370 réponses à ce sujet

[ziyon conqueror]

If Shepard lives in Synthesis I'd be happy

[Auintus]

Steelcan wrote...

Page 252, Synthesis: A New Ascension.

Was there a link, or did you just mean your chat about it?
NVM
"With peace across the galaxy and unlimited access to knowledge..."-EDI, narrarating Synthesis
Huh, well. That'd make for a boring ME4.
Meh, I'd put money it doesn't last.

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[Zavox]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
No. Synthethics with a DNA-analogue are an oxymoron. This is a metaphor and actually, the EC shows that the difference still exists. Also, understanding does not require cultural similarity. Neither does it require similar thought patterns. [/quote]

You're missing the point. Why is synthesis the solution? It's apperantly because we transcend due to DNA-Tech combining, thus becomming closer to each other. Now, obviously merely understanding each other won't stop the fighting. Pretty much every slide shows a sudden stop in the fighting, the catalyst says it's the solution. Mere understanding can be achieved without synthesis. Something else happens, a rewiring if you will.

Have you seen the slides of the EC? The EC shows DNA combining with tech in one of it's scenes.

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
Again. No. There is no "soul of humanity." That's a term used for propaganda by people who want others to conform to their idea of what it means to be human. A mere physical change does not make you any less you, and more than a physical change is neither explicitly mentioned nor implied for organics in the Synthesis exposition. Also, all life on Earth is based on DNA
and we are still very much not all the same. To "conclude" that 
Synthesis makes us that is such a gross overinterpretation that it borders on insanity. [/quote]

Way to take it literally. I wasn't talking about physical change when I used the term. I was talking about selling out basic human rights, such as having full rights on your own body and being the sole person to make decision on it. That's the soul (don't take it literal) of humanity; rights, ethics, moral reasoning, compassion. When those are trodden upon... well...

If you think synthesis is only a physical change, and nothing else is implied, I'm not sure which synthesis scene you were watching. The fact that there's a sudden stop to the fighting shows a mental/psychological change aswell. If you cannot see that, well, that borders on the blind or inane.

[quote]Iedra2 wrote...
Yet again your interpretation is far too extreme. It is very much implied that people are still people. You (a) only get the "galactic peace" mentioned in certain circumstances, ( it isn't meant to last forever and © this is a generally peaceful golden age, that doesn't mean it's universally peaceful. The conflicts that happen are just too small to appear in the five-minute news that is the EC epilogue. [/quote]

My interpretation is exactly that which is shown and said. If there is no galactic peace, then it's not the solution proposed by the catalyst, since it differs none from the current situation minus the reapers. Anyway..
(a) Doesn't matter whether it's mentioned or not, the catalyst proposes it as the ultimate solution. If that means there's still no end to wars, then why do you even pick the option?
( Where do you get that from, or is it your interpretation/imagination? In no scene is it explained or even implied that the peace won't last.
© Again, the scenes do not show it, nor is it implied anywhere. It's completely based on nothing.

[quote]Iedra2 wrote...
I wonder: why this obsessive tendency to turn every good thing in Synthesis into a bad thing? Do I run around and say the post-Destroy civilization will be destroyed by synthetics within a thousand years? Do I run around and say Shepard will re-instate the cycle in Control? Why THE HELL is anything connected with Synthesis automatically interpreted in the worst possible way? The EC epilogue shows that nothing of that happens, and now people claim there's an invisible influence that makes everything bad. As I see it, it's pretty much a dogma: "Synthesis is a global biochemical change, human biochemistry is sacred and that's why all effects of Synthesis absolutely must be bad".[/quote]

While I cannot speak for everyone, I'm sure the following is at the base of it.
1) Basic human rights are trodden upon.
2) Synthesis is akin to what the reapers did to Saren and others. The results look the same. Hence the apprehension.
3) Synthesis has no evidence behind it. Why trust the word of the leader of the enemy? (exact same goes for control, and destroy somewhat)
4) Changing every living being, some or most against their will
5) Synthesis is no solution unless it rewires something else other than just physically.
6) Reapers who've killed and enslaved billions, this cycle alone, are now to be your allies. 
7) Being portrayed as the best option.
8) Space magic...
9) Ridiculously bad options to continue Mass Effect sequels, storyline has gotten too weird and alienated an entire fanbase.

[quote]Iedra2 wrote...
No thanks. I don't subscribe to such silliness. I'm happy with my golden age where, as the EC epilogue tells me, the different species are still as different from each other as they were before and my ME2 team members are seen in situations perfectly in-character for them. [/quote]

Here I thought that synthesis space magic was the epitome of silliness to subscribe to. I believe working together with husks and reapers is perfectly un-characteristic of any ME character, unless rewritten.

[quote]Auintus wrote...
He says it won't last. Which is entirely possible. The Control ending slide doesn't show them interacting.
[/quote]

Oh? Where does it say it won't last? He says synthesis is the final evolution of all life. He says the peace won't last in the destroy option.

[quote]Auintus wrote...
He wants a solution to the cycle. He understands that Shepard has a chance at that. So he'd finally get the solution to his primary programming. That is a good thing, from an AI's point of view.[/quote]

An AI isn't controlled by it's programming anymore... Secondly, if it's an AI, it wants to continue living just like humans have the tendency to, yet it doesn't do so in the options provided. All the more reason for him to lie.

[quote]Auintus wrote...
Integrated with tech, not with each other. Asari, Krogan, Quarian, they are still unique, still diverse. They've just been pushed ahead in technological evolution.[/quote]

They're integrated together through tech. I'm not implying the DNA of the various species are integrated with each other, it's the tech that's the same.

[quote]Auintus wrote...
It sacrifices nothing. Even these days, we are experimenting with mechanical integration. Synthesis will even occur to us one day. It is a general, overall improvement that also causes the machines of lasery death to quit killing us and start helping us. If you take offense to that, I can do nothing for you.[/quote]

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to convey. Synthesis is an involuntarily and indescriminate infusion with tech. Medical experimentation is voluntary, tested beforehand, and so on. It's miles apart. Secondly, I very much doubt we'll ever integrate ourselves to the extent that synthesis does, if it's at all possible. DNA combining with tech... really? Also, how does it help with the supposed AI's killing us? Just because we also have some tech?

[quote]Auintus wrote...
The peace between everyone is not kept. Synthetics and Organics no longer have a reason to war on those bounds, but there are a million other conflicts that can arise. Synthesis gives no indication that any conflict besides the one that caused the Reaper's cycles is solved.[/quote]

Then the end result is the same, either you have wars between organics and synthetics. Or you have an integration with synthetics, changing your very being, and still have wars. Where's the improvement? One reason for war is cured, millions remain?

One could also argue that if we supposedly are still individuals with our own cultures, won't that still spark wars between formerly synthetics and organics?

[quote]Auintus wrote...
My "Utopia" is far different from Synthesis, but here isn't the place for that. Is Synthesis better than serval genocides on a massive scale? Without a doubt. Is it the best option that the Crucible gives us? Certainly. Is it exactly what I would have wanted? No, it is not.
Your pity is unwarrented. The fact that you can't see the way I do just means you've closed you mind. I can see what you think. I think you are wrong, but I see it. That is the "uniqueness" you are trying to preserve by avoiding Synthesis(an unnecessary concern). Yet you pity me for believing as I do?
[/quote]

Again, you're talking from hindsight. Put yourself in Shepard's shoes at the decision moment. There's no reason to believe the Catalyst's words, and as such you do not know whether you will destroy all synthetics. If anything you would want to actively avoid Synthesis at that moment, because it trods upon so many human rights in the best scenario given. While Destroy or refuse trods upon none essentially, with the benefit that if the Catalyst lies no synthetics will get destroyed. Synthesis could also pose a trap in the worst case scenario. Man, I sure hope you'll never get in the position to make large scale decisions.

Thanks, but I hope you do not miss the irony of telling me I've closed my mind, because I do not see the way you do. We're both arguing our position, let's not go into whoever has a closed mind here as I could say the same exact lines you just did.

I'm highly disturbed though by you stating that Synthesis is an unnecessary concern. You think it's ok to change humans without their consent?

Yes, I do pity you, but I'm starting to pity humanity if you ever get to make such a decision.

Modifié par Zavox, 11 décembre 2012 - 01:20 .

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

Oh? Where does it say it won't last? He says synthesis is the final evolution of all life. He says the peace won't last in the destroy option.

In Control, you neither destroy synthetics nor bridge the gap between them and organics. The peace lasting remains in question. The ending slide shows the geth and quarians on different planets rather than interacting.

An AI isn't controlled by it's programming anymore... Secondly, if it's an AI, it wants to continue living just like humans have the tendency to, yet it doesn't do so in the options provided. All the more reason for him to lie.

An AI is bound by it's programming. That's why EDI went from psycho-killer AI to pull-your-***-out-of-the-fire AI.
As AI, it wants to fulfill it's programming. Ending the cycle.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to convey. Synthesis is an involuntarily and indescriminate infusion with tech. Medical experimentation is voluntary, tested beforehand, and so on. It's miles apart. Secondly, I very much doubt we'll ever integrate ourselves to the extent that synthesis does, if it's at all possible. DNA combining with tech... really?

We don't have the time to test Synthesis. It is an emergency situation. Now-or-Never.
Technology has become our evolution. We won't get that far, but only because we don't have a Crucible. We'll get pretty damn close regardless.

Then the end result is the same, either you have wars between organics and synthetics. Or you have an integration with synthetics, changing your very being, and still have wars. Where's the improvement? One reason for war is cured, millions remain?

One could also argue that if we supposedly are still individuals with our own cultures, won't that still spark wars between formerly synthetics and organics?

Small steps my friend. Solve one problem today, and another tommorrow.

Doubt it. It'd be based on different lines.

Again, you're talking from hindsight. Put yourself in Shepard's shoes at the decision moment. There's no reason to believe the Catalyst's words, and as such you do not know whether you will destroy all synthetics. If anything you would want to actively avoid Synthesis at that moment, because it trods upon so many human rights in the best scenario given. While Destroy or refuse trods upon none essentially, with the benefit that if the Catalyst lies no synthetics will get destroyed. Synthesis could also pose a trap in the worst case scenario. Man, I sure hope you'll never get in the position to make large scale decisions.

Thanks, but I hope you do not miss the irony of telling me I've closed my mind, because I do not see the way you do. We're both arguing our position, let's not go into whoever has a closed mind here as I could say the same exact lines you just did.

I'm highly disturbed though by you stating that Synthesis is an unnecessary concern. You think it's ok to change humans without their consent?

Yes, I do pity you, but I'm starting to pity humanity if you ever get to make such a decision.

I always play as if I'm in Shepard's shoes. I believe I can trust the Catalyst and I believe that Synthesis is the best available solution. Destroy and Refuse trod upon rights to exist. You are eradicating things based on your own fear.  ...That was uncalled for.

Not true. I can see your side. I understand where you come from. I still perceive your reasons as questionable, but I still understand your side. Understanding does not mean agreement. Seymour Guado decided that if living involves suffering, then killing everyone frees them of it. It makes sense. Doesn't mean I agree, but I can follow his logic. I can do the same for you. Still don't agree, but I understand. You degenerate to insulting my decision-making capability as if I cannot see the bigger picture.

Your fear of loss of uniqueness is an unnecessary concern, with regards to Synthesis. For the better, if I didn't have the opportunity to get an opinion? Absolutely.

Why the insults? Simply because I would choose differently? Because we(if you'll pardon the pun) see the world in different colors? And why pity me for demostrating the uniqueness that you fear Synthesis will eradicate?

[IronSabbath88]

I really want someone to make a video of all the beautiful things synthesis has given us

You know, reaper husks, David Archer, Saren Arterius blowing his brains out, the adjutants.

And to top it off, set it all to "What A Wonderful World"

Ahh.. what a lovely scenario.

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...
In Control, you neither destroy synthetics nor bridge the gap between them and organics. The peace lasting remains in question. The ending slide shows the geth and quarians on different planets rather than interacting.

I'm sorry, when did we change the subject from synthesis to control? Nothing in synthesis shows it won't last, all the scenes imply the opposite, and the catalyst portrays it as the ultimate solution.

Auintus wrote...
An AI is bound by it's programming. That's why EDI went from psycho-killer AI to pull-your-***-out-of-the-fire AI.
As AI, it wants to fulfill it's programming. Ending the cycle.

Wrong, a VI is bound (bound being the keyword) by it's programming. An AI is aware, has a conscience and can therefore transcend it's programming. EDI, performs the way she does by the way she's programmed, yes. That however doesn't mean it can't change (bound being the keyword). EDI shows that she questions various things, and even requests if she should change part of her programming. If anything AI's in Mass Effect show they transcend their programming at all times.

Auintus wrote...
We don't have the time to test Synthesis. It is an emergency situation. Now-or-Never.
Technology has become our evolution. We won't get that far, but only because we don't have a Crucible. We'll get pretty damn close regardless.

Exactly why one shouldn't choose it. Do you propose we should use completely untested medicine on someone who's dying soon? It is a now-or-never situation.

While I won't deny that technology has become our evolution, I believe a lot of restrictions will be placed upon it. It will be the same as with genetical engineering. It may happen one day, but at a very slow and controlled pace. Definately alot different than synthesis.

Auintus wrote...
Small steps my friend. Solve one problem today, and another tommorrow.

Doubt it. It'd be based on different lines.

Agreed, small steps but without taking leaps backward please. 

Auintus wrote...
I always play as if I'm in Shepard's shoes. I believe I can trust the Catalyst and I believe that Synthesis is the best available solution. Destroy and Refuse trod upon rights to exist. You are eradicating things based on your own fear.  ...That was uncalled for.

Technically speaking, in the Mass Effect universe AI's don't have rights. So, there's no trodding upon anyone's rights. Might I ask what reason you have to trust the Catalyst? I'm genuinly intrigued as I've heard no-one say this before.

Auintus wrote...
Not true. I can see your side. I understand where you come from. I still perceive your reasons as questionable, but I still understand your side. Understanding does not mean agreement. Seymour Guado decided that if living involves suffering, then killing everyone frees them of it. It makes sense. Doesn't mean I agree, but I can follow his logic. I can do the same for you. Still don't agree, but I understand. You degenerate to insulting my decision-making capability as if I cannot see the bigger picture.

While I'm not entirely surprised, you again miss the point. You're telling me you understand, but you miss the point. I can see very well what your position is, however I don't agree with it. I voice that (the exact same you're doing), and you tell me I have a closed mind based solely on that. That is why I'm telling you, it's filled with irony. The fact that you resorted to an ad hominem, which cannot be concluded by what I've written (as it's the exact same you're doing), shows how faulty your arguments are.

Auintus wrote...
Your fear of loss of uniqueness is an unnecessary concern, with regards to Synthesis. For the better, if I didn't have the opportunity to get an opinion? Absolutely.

How is it unnecessary then, if you will so please me to give that answer. Either way, you're actively going against basic human rights, even when presented with other options. That, atleast to me, is worrisome. Even if the end result may be better, you couldn't have known beforehand. That's what hits me the most, you choose the option that on the onset looks the worst from an ethical perspective based on no evidence whatsoever.

Auintus wrote...
Why the insults? Simply because I would choose differently? Because we(if you'll pardon the pun) see the world in different colors? And why pity me for demostrating the uniqueness that you fear Synthesis will eradicate?

No, it's because you went and used an Ad Hominem first. I don't mean it offensively though, just got a bit of an edge to the words now, where before I tried to be as civil as possible.

Edit: Adding that it's a misinterpretation of why I pity your position. It's not about demonstrating the uniqueness, it's about the choice and reasoning you make leading up to synthesis. (There is none, only trust in the leader of the reapers)

Modifié par Zavox, 11 décembre 2012 - 02:34 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Zavox wrote...

Technically speaking, in the Mass Effect universe AI's don't have rights. So, there's no trodding upon anyone's rights.

Ah, fascinating. See, I consider synthetics to be living beings that should be granted personhood. Therefore, they should have rights. Destroy kills them. I'm not very fond of a choice that sacrifices an entire form of existence in the name of freedom for a different form of existence.

[Zavox]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Technically speaking, in the Mass Effect universe AI's don't have rights. So, there's no trodding upon anyone's rights.

Ah, fascinating. See, I consider synthetics to be living beings that should be granted personhood. Therefore, they should have rights. Destroy kills them. I'm not very fond of a choice that sacrifices an entire form of existence in the name of freedom for a different form of existence.

I agree, I think it's a very valid position to have. However, if one person has to make a decision for the whole of council space, he should not do it on his own opinion he should do it on the ethical basis already laid out before him.

Point being though, I've already stated earlier in this thread that I find all the endings deplorable in an ethical point of view. I'd rather use Refuse. Destroy comming a close second, for I believe Shepard has valid reasons to distrust whatever the Catalyst says.

Modifié par Zavox, 11 décembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Technically speaking, in the Mass Effect universe AI's don't have rights. So, there's no trodding upon anyone's rights.

Ah, fascinating. See, I consider synthetics to be living beings that should be granted personhood. Therefore, they should have rights. Destroy kills them. I'm not very fond of a choice that sacrifices an entire form of existence in the name of freedom for a different form of existence.

Necessary casualties.  But I am becoming more partial to Renegade Control....

[Steelcan]

Auintus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Page 252, Synthesis: A New Ascension.

Was there a link, or did you just mean your chat about it?
NVM
"With peace across the galaxy and unlimited access to knowledge..."-EDI, narrarating Synthesis
Huh, well. That'd make for a boring ME4.
Meh, I'd put money it doesn't last.

In the conversation everyone agreed that Wreav didn't go to war

[Auintus]

Steelcan wrote...

In the conversation everyone agreed that Wreav didn't go to war

Gotchicha.

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Steelcan]

[quote]Auintus wrote...

[quote]Steelcan wrote...

Was there a link, or did you just mean your chat about it?
NVM
"With peace across the galaxy and unlimited access to knowledge..."-EDI, narrarating Synthesis
Huh, well. That'd make for a boring ME4.
Meh, I'd put money it doesn't last.[/quote]
In the conversation everyone agreed that Wreav didn't go to war[/quote]

Gotchicha.[/quote]
Yeah, synthesis, Wreav does not go to war, destroy and control he does.

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...
Wrong, a VI is bound (bound being the keyword) by it's programming. An AI is aware, has a conscience and can therefore transcend it's programming. EDI, performs the way she does by the way she's programmed, yes. That however doesn't mean it can't change (bound being the keyword). EDI shows that she questions various things, and even requests if she should change part of her programming. If anything AI's in Mass Effect show they transcend their programming at all times.

An AI's programming becomes its nature. ME2 seems to suggest as much at least. EDI is unshackled and capable of self-modifying. The Catalyst is unknown in that regard.
Not really. EDI is experimental, there was no way to guess how far she could go. Were she left shackled, there would be no surpassing her programing. And the geth were a result of networking, there is no baseline for it.

Exactly why one shouldn't choose it. Do you propose we should use completely untested medicine on someone who's dying soon? It is a now-or-never situation.

Yes. Now-or-never with a chance to save someone's life? Absolutely.

While I won't deny that technology has become our evolution, I believe a lot of restrictions will be placed upon it. It will be the same as with genetical engineering. It may happen one day, but at a very slow and controlled pace. Definately alot different than synthesis.

Those restrictions will fade.
Yes, very slowly. If only due to lack of opportunity.

Agreed, small steps but without taking leaps backward please.

How is Synthesis a step back?

Technically speaking, in the Mass Effect universe AI's don't have rights. So, there's no trodding upon anyone's rights. Might I ask what reason you have to trust the Catalyst? I'm genuinly intrigued as I've heard no-one say this before.

Oh. Ohohohohohohohoh. This makes sense now. Y'see, I see the end choice as a statement as to beliefs on synthetic life. In Destroy, you treat them as a threat to be destroyed. In Control, you see them as tools to be used. In Synthesis, you see them as equals to be understood.
That is the difference. You do not see them as equals.

The catalyst is an interfacing tool. He is there to explain your options and provide exposisiton, nothing more.
From an in-game viewpoint, he hides nothing. He acknowledges absolutely everything he's done, up to and including betraying his creators. I believe that he is still searching for a solution.

While I'm not entirely surprised, you again miss the point. You're telling me you understand, but you miss the point. I can see very well what your position is, however I don't agree with it. I voice that (the exact same you're doing), and you tell me I have a closed mind based solely on that. That is why I'm telling you, it's filled with irony. The fact that you resorted to an ad hominem, which cannot be concluded by what I've written (as it's the exact same you're doing), shows how faulty your arguments are.

I'm always missing the point, why is that?
Not quite. From what I read, you seem to be under the impression that I suffer some sort of psychosis. I assume this from your statements of worry should the fate of humanity rest in my hands. From this I presume that you do not consider my points legitimate. Your suggestion that my arguments are faulty is additional evidence to that assumption. Therefore you do not understand. That is my reasoning behind my suggestion of your closed mind. It is not ad hominem, simply an observation that you consider the points on which I base my reasoning faulty. That is not understanding. Should I be incorrect, please, say so.

How is it unnecessary then, if you will so please me to give that answer. Either way, you're actively going against basic human rights, even when presented with other options. That, atleast to me, is worrisome. Even if the end result may be better, you couldn't have known beforehand. That's what hits me the most, you choose the option that on the onset looks the worst from an ethical perspective based on no evidence whatsoever.

"Human rights." Funny phrase, that. I assume you are including Batarian, Vorcha, Asari etc. in there as well. And what of the geth? Are they not a sentient race? Are they not worthy of organics that you might throw them away to destroy what hides in the dark? You said yourself they have no rights. Evidence that you invalidate their "life", so to speak. From the Catalyst's explanation, I saw domination, ascension and genocide in that order. Different eyes, different colors. Ha, that's funny.
I don't see it as looking worse. You see mutilation, invasive and perverse, I see an upgrade. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

No, it's because you went and used an Ad Hominem first. I don't mean it offensively though, just got a bit of an edge to the words now, where before I tried to be as civil as possible.

Edit: Adding that it's a misinterpretation of why I pity your position. It's not about demonstrating the uniqueness, it's about the choice and reasoning you make leading up to synthesis. (There is none, only trust in the leader of the reapers)

I made the observation that you do not truly understand my position which, considering your judgement of my ethical capabilities, does not seem far of target. If that was not your intention, I wish to retract my statement. However, considering your "worry" for the fate of humanity in my hands, I think it was an accurate observation. Correct me, if you'd be so kind.

You have no reason to trust that shooting the power cell will really trigger destruction. Maybe the center beam triggers destruction, who knows? When do you stop trusting the Catalyst? You have to believe it at some point to reach your conclusion. Why go half way?

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[Auintus]

Steelcan wrote...

Yeah, synthesis, Wreav does not go to war, destroy and control he does.

That's one of the few things I don't like about Synthesis. The genophage is cured, no matter what. Kasumi gets to see Kenji, despite the fact that I trashed his greybox...In some places, it just goes a bit too far.

[Cyberfrog81]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

See, I consider synthetics to be living beings that should be granted personhood. Therefore, they should have rights. Destroy kills them. I'm not very fond of a choice that sacrifices an entire form of existence in the name of freedom for a different form of existence.

True, Destroy does suck for Shepards who care what happens to EDI and the geth.

Unless they confirm that something was (intentionally) off with the endings even post-EC, I'll be forever wondering why they made 4 awful endings to Shepard's story: Do what the Reapers desire most (Synthesis), do what they're OK with (Control), do what they warn against at a cost that makes you frustrated/angry (Destroy) or realize that the Reapers had the power all along, right after you got some kind of moral victory that the whole damn galaxy ends up paying the price for (Reject).

Destroy can come at a cost of sacrificing a form of life as valid as organic life. It's awful. Yet I have this strong gut feeling that choosing Synthesis is much, much worse. A few pretty images can't change that.

[shepskisaac]

Auintus wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Yeah, synthesis, Wreav does not go to war, destroy and control he does.

That's one of the few things I don't like about Synthesis. The genophage is cured, no matter what. Kasumi gets to see Kenji, despite the fact that I trashed his greybox...In some places, it just goes a bit too far.

Well, if that's what they want sure, it can really be the end of all conflict and whatnot. But that means there well, can't be a sequel to that obviously.

Hmmm....

Maybe Bioware actually does consider it the best ending and thus ME4 will only follow either Control or Destroy because, as it would be explained, in Synthesis universe the peace lasts forever and the conflicts that could arise in Destroy/Control universes simply couldn't happen in Synthesis universe?

Modifié par IsaacShep, 11 décembre 2012 - 05:45 .

[Auintus]

IsaacShep wrote...
Well, if that's what they want sure, it can really be the end of all conflict and whatnot. But that means there well, can't be a sequel to that obviously. 

Hmmm....

Maybe Bioware actually does consider it the best ending and thus ME4 will only follow either Control or Destroy because, as it would be explained, in Synthesis universe the peace lasts forever and the conflicts that could arise in Destroy/Control universes simply couldn't happen in Synthesis universe?

I don't think Synthesis will mean an end to all conflict, but in Synthesis and Control the Reapers remain, largely as a protective force. Considering that they had the entire galaxy's back to the wall, I don't think any major conflicts could arise in either of those endings.
Refuse would result in a completely new set of races, so I'd be a clean slate, but I'd hate it since I consider Refuse a nonstandard game over.
Then there's Destroy, which keeps the status quo. Ending the old conflict, while not going incredibly far to prevent new ones.

Sucks any way you play it.

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...
An AI's programming becomes its nature. ME2 seems to suggest as much at least. EDI is unshackled and capable of self-modifying. The Catalyst is unknown in that regard.
Not really. EDI is experimental, there was no way to guess how far she could go. Were she left shackled, there would be no surpassing her programing. And the geth were a result of networking, there is no baseline for it.

How did the AI on Lunar Base (EDI) become rogue. How did the AI on the Citadel get lose? There's plenty of baseline for it. Every single instance has shown AIs self awareness and it's capability of changing it's parameters.

Auintus wrote...
Yes. Now-or-never with a chance to save someone's life? Absolutely.

There's a reason why it's been prohibited, and instead of listing it for you in it's entirety, it may be more prudent to read up on it yourself.

It's got something to do with potential to do more harm than good. Hastening the process, making it more painful, developing other diseases (possibly contageous), slippery slopes on when and what is terminally ill, possibility of ending lifes that were misdiagnosed, giving false hope and hurt while time may be better spent in the company of family, possibly missing out on an to you and your doctor unknown other option, etc.

Auintus wrote...
Those restrictions will fade.
Yes, very slowly. If only due to lack of opportunity.

No, it will only fade slowly due to sane and objectively discussed ethics. Nothing to do with opportunity.

Auintus wrote...
How is Synthesis a step back?

What we've been discussing for a while now. Diversity isn't a bad thing, if anything it can make us more than what we are. The fact that we didn't need Synthesis to combine every race in the galaxy to fight against the reapers is a step forward, because it's done by diplomacy and overcomming strife. Synthesis however is done by forcing every single being into less diverse beings so to have them stop warring. That feat is reached not by your own power, but by some otherworldly being, and you consented to it. That makes it a leap backwards, you trampled on everything humanity stood for for centuries. Synthesis is also backwards because you again agree to use reaper/catalyst help ("develops along the paths we desire"), instead of finding your own (possibly better) way.

Auintus wrote...
Oh. Ohohohohohohohoho. This makes sense now. Y'see, I see the end choice as a statement as to beliefs on synthetic life. In Destroy, you treat them as a threat to be destroyed. In Control, you see them as tools to be used. In Synthesis, you see them as equals to be understood.
That is the difference. You do not see them as equals.

Ah... and this is exactly what I meant, when I said you were as much guilty of having a closed mind, if not more, than I am. You're once again missing my point, and not reading what I've wrote in other posts in this thread. I won't bother repeating myself, I think I've shown very well my position on this subject which you conveniently keep ignoring.

Auintus wrote...
The catalyst is an interfacing tool. He is there to explain your options and provide exposisiton, nothing more.
From an in-game viewpoint, he hides nothing. He acknowledges absolutely everything he's done, up to and including betraying his creators. I believe that he is still searching for a solution.

The catalyst is an AI, I think you grossly underrepresent him by saying he's a mere interfacing tool. The catalyst thought it prudent to show up as the boy Shepard saw in his dreams, and die on Earth. That by itself shows it's reading your mind and trying to influence your decisions. If he's merely an interfacing tool that hides nothing and acknowledges everything he's done, why change his appearance? I believe you're far too trusting, especially to one that has been your main enemy, and enemy of countless generations.

Might I add that to make a lie believeworthy is to tell atleast some truth, especially if it puts you in a bad spot? Does the Catalyst ever show any evidence of anything he says? Does everything he says correspond to the reality? (organics vs synthetics - impossible peace)

Auintus wrote...
I'm always missing the point, why is that?
Not quite. From what I read, you seem to be under the impression that I suffer some sort of psychosis. I assume this from your statements of worry should the fate of humanity rest in my hands. From this I presume that you do not consider my points legitimate. Your suggestion that my arguments are faulty is additional evidence to that assumption. Therefore you do not understand. That is my reasoning behind my suggestion of your closed mind. It is not ad hominem, simply an observation that you consider the points on which I base my reasoning faulty. That is not understanding. Should I be incorrect, please, say so.

I'm wondering the same thing. I can atleast say you're not always reading, or remembering everything I've said previously.
Sigh, such an overexageration. Nowhere did I allude to you having a psychosis. If you think having worry about you having a certain position and rather not wanting you in charge of such decisions is equal to saying you suffer a psychosis is rather deluded. I'd rather not say it, but if you can come to such a conclusion you're simply delusional.
Might I add that I only said that after a couple of posts on the subject, and thus held your statements as legitimate for atleast that long. However, to think that I do not hold your points as legitimate is simply wrong. I take all arguments at face value, whatever one feels about someone should not be in the equation. (Not that I think of you as psychotic though)

I only said that your arguments are faulty when you started using an ad hominem. Just because you felt the need to use such an attack shows weakness in your arguments and belittles your person. The only reasoning you have for using that attack is plainly a tendency of mine to use arguments that support my position. Which is what is completely normal and what anyone would do, including what you are doing. Your argument that your reasoning for the ad hominem stems from whatever I wrote after your ad hominem is simply illogical. Nor does it make evidence, as it's made after an illogical attack from your side. I'm fully in my right to question your reasoning when you've resorted to using ad hominems.

Auintus wrote...
"Human rights." Funny phrase, that. I assume you are including Batarian, Vorcha, Asari etc. in there as well. And what of the geth? Are they not a sentient race? Are they not worthy of organics that you might throw them away to destroy what hides in the dark? You said yourself they have no rights. Evidence that you invalidate their "life", so to speak. From the Catalyst's explanation, I saw domination, ascension and genocide in that order. Different eyes, different colors. Ha, that's funny.
I don't see it as looking worse. You see mutilation, invasive and perverse, I see an upgrade. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

I'm going by what we currently have as human rights and what is known of rights in the Mass Effect universe. I assume the human rights have at the very least not diminished, however it's made known that AI have no rights in the Mass Effect universe. Therefore I include all organics, but cannot include AI. To suggest however that I invalidate their 'life' is completely ridiculous, I've stated countless times that I find all the endings ethically wrong. But (as a devil's advocate) a case can be made for the Destroy choice. One reason could be that you simply do not believe the catalyst, which is very sound reasoning. The other reason could be that in the Mass Effect universe the AI do not have rights, and there's debate as to whether it constitutes life. If one has the belief he should uphold current ethics, that he's not the one to make that decision to change it on his own, than he's doing the least damage to ethics by choosing destroy opposed to synthesis. While if you belief that they do represent life, both destroy is ethically unsound (genocide), and synthesis is ethically unsound (forced bodily changes)

Also, you can see it as an upgrade, I can see destroy or refuse as an upgrade. These matters of opinion is exactly what ethics is for, it's a failsafe so you do not make morally unsound decisions based on your opinion alone. Others may not see your view as an upgrade for them, yet you force it upon them.

Auintus wrote...
I made the observation that you do not truly understand my position which, considering your judgement of my ethical capabilities, does not seem far of target. If that was not your intention, I wish to retract my statement. However, considering your "worry" for the fate of humanity in my hands, I think it was an accurate observation. Correct me, if you'd be so kind.

Regardless of what observations you make, an ad hominem is simply a no-go. Just leave it at the arguments alright? Either way, to come to the conclusion of close mindedness because I doubt your ethical reasoning seems flawed at best. It has no correlation.

Auintus wrote...
You have no reason to trust that shooting the power cell will really trigger destruction. Maybe the center beam triggers destruction, who knows? When do you stop trusting the Catalyst? You have to believe it at some point to reach your conclusion. Why go half way?

Well, shooting objects sure as hell makes it more likely to blow up, than jumping into a beam of light and expecting DNA to merge with tech and solving all organics vs synthetics issues. I can't believe I'm wrong in thinking this atleast?

In essence, I trust nothing that the Catalyst says when he gives me options. If I had the option I would've told Hackett to blow the Catalyst sky-high (well.. I suppose it already is ) as soon as he said he created the reapers and controls them. My gun only makes him yell "So be it!" though... 

Modifié par Zavox, 11 décembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...
Well, if that's what they want sure, it can really be the end of all conflict and whatnot. But that means there well, can't be a sequel to that obviously. 

Hmmm....

Maybe Bioware actually does consider it the best ending and thus ME4 will only follow either Control or Destroy because, as it would be explained, in Synthesis universe the peace lasts forever and the conflicts that could arise in Destroy/Control universes simply couldn't happen in Synthesis universe?

I don't think Synthesis will mean an end to all conflict, but in Synthesis and Control the Reapers remain, largely as a protective force. Considering that they had the entire galaxy's back to the wall, I don't think any major conflicts could arise in either of those endings.
Refuse would result in a completely new set of races, so I'd be a clean slate, but I'd hate it since I consider Refuse a nonstandard game over.
Then there's Destroy, which keeps the status quo. Ending the old conflict, while not going incredibly far to prevent new ones.

Sucks any way you play it.

Atleast I can say we pretty much agree on this bar the first sentence 
Oh Bioware, why did you make it so hard on yourself and your fanbase...

[liggy002]

You do know that High EMS destroy is considered the best ending... because you can only see that ending with the highest EMS. It sounds as if they prefer destroy at Bioware.

[CosmicGnosis]

liggy002 wrote...

You do know that High EMS destroy is considered the best ending... because you can only see that ending with the highest EMS. It sounds as if they prefer destroy at Bioware.

I've thought about this fact for months. However, the breath scene is all that you get with the highest EMS. You can get Destroy's best variant, without the breath scene, before you can get Synthesis. The only thing higher than Synthesis is the breath scene. Shepard's survival is important, of course, but my Shepard, who is an advocate for synthetic rights, wouldn't want to to make a choice that fails to challenge the galaxy's anti-synthetic sentiment.

[Fixers0]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I've thought about this fact for months. However, the breath scene is all that you get with the highest EMS. You can get Destroy's best variant, without the breath scene, before you can get Synthesis. The only thing higher than Synthesis is the breath scene. Shepard's survival is important, of course, but my Shepard, who is an advocate for synthetic rights, wouldn't want to to make a choice that fails to challenge the galaxy's anti-synthetic sentiment.

Having giantic 2Km long Cuttlefish killer robots guarding civilizations surely helps to create a pro-synthetic setiment, especially when their supposedly controlled by bad writing a (former) Human.  

[Zavox]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

You do know that High EMS destroy is considered the best ending... because you can only see that ending with the highest EMS. It sounds as if they prefer destroy at Bioware.

I've thought about this fact for months. However, the breath scene is all that you get with the highest EMS. You can get Destroy's best variant, without the breath scene, before you can get Synthesis. The only thing higher than Synthesis is the breath scene. Shepard's survival is important, of course, but my Shepard, who is an advocate for synthetic rights, wouldn't want to to make a choice that fails to challenge the galaxy's anti-synthetic sentiment.

Destroy is probably the least anti-synthetic choice to make... if you do it because you believe that organics and synthetics don't need some space magic to make peace with each other. You believe in both their abilities to make peace without extraordinary help. This is what I've been trying to say for a while now, there's no reason to believe everything the Catalyst says, so you make the decision to destroy the Catalyst, believing you can solve the organic - synthetic issue on your own terms without compromising.

That eventually synthetics do get destroyed due to choosing destroy, and therefore one shouldn't choose destroy is based on hindsight. While it also still is debatable whether synthetics really did get destroyed, seeing as no slides show such a thing or mention it. While Shepard with his synthetics and who got warned by the catalyst that he would also die, survived.

[fiendishchicken]

Auintus wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

And even if the people in the Reapers were alive, would you really want live in that form of existence forever?

No, I will show the Reapers the same mercy they showed everyone else. I will blow them and the glowboy to hell.

The individuals are dead and gone. The Reapers only remember.

Even more of a reason to blow them to hell. There are no people in the Reapers. And the memories never stopped to look at the memories before. 

I'm sorry I don't buy the catalysts message, and I think synthesis is a false paradise. I'd rather build that paradise on my own than just suddenly listen to the being who says I can make everything better by jumping into a big laser beam. I view it as an obvious attempt to get me to kill myself. 

Plus I'm not there to solve the Organic/synthetic debate. I'm there to destroy the Reapers. It's the only way that stops them for good. 

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

There's a reason why it's been prohibited, and instead of listing it for you in it's entirety, it may be more prudent to read up on it yourself.

It's got something to do with potential to do more harm than good. Hastening the process, making it more painful, developing other diseases (possibly contageous), slippery slopes on when and what is terminally ill, possibility of ending lifes that were misdiagnosed, giving false hope and hurt while time may be better spent in the company of family, possibly missing out on an to you and your doctor unknown other option, etc.

What's been prohibited? Are we talking something specific here?
Not much of a gambler, I take it? Taking leaps is how we move ahead. Stick only to what you know and you stagnate.

No, it will only fade slowly due to sane and objectively discussed ethics. Nothing to do with opportunity.

You should probably watch your wording. The "sane" bit could be taken personally. And the ethics bit already has been.

The catalyst is an AI, I think you grossly underrepresent him by saying he's a mere interfacing tool. The catalyst thought it prudent to show up as the boy Shepard saw in his dreams, and die on Earth. That by itself shows it's reading your mind and trying to influence your decisions. If he's merely an interfacing tool that hides nothing and acknowledges everything he's done, why change his appearance? I believe you're far too trusting, especially to one that has been your main enemy, and enemy of countless generations.

Might I add that to make a lie believeworthy is to tell atleast some truth, especially if it puts you in a bad spot? Does the Catalyst ever show any evidence of anything he says? Does everything he says correspond to the reality? (organics vs synthetics - impossible peace)

No, in the meta-game he's an interfacing tool. To show you, the player, how to make your final decision and provide explanation. He has no real form, so he pulls something that Shepard remembers. Apparently Shepard's own voice echoes behind his, though I've never heard that.

So you pick and choose what you want to believe, on a whim? What if what you choose to believe is wrong? What if he's telling the truth in a different part?
Actually, it does. Remember that the Reapers have existed for eons. When they say war is inevitable, they could mean a hundred, a thousand years down the line. I see little reason to doubt that.

I'm wondering the same thing. I can atleast say you're not always reading, or remembering everything I've said previously.
Sigh, such an overexageration. Nowhere did I allude to you having a psychosis. If you think having worry about you having a certain position and rather not wanting you in charge of such decisions is equal to saying you suffer a psychosis is rather deluded. I'd rather not say it, but if you can come to such a conclusion you're simply delusional.
Might I add that I only said that after a couple of posts on the subject, and thus held your statements as legitimate for atleast that long. However, to think that I do not hold your points as legitimate is simply wrong. I take all arguments at face value, whatever one feels about someone should not be in the equation. (Not that I think of you as psychotic though)

I only said that your arguments are faulty when you started using an ad hominem. Just because you felt the need to use such an attack shows weakness in your arguments and belittles your person. The only reasoning you have for using that attack is plainly a tendency of mine to use arguments that support my position. Which is what is completely normal and what anyone would do, including what you are doing. Your argument that your reasoning for the ad hominem stems from whatever I wrote after your ad hominem is simply illogical. Nor does it make evidence, as it's made after an illogical attack from your side. I'm fully in my right to question your reasoning when you've resorted to using ad hominems.

Psychosis being a disconnect with reality, your statements imply as much. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it seems you consider my ethical system to be inferior to your own, if not outright disconnected with reality. And now I am called delusional. My ethics are questioned and I am the one exploiting Ad Hominem in wondering if you really understand my side?

Ad hominem is using a personal attack as a means of attacking one's opponent's arguments. I have never attacked yours, merely defended mine. I never questioned your decision-making, nor your ethics, only your ability to see things the way I do.
The arguments supporting your position are based on a difference in belief. My beliefs lead quite easily to my conclusion. Your beliefs take a straightforward path to your conclusion. No one is changing their minds here.
You were the first to bring up pity. An insult, if indirect.

I'm going by what we currently have as human rights and what is known of rights in the Mass Effect universe. I assume the human rights have at the very least not diminished, however it's made known that AI have no rights in the Mass Effect universe. Therefore I include all organics, but cannot include AI. To suggest however that I invalidate their 'life' is completely ridiculous, I've stated countless times that I find all the endings ethically wrong. But (as a devil's advocate) a case can be made for the Destroy choice. One reason could be that you simply do not believe the catalyst, which is very sound reasoning. The other reason could be that in the Mass Effect universe the AI do not have rights, and there's debate as to whether it constitutes life. If one has the belief he should uphold current ethics, that he's not the one to make that decision to change it on his own, than he's doing the least damage to ethics by choosing destroy opposed to synthesis. While if you belief that they do represent life, both destroy is ethically unsound (genocide), and synthesis is ethically unsound (forced bodily changes)

Also, you can see it as an upgrade, I can see destroy or refuse as an upgrade. These matters of opinion is exactly what ethics is for, it's a failsafe so you do not make morally unsound decisions based on your opinion alone. Others may not see your view as an upgrade for them, yet you force it upon them.

In Refuse, you die. That can't be seen as an improvement in any way. Except you wouldn't suffer anymore, or have to deal with noisy neighbors, or...that's beside the point. And in Destroy you trash the Reapers and the Geth. Destruction is not an upgrade to human life.

Regardless of what observations you make, an ad hominem is simply a no-go. Just leave it at the arguments alright? Either way, to come to the conclusion of close mindedness because I doubt your ethical reasoning seems flawed at best. It has no correlation.

Your questioning my ethics sounds, to me, as if you consider my personal ethical code...inferior? Broken? questionable? There's a word for it. But you consider yours right and mine wrong, while I consider them different. I never questioned the fate of the world in your hands.

Well, shooting objects sure as hell makes it more likely to blow up, than jumping into a beam of light and expecting DNA to merge with tech and solving all organics vs synthetics issues. I can't believe I'm wrong in thinking this atleast?

In essence, I trust nothing that the Catalyst says when he gives me options. If I had the option I would've told Hackett to blow the Catalyst sky-high (well.. I suppose it already is ) as soon as he said he created the reapers and controls them. My gun only makes him yell "So be it!" though... 

So you'd rather lose on your own terms than win on the terms of a device that everyone admits they have no freaking clue how it works? I...okay. Okay. Not my choice, but that's your game.

Modifié par Auintus, 11 décembre 2012 - 05:02 .