224 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is forced...
Which proves the Starchild is either lying to you or doesn't know what the hell he is talking about...


I don't know how you can sit there and say it isn't forced...
Are you ****ing kidding me?

It isn't.  What evidence is everyone basing this on?  Nothing in game shows or implies forcing anything on anyone, and there is dialogue directly contradicting such an assumption.  And I'm the one who inspires sputtering incredulity?

Are you serious ? Just one person which doesn´t like this change in whole galaxy is enough to say that Synthesis was forced... You have billions of souls in whole galaxy and I highly doubt that everyone will blidnly agree with synthesis, hell I would like to see how will react some caveman which was just changed into cyborg via SPACE MAGIC...

Catalyst forcing you to choose from 3 paths via passive agresion(etc threating thru Reapers), each of them is moraly grey path and he is presenting his desired path as best solution because he said so - there is no evidence how Synthesis will works and what it does without metagamming knowlendge and yet it´s hilarious to blidnly believe into main antagonist´s agenda - it´s like when someone told you to jump from bridge because you won´t hurt yourself and you will blidnly do so, because he said ?

Don't like his explanation, don't choose it.  It's that simple.  Arguing that the Catalyst is lying to you (despite all the holes in that logic, which I won't go into) doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, now does it?  But if you're going to argue that it is forced, then you should provide in-game evidence proving that.  I'll even take something that just implies it.  I'm curious to see what you come up with.

[inversevideo]

wizardryforever wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

OP I'm not sure I am following you correctly.

From my perspective, it does not matter if Starkid tells me the galaxy is ready for synthesis, or even that he is correct. I don't see how any individual can decide to impose a change on any other individual, without permission.

It would be like thinking that hot blonde in the coffee shop is ready for sex, and then, without any communication with her whatsoever, you go over and start having sex with her. It is a violation.

I think folks decide synthesis is okay, because the EC shows happy shiny beings, and there is that great speech by EDI. But how do you know that those who were changed are happy with the change? And are they happy with the change or because they were re-written, and in the re-writing of their DNA, so changed to be happy?

It is a very slippery slope, and there are no answers. Shepard is not a geneticist, she cannot know the price of synthesis, nor does she have the time to study the issue, presuming she could.

Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings, regarding their very genetic structure, all on the advice of a genocidal machine. And doing this without anyone's permission, I don't understand how that is not forcing a change on the galaxy, by negating the choice/free will of those you are changing.

To continue your example, attempting to sex it up with the blonde can either work, in which case you actually were right about her being ready. 

....WHAT?

I don't think you understand the objections of Synthesis and the context in which 'forced' is being used.

Allow me to clarify (and include the sentence that you snipped to quote me out of context).  "Or it could fail (probably spectacularly), indicating that you were wrong about her being ready."  This is not rape-related.  I meant this in the sense that she either cooperates and you succeed, or she doesn't cooperate and you fail.  Readiness = cooperation in this analogy.  Man, people have dark minds.

I'm sorry but your analogy is ill thought. There is absolutely no possible scenario where it is okay to have sex without someone's consent. Period. 

[Suspire]

He asks consent by jumping them. If the person cooperates it means it's consensual. Lol okay I'm being snarky.

[wizardryforever]

Suspire wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

OP I'm not sure I am following you correctly.

From my perspective, it does not matter if Starkid tells me the galaxy is ready for synthesis, or even that he is correct. I don't see how any individual can decide to impose a change on any other individual, without permission.

It would be like thinking that hot blonde in the coffee shop is ready for sex, and then, without any communication with her whatsoever, you go over and start having sex with her. It is a violation.

I think folks decide synthesis is okay, because the EC shows happy shiny beings, and there is that great speech by EDI. But how do you know that those who were changed are happy with the change? And are they happy with the change or because they were re-written, and in the re-writing of their DNA, so changed to be happy?

It is a very slippery slope, and there are no answers. Shepard is not a geneticist, she cannot know the price of synthesis, nor does she have the time to study the issue, presuming she could.

Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings, regarding their very genetic structure, all on the advice of a genocidal machine. And doing this without anyone's permission, I don't understand how that is not forcing a change on the galaxy, by negating the choice/free will of those you are changing.

To continue your example, attempting to sex it up with the blonde can either work, in which case you actually were right about her being ready. 

....WHAT?

I don't think you understand the objections of Synthesis and the context in which 'forced' is being used.

Allow me to clarify (and include the sentence that you snipped to quote me out of context).  "Or it could fail (probably spectacularly), indicating that you were wrong about her being ready."  This is not rape-related.  I meant this in the sense that she either cooperates and you succeed, or she doesn't cooperate and you fail.  Readiness = cooperation in this analogy.  Man, people have dark minds.

"attempted" rape, so it's ok as long as you don't succeed right

No, it is not freaking rape!  Why do you want me to be saying that?  Jesus.  Either your attempt to woo her and thus get into her pants works, or it doesn't.  She either accepts you, or she doesn't.  Unless you're saying that romancing someone with the intent of doing it with them is attempted rape, in which case I don't know where you learned that, but it is patently false.

[EnvyTB075]

>Its not something that can be forced
>Only Shepard is allowed to decide.

Sounds pretty damned forced to me.

[inversevideo]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

The Salarians have shown no propensity for ressurection of dead species. 

Am I the only one who did that quest for long ago dead dinosaurs of whatever which was used as cavalry for Krogans ?

+1   I forgot about that. I stand corrected and admit I was wrong. 

Unbfortunately, Mordin is gone, and he is the only one I would trust with resurrecting humans. Someone else, may get it wrong.  

[wizardryforever]

inversevideo wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

OP I'm not sure I am following you correctly.

From my perspective, it does not matter if Starkid tells me the galaxy is ready for synthesis, or even that he is correct. I don't see how any individual can decide to impose a change on any other individual, without permission.

It would be like thinking that hot blonde in the coffee shop is ready for sex, and then, without any communication with her whatsoever, you go over and start having sex with her. It is a violation.

I think folks decide synthesis is okay, because the EC shows happy shiny beings, and there is that great speech by EDI. But how do you know that those who were changed are happy with the change? And are they happy with the change or because they were re-written, and in the re-writing of their DNA, so changed to be happy?

It is a very slippery slope, and there are no answers. Shepard is not a geneticist, she cannot know the price of synthesis, nor does she have the time to study the issue, presuming she could.

Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings, regarding their very genetic structure, all on the advice of a genocidal machine. And doing this without anyone's permission, I don't understand how that is not forcing a change on the galaxy, by negating the choice/free will of those you are changing.

To continue your example, attempting to sex it up with the blonde can either work, in which case you actually were right about her being ready. 

....WHAT?

I don't think you understand the objections of Synthesis and the context in which 'forced' is being used.

Allow me to clarify (and include the sentence that you snipped to quote me out of context).  "Or it could fail (probably spectacularly), indicating that you were wrong about her being ready."  This is not rape-related.  I meant this in the sense that she either cooperates and you succeed, or she doesn't cooperate and you fail.  Readiness = cooperation in this analogy.  Man, people have dark minds.

I'm sorry but your analogy is ill thought. There is absolutely no possible scenario where it is okay to have sex without someone's consent. Period. 

Not only did I not say that, but you brought the subject up.  So don't tell me that it's a poor analogy.  I was just working with what you gave me.  I was going with what I thought you meant, which apparently was rape, since everyone is jumping down my throat.  Seducing is more along the lines of what I was thinking.

Can we please get back on topic?

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 septembre 2012 - 05:42 .

[inversevideo]

Suspire wrote...

He asks consent by jumping them. If the person cooperates it means it's consensual. Lol okay I'm being snarky.

+1

[Suspire]

It's on topic, you just kinda failed to grasp that the argument is you need permission first to change people on a molecular level

[wizardryforever]

Suspire wrote...

It's on topic, you just kinda failed to grasp that the argument is you need permission first to change people on a molecular level

There is no time to ask every living thing in the galaxy, and besides, because of the way the solution is set up, it's either all or nothing, as I said earlier.  It solves nothing if people opt out (though I fail to see any good reason why they would do that if they were made truly aware of the consequences), because the disparity would still exist.  It must affect everyone, or else it isn't a solution at all.

[Suspire]

It's not a solution even if it affects everyone, the synthetics are seen as different cause they were created by the creators. Synthesis only makes them all have the same DNA (as if machines have DNA, but k space magic), the geth would still be the created and the quarians the creators.
And even then, synthesis either changes people's mind by some form of brainwash to make them all get along, or people still have wars for all the reasons they want, including former geth, former quarians, and all the **** that they have gone through in the past since they can still remember what happened (or synthesis erases memory).
I think having self-aware husks and banshees is the worst part lol.
Or the people like Javik commiting mass suicide for having been molecule-raped into green glowy things.

Modifié par Suspire, 06 septembre 2012 - 05:58 .

[inversevideo]

zambot wrote...


My point with the Salarians goes back to your first post where you claimed Geth can be rebuilt.  I'm pointing out that humans could be rebuilt too.  You can argue that Salarians WON'T recreate humans, but that's beside the point.  When you wipe out the Geth, you are wiping out trillions of individuals (assuming you accept Legion's story.  If you don't, by all means pick destroy.  There's no downside).  Justifying this by saying you can just rebuild them is no different from saying it's ok to wipe out all humans because you could restar the race later.

Shepard is going to play god no matter what he/she picks.  You can play god by tweaking dna, you can play god by condeming the Geth to die, or you can literally become God.  Saying that synthesis is more evil than the other choices because you are playing god is a non-argument to mine.  All choices require you to play god.  I find the idea of giving everyone l33t implants less immoral than killing trillions of Geth or dominating the universe.

Honestly, I have no quarrel with how you role-play your Shepard. Please understand that.
I just cannot agree with you that synthesis is the correct choice to make.

Nor can I take it on faith that I should make a decision that impacts ever sentient in the galaxy based soley on a belief that it is right to merge organics with machineos. 

To those who say the choice is not imposed, I ask you to explain that to me. How is it not imposed?
Someone makes a decision that will significantly alter your life, forever, and you were not consulted, nor did you give consent. It was done to you. Is this not a violation of your free will?

Sorry, it is 2am, in my neck of the woods, and I am fast losing my train of thought.
It looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I thank everyone for the conversation,  Hopefully we provided each other with something to think about.

[Suspire]

It's just that some people think everything is preferrable to death, and others find there's a lot of worse things than death. This is where we disagree. I think the geth and your squad and etc were all prepared to die if it meant saving something, so genocide isn't as bad as eugenics imo.

[elitehunter34]

Wizardry, I'm kinda struggling to see your point. Are you saying that Synthesis isn't being forced simply because the Catalyst says it isn't? What kind of argument is that? If I say I'm cutting an apple, and I'm actually cutting an orange, I'm cutting an orange, regardless of what I say. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it true. I don't know if this what you are trying to say, so sorry if I misinterpreted you.

If you choose Synthesis, you are obviously forcing Synthesis on the galaxy. How is doing something to someone without explicit consent not forcing it on them?

[wizardryforever]

Suspire wrote...

It's not a solution even if it affects everyone, the synthetics are seen as different cause they were created by the creators. Synthesis only makes them all have the same DNA (as if machines have DNA, but k space magic), the geth would still be the created and the quarians the creators.
And even then, synthesis either changes people's mind by some form of brainwash to make them all get along, or people still have wars for all the reasons they want, including former geth, former quarians, and all the **** that they have gone through in the past since they can still remember what happened (or synthesis erases memory).
I think having self-aware husks and banshees is the worst part lol.
Or the people like Javik commiting mass suicide for having been molecule-raped into green glowy things.

Synthesis gives organics a synthetic component to their DNA, and gives synthetics true understanding of organic thought processes (ie emotions) in addition to their own.  The distinction is blurred to the point that it barely exists, and is mostly vestigial. 

Basically, synthesis gives the galaxy a "wisdom" upgrade, in the sense of most RPG stats.  They have an epiphany about how trivial and stupid the previous conflicts based on fear, prejudice, and misunderstanding over being synthetic or organic truly were.  This happens on a universal scale, and it becomes a normal part of life ever more.  This does not mean that conflict is gone completely, only that there will not be a synthetic uprising, or conflicts based on the composition of one's body.  Any new conflicts will be over the old standbys of territory, resources, and ideology.  But the epiphany I mentioned has the short-term effect of creating a euphoric effect as everyone realizes just what they've gotten.  Technology improves by leaps and bounds as the boundaries of life are broken.  Life itself becomes unshackled.

[Suspire]

Yeah dude, sorry, I don't buy any of the those things, there is so much wrong with it. But I don't feel like debating it the night away either (and it's been done to death), so let's agree to disagree.

Modifié par Suspire, 06 septembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

elitehunter34 wrote...

If you choose Synthesis, you are obviously forcing Synthesis on the galaxy. How is doing something to someone without explicit consent not forcing it on them?

... can't speak for the OP here, but, I agree the solution itself is forced. But I don't think that's what the Catalyst is talking about.

For the record, I think he means that achieving it cannot be forced. And we've achieved it, in the sense that we've built the tools necessary to make it happen. The Catalyst said previous attempts failed because the organics weren't ready. I'm guess it's because they didn't achieve it on their own.

Whether or not you think it should be done is up to you. I say go for it.

[Deadlysyns]

IT IS FORCED. The fact he says it can't be forced i believe it means it can't be forced on a molecular level. our bodies were ready to accept Technological Advancement just look at Shepard. Perhaps in the Other Cycles trying to Replace biological parts with Technological parts was not feasible in other words their bodies rejected technology causing them to die.

[wizardryforever]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Wizardry, I'm kinda struggling to see your point. Are you saying that Synthesis isn't being forced simply because the Catalyst says it isn't? What kind of argument is that? If I say I'm cutting an apple, and I'm actually cutting an orange, I'm cutting an orange, regardless of what I say. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it true. I don't know if this what you are trying to say, so sorry if I misinterpreted you.

If you choose Synthesis, you are obviously forcing Synthesis on the galaxy. How is doing something to someone without explicit consent not forcing it on them?

It's not about just the dialogue though.  If we go meta-meta here, the writers are using the Catalyst to explain the options, likely not realizing the full extent of people's distrust of him.  Who else is going to explain the concept?  They could have taken along a neutral third party (like Vendetta, the Prothean VI) to explain the options, and they would have been much better received.  They would no longer seem like "the Catalyst's options."  Essentially, the Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard about any of this.  He's just there to provide the exposition after his reveal.

In-game, if your Shepard doesn't believe the Catalyst, then fine, that's your roleplaying decision.  But claiming out of game that the Catalyst is lying about something that he is the only source of information on just seems disingenuous.  I mean come on, why introduce the option (that is only available with high EMS) only for it to be the worst one?  Logically, it should be the best one, or at least not worse than the others in an objective sense.

[Applepie_Svk]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

If you choose Synthesis, you are obviously forcing Synthesis on the galaxy. How is doing something to someone without explicit consent not forcing it on them?

... can't speak for the OP here, but, I agree the solution itself is forced. But I don't think that's what the Catalyst is talking about.

For the record, I think he means that achieving it cannot be forced. And we've achieved it, in the sense that we've built the tools necessary to make it happen. The Catalyst said previous attempts failed because the organics weren't ready. I'm guess it's because they didn't achieve it on their own.

Whether or not you think it should be done is up to you. I say go for it.

And we did ? We were building something from plans which left there countless of previous cycles and achieving it was forced because we were building a Crucible only because we want stop the Reapers, without Reapers we wouldn´t forced to built the Crucible and wouldn´t forced to choose from Catalyst´s dinner menu.

[DirtyPhoenix]

My two cents: Yes it is imposed. it is imposed by Shepard on the galaxy, as it all the rest of the choices. What the catalyst means, is it cannot be forced by him. We built the power source and we activated. Essentially we brought it upon ourselves. He (the catalyst) doesn't feature in it.

[EnvyTB075]

If what you say is true (regarding meta-meta), its a bit mind boggling that they didn't consider what they were doing from a Gamer perspective in order of events/emotions and plot investment, especially when you give absolutely no details as to what happens afterwards (initial, though i personally believe the EC does nothing for the endings anyway) and instead implies like its out of fashion.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

For the record, I think he means that achieving it cannot be forced. And we've achieved it, in the sense that we've built the tools necessary to make it happen. The Catalyst said previous attempts failed because the organics weren't ready. I'm guess it's because they didn't achieve it on their own.

Whether or not you think it should be done is up to you. I say go for it.

And we did ? We were building something from plans which left there countless of previous cycles and achieving it was forced because we were building a Crucible only because we want stop the Reapers,

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than to be good.

without Reapers we wouldn´t forced to built the Crucible and wouldn´t forced to choose from Catalyst´s dinner menu.

When did that happen?

Last I checked, those options came from the thing we created: the Crucible. Options that the Catalyst can't influence past offering his $0.02 on the matter.

[EnvyTB075]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

For the record, I think he means that achieving it cannot be forced. And we've achieved it, in the sense that we've built the tools necessary to make it happen. The Catalyst said previous attempts failed because the organics weren't ready. I'm guess it's because they didn't achieve it on their own.

Whether or not you think it should be done is up to you. I say go for it.

And we did ? We were building something from plans which left there countless of previous cycles and achieving it was forced because we were building a Crucible only because we want stop the Reapers,

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than to be good.

without Reapers we wouldn´t forced to built the Crucible and wouldn´t forced to choose from Catalyst´s dinner menu.

When did that happen?

Last I checked, those options came from the thing we created: the Crucible. Options that the Catalyst can't influence past offering his $0.02 on the matter.

Actually the choices come from the Citadel, and by extension the Catalyst, since i doubt that Crucible engineers went and created the two terminals in the end game themselves.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 06 septembre 2012 - 06:34 .

[elitehunter34]

wizardryforever wrote...
It's not about just the dialogue though.  If we go meta-meta here, the writers are using the Catalyst to explain the options, likely not realizing the full extent of people's distrust of him.  Who else is going to explain the concept?  They could have taken along a neutral third party (like Vendetta, the Prothean VI) to explain the options, and they would have been much better received.  They would no longer seem like "the Catalyst's options."  Essentially, the Catalyst has no reason to lie to Shepard about any of this.  He's just there to provide the exposition after his reveal.

In-game, if your Shepard doesn't believe the Catalyst, then fine, that's your roleplaying decision.  But claiming out of game that the Catalyst is lying about something that he is the only source of information on just seems disingenuous.  I mean come on, why introduce the option (that is only available with high EMS) only for it to be the worst one?  Logically, it should be the best one, or at least not worse than the others in an objective sense.

I never claimed that the Catalyst is lying.  The EC slides make it clear that the Catalyst isn't lying, however silly I think that is.  I simply want to know if you are trying to say that Synthesis isn't being forced simply because the Catalyst says it isn't.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 06 septembre 2012 - 06:40 .