639 réponses à ce sujet

[George Costanza]

I headcanon Synthesis into not existing.

[CosmicGnosis]

George Costanza wrote...

I headcanon Synthesis into not existing.

Well, if everything you do is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.

[HellbirdIV]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I don't know if I should take everything as literally as possible, or consider thematic interpretations. If I take it literally, then I'd like to put the choices up for a vote, and Destroy would most certainly win. If I use thematic interpretations, then Synthesis wins because it's about taking arisk and leaping into the unknown.

If we forego the ethical and logical issues of Synthesis it's still my least favorite, because the thematic implication seems to run contrary to what Mass Effect has been building up to.

At best it puts everyone on "equal footing", but that takes away from the co-dependent cultures (a big part of the volus' backstory, and the drell's survival) that really emphasize how we must all work together to reach the brighter tomorrow, rather than having a mint-flavored space magic shortcut to enlightenment.

On that note, I seriously dislike the tacked-on "asari were hiding prothean tech all along" subplot that goes nowhere in ME3. Because we can't find a fitting way to make asari less-than-pristine (except for the Ardat-Yakshi, Eclipse, Aria, Dantius, anti-Purebloods... *cough*) we just pull the hypocrit card, undermining the asari's previously established role as the glue holding the civilized galaxy together through diplomacy, respect and freedom.

George Costanza wrote...

I headcanon Synthesis into not existing.

I do too. Every day.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 09 novembre 2012 - 11:50 .

[dreman9999]

Argolas wrote...

I can't see much potential for positive headcanoning in Control since Holoshep is pretty clear about what he/she is going to do. As for Synthesis, go ahead.

With control the question of how the ShepAi rule and what it does with the reapers is left open. Theirs your pasitive head cannon.

[dreman9999]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


I don't need to do that, you should have gotten the idea 2 posts ago.
Now you're dragging it out, you have no point.

The point that you're trolling me?  I mean, if I said something that was factually incorrect, I'd love to hear it.

You didn't say anything that we know as factually incorrect or factually correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't  nonsense.

And you said inko1nsiderate  was taking nonsense?

[Xilizhra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CosmicGnosis:
Please consider:

(1) What people think after the fact may be quite different - and not because of brainwashing. If people don't actually *feel* like they have foreign stuff in their bodies it will become natural fast. IMO it's the idea rather than the reality that some people find loathesome.

(2) You are not making the decision only for humans. I'm sure the salarians would be rather excited about the prospect.

(3) Late 22nd century humans may be a little more open-minded than people here on BSN.

(4) Destroy may be the most popular choice, but the fanatics are a minority.

In the end, if I am convinced that a decision will result in the best future for the galaxy, I feel obligated to take it, whatever other people may think of it beforehand. Also, Shepard is making the decision alone, guided only by his own intellect, emotion and conscience.

If the choices were up for a vote, almost everyone in the galaxy would choose Destroy. I'm convinced of that. What right, then, would I have to ignore them? I may think it sucks, but it's what the majority wants. They won't care about what they might think of Synthesis after it has been implemented.

The majority opinion is irrelevant, or at least only relevant in the smallest possible margin. What is popular and what is right are very frequently not the same thing. Your right to ignore what they want is implicit in your position as military commander.

[Steelcan]

^. Someone's not a fan of democracy

Modifié par Steelcan, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

^. Someone's not a fan of democracy

Democracy has its place, but this isn't it.

[dreman9999]

Steelcan wrote...

^. Someone's not a fan of democracy

You think Democracy is practices every where?

When you were growing up, was your family a democracy?

[ghost9191]

Steelcan wrote...

^. Someone's not a fan of democracy

well they did pick control

[Ieldra]

@CosmicGnosis:
If I were to let other people's behavior dictate my decision, I would look for those who spout the most unreasonable hate - and then make the decision they don't like. There are people whose opinions don't deserve to be taken into consideration.

As it is, I know what happens in my games and the EC supports it. Nobody can take that away from me. The only reason I care about what's said here on BSN is because the haters present a skewed picture of Synthesis to newcomers. Of course, *if* Synthesis removed all diversity and brainwashed everyone then it would be bad. But it doesn't, and it isn't.

[ElSuperGecko]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@CosmicGnosis:
If I were to let other people's behavior dictate my decision, I would look for those who spout the most unreasonable hate - and then make the decision they don't like. There are people whose opinions don't deserve to be taken into consideration.

As it is, I know what happens in my games and the EC supports it. Nobody can take that away from me. The only reason I care about what's said here on BSN is because the haters present a skewed picture of Synthesis to newcomers. Of course, *if* Synthesis removed all diversity and brainwashed everyone then it would be bad. But it doesn't, and it isn't.

You missed out the three (space) magic words:  "In my opinion".

[Ramus Quaritch]

I headcanoned the whole darn endgame from well before the choices.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

^. Someone's not a fan of democracy

You think Democracy is practices every where?

When you were growing up, was your family a democracy?

Funny, because our ORDERS were to destroy the Reapers. So yay for democracy and the chain of command.

[Xilizhra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

^. Someone's not a fan of democracy

You think Democracy is practices every where?

When you were growing up, was your family a democracy?

Funny, because our ORDERS were to destroy the Reapers. So yay for democracy and the chain of command.

My remit is to stop the harvest. If I find a better way of doing so than destruction, so be it.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
My remit is to stop the harvest. If I find a better way of doing so than destruction, so be it.

And how do you GUARANTEE that making a decision which leaves the Reapers alive and unharmed will stop the harvest?

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
My remit is to stop the harvest. If I find a better way of doing so than destruction, so be it.

And how do you GUARANTEE that making a decision which leaves the Reapers alive and unharmed will stop the harvest?

About the same way that I can guarantee that shooting a random tube will stop the harvest. I.e. not, but if it won't, then it won't matter what I pick.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
About the same way that I can guarantee that shooting a random tube will stop the harvest. I.e. not, but if it won't, then it won't matter what I pick.

OK.  So you're not sure that any of the choices will work .  Fair enough - surely then you must try to minimise the risk of failure?

Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the endings do exactly what you're told they'll do.  Let's take all other factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one particular direction and away from another.

Destroy - Reapers gone, cycle ends, collateral damage scaled on how well prepared your Shepard is.
Control - Reapers still around, Shepard dead, but Shepard's conciousnes becomes the framework for the new controlling AI.
Synthesis - Reapers still around, Shepard dead, but Shepard's DNA is used to fuse all life into a new universal organic/synthetic framework.

No less than five minutes prior to making your decision, you've argued the case against Control.  Synthesis raises many questions, questions which you're not given the answers to.  How then do you minimise the risk of failure?

You play the odds.  You simply the options, reduce them down to their base components.

Of the three choices - destroying the Reapers once and for all, attempting to control them, or hybridizing all life in existence into a new framework - which raises the least questions?  Which rings the fewest alarm bells?

Reduce the equation further if you have to.  Occam's Razor it.

Destroy = Reapers gone
Control = Reapers persist
Synthesis = Reapers persist

Which, out of those three choices, gives the people you are fighting for the greatest chance of survival?

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[mjh417]

Destroy is the only way that is truly free. The other choices are only good if you support Big Brother like fascist mind control and slavery.

In Destroy, organics are FREE to rebuild synthetics if they choose. By all means I think they can and will.

[Xilizhra]

No less than five minutes prior to making your decision, you've argued the case against Control. Synthesis raises many questions, questions which you're not given the answers to. How then do you minimise the risk of failure?

I made the argument against Control because TIM was indoctrinated and he wouldn't have been able to do it properly. I didn't like his vision anyway. If I have the opportunity while I'm not indoctrinated, that changes everything. In any case, I don't really want to kill all of the Reapers, certainly not if I have another option.

[mjh417]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
About the same way that I can guarantee that shooting a random tube will stop the harvest. I.e. not, but if it won't, then it won't matter what I pick.

OK.  So you're not sure that any of the choices will work .  Fair enough - surely then you must try to minimise the risk of failure?

Let's play devil's advocate here, and assume the endings do exactly what you're told they'll do.  Let's take all other factors out of the equation, assume that there's no manipulation involved and assume that the Catalyst isn't trying to nudge you in one particular direction and away from another.

Destroy - Reapers gone, cycle ends, collateral damage scaled on how well prepared your Shepard is.
Control - Reapers still around, Shepard dead, but Shepard's conciousnes becomes the framework for the new controlling AI.
Synthesis - Reapers still around, Shepard dead, but Shepard's DNA is used to fuse all life into a new universal organic/synthetic framework.

No less than five minutes prior to making your decision, you've argued the case against Control.  Synthesis raises many questions, questions which you're not given the answers to.  How then do you minimise the risk of failure?

You play the odds.  You simply the options, reduce them down to their base components.

Of the three choices - destroying the Reapers once and for all, attempting to control them, or hybridizing all life in existence into a new framework - which raises the least questions?  Which rings the fewest alarm bells?

Reduce the equation further if you have to.  Occam's Razor it.

Destroy = Reapers gone
Control = Reapers persist
Synthesis = Reapers persist

Which, out of those three choices, gives the people you are fighting for the greatest chance of survival?

Exactly. The simplest solution is the best.

[AlexMBrennan]

About the same way that I can guarantee that shooting a random tube will stop the harvest. I.e. not, but if it won't, then it won't matter what I pick.

Well, not quite. You have to assume that shooting the tube triggers Destroy, jumping off the platform triggers Synthesis and that touching the... whatever triggers Control - if Godchild is lying about that then you've lost already (Shepard's bleeding to death, there won't be any reinforcements and it's just a matter of time before the Crucible is destroyed by the Reaper fleet - Shepard has no way of figuring how the Crucible works on his own)

However, you don't have to believe him about the tech singularity being a real threat, synthesis being inevitable, or the cycle continuing in the Destroy ending.

So you are wrong to claim that we have to assume that Godchild is telling the truth about everything.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:37 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
I made the argument against Control because TIM was indoctrinated and he wouldn't have been able to do it properly. I didn't like his vision anyway. If I have the opportunity while I'm not indoctrinated, that changes everything. In any case, I don't really want to kill all of the Reapers, certainly not if I have another option.

...and yet you KNOW for a fact that exposure to Reaper tech causes indoctrination.  And If you are in direct control and communication with the Reapers, you will be exposed to them CONSTANTLY.  Even if you believe yourself to be immune to the Reapers programming, controlling something when you yourself are dead is an incredible leap of faith to take.  Just like Synthesis, you have more questions with Control than you do answers.  Only vague assurances from the Reaper's controlling AI, and headcanon.

Does this really present less of a risk to you than ending the Reaper threat completely?  Are you willing to bet humanity's existance on it?  The galaxy's existance?

I'll give you more time to think and respond to the rest of the argument.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:55 .

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CosmicGnosis:
If I were to let other people's behavior dictate my decision, I would look for those who spout the most unreasonable hate - and then make the decision they don't like. There are people whose opinions don't deserve to be taken into consideration.

As it is, I know what happens in my games and the EC supports it. Nobody can take that away from me. The only reason I care about what's said here on BSN is because the haters present a skewed picture of Synthesis to newcomers. Of course, *if* Synthesis removed all diversity and brainwashed everyone then it would be bad. But it doesn't, and it isn't.

So you actually believe that becoming techorganic creates an utopia by itself? Really?

[Xilizhra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I made the argument against Control because TIM was indoctrinated and he wouldn't have been able to do it properly. I didn't like his vision anyway. If I have the opportunity while I'm not indoctrinated, that changes everything. In any case, I don't really want to kill all of the Reapers, certainly not if I have another option.

...and yet you KNOW for a fact that exposure to Reaper tech causes indoctrination.  And If you are in direct control and communication with the Reapers, you will be exposed to them CONSTANTLY.  Even if you believe yourself to be immune to the Reapers programming, controlling something when you yourself are dead is an incredible leap of faith to take.  Just like Synthesis, you have more questions with Control than you do answers.  Only vague assurances from the Reaper's controlling AI, and headcanon.

Does this really present less of a risk to you than ending the Reaper threat completely?  Are you willing to bet humanity's existance on it?  The galaxy's existance?

I'll give you more time to think and respond to the rest of the argument.

More time than you think, as I need to leave too quickly to give an intelligent response.
But the short answer is that I don't perceive it as a sufficient risk. I don't believe that being the Catalyst will leave me vulnerable to indoctrination, as I'll be the source of the indoctrination. I won't be vulnerable to the Reapers, the Reapers will be vulnerable to me. Is it a risk? It could be, but not a large enough risk for me to not take it in the name of preserving as much life as can be preserved.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 09 novembre 2012 - 05:06 .