Conflict in the ending

and your trying to compare the Real world to a Sci-fi futurist game, when most people play for escapism, not a strong defence

All good science fiction ever has always dealt with real, current time problems. Causality does not dissapear in the future, and karma does not exist there anymore than it does today.

Any writing that ignores realism and opts to give a fairy dust ending where everything ends in the best way it can is bad writing.

But it's ok to throw in fairy dust endings that change every being in the galaxy along with all organic life such as plants and animals and so on.  Magic is real and reality is too magical and unbelievable. 

You want to know what book publishers consider bad writing-poorly explained MacGuffins and especialy Deus ex Machina endings-especially those that are derivative of other people's IP.   Sci Fi writers of note have criticized these endings, literary critics have as well.  A whole lot of just plain folks can tear it apart and explain where it fails.  And even you don't totally like it.  So, it is what it is.

And you are repeatedly showing yourself to be singularly toxic and mean-spirited.  Go try and think happy thoughts-I can only assume your life sucks for you to be so bitter and to try and make others that way as well.  You act like I'm trying to kick someone's puppy or something or like you want to.

[Moirai]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Dreman and I have addressed every issue that anyone has brought up in this thread, to the point that you are not even arguing the original point anymore, because you know it it is totally invalid.

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't remember you ever addressing the point I made, and Dreman certainly didn't address it at all. In fact, he seemed to have difficulty in grasping the point being made, even though it was fundamentally very simple and straight forward.

Spreading falsehoods in an attempt to make out your position of argument is more solid than it actually is fools no-one.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

The fact that an immoral person does not have an internal conflict does not mean that a moral conflict does not exist. I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp, except for the fact that it disproves your already very shaky argument.

You keep saying that all of the choices are immoral, but at the same time that there is no moral conflict. You can't have it both ways.

You can always choose to refuse, but isn't letting all organic life in the galaxy be wiped out when you could have prevented it also immoral.

My point is that it is unrealistic to expect all of your choices to have no negative consequences. I will go back to the WW2 argument again because it fits the situation perfectly. The United States could have taken Japan without dropping the atomic bombs. We had them over matched and were driving them back. However, when they weighed the possible losses of each option, they chose the option that would cause the least overall loss of life.

This is the same choice that is presented to you at the end of ME3, and the complaints that you are giving only serve to prove that the writers got the exact reaction from the endings that they wanted. I get it, you didn't like it, but just because you are too narrow minded to understand the concept, it doesn't make it bad.

^This 100%

[IamDanThaMan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

And if it is reaper nanites or Shepard's essence then perhaps the poster will explain the non-magical process of how it is flung out and inserted into every organic being in the galaxy.  And he has yet to explain the dissemination of full understanding of organics to synthetics-where it comes from and even why it would be relevant when organics no longer exist.  As well I want to know how that would stop the understanding synthetics from becoming killer robots in outer space.

Umm, yes, I explained that all last night about 5 minutes after you asked me to, along with explaning that your genius reaper IFF idea would get the normandy and everyone aboard blown into multiple bits.

Did you not even watch the ending? Oh that's right, you turned it off and let the reapers win. The crucible uses the relay network to disseminate the nanites(the relays were built by the reapers, in case you missed that one in every game). Nanites are self-replicating, so if even one enters the atmosphere of a planet, the entire planet can become infected.

You also apparently were not paying attention during the reaper IFF mission in ME2, where it was clearly shown that during the indoctrination process, the minds of those being indoctrinated become linked like a computer network. Now, I imagine the link from synthesis would not be as strong, but it would be enough to share information and understanding omong the population of the galaxy

Synthesis also does not turn organics into robots, it infuses their bodies with cybernetic implants, like Shepard has(his body was broken down to produce a blue-print for synthesis).

Seriously, if you people would just pay attention to the freaking diologue in the freaking games and at least read a plot synopsis of the books online, we would not have all these problems, because it is all very obvious to anyone that has been paying attention.