238 réponses à ce sujet

[TheBlackBaron]

frudi wrote...

The speculation is strong in this one.

You won't have a problem showing and explaining to me just where and how EDI died then? I can tell you my own explanation, and it doesn't involve the red wave destroying her.
And Rannoch? All we see is a single shot of a city that happens to have no Geth in the frame. Or alternatively it's a barren wasteland because, with Creators gone, the Geth have no more interest in maintaining their legacy. How very conclusive

So... still waiting for that evidence that a single synthetic is destroyed by the red wave.

There's a fine line between "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt", and you're flirting with it. 

[MstrJedi Kyle]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

frudi wrote...

The speculation is strong in this one.

You won't have a problem showing and explaining to me just where and how EDI died then? I can tell you my own explanation, and it doesn't involve the red wave destroying her.
And Rannoch? All we see is a single shot of a city that happens to have no Geth in the frame. Or alternatively it's a barren wasteland because, with Creators gone, the Geth have no more interest in maintaining their legacy. How very conclusive

So... still waiting for that evidence that a single synthetic is destroyed by the red wave.

There's a fine line between "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt", and you're flirting with it. 

Well, its a sexy line, I'd flirt with it too!

[Indy_S]

There's no evidence either way, frudi. We're just asked to accept it anyway. It means that these endings, even with the EC, rely too much on 'and, well, you know the rest' when we clearly don't know. Not particularly well written in any respect.

[wright1978]

Killing synthetics is the very unfortunate price of ridding the galaxy of the reapers and restoring freedom for the galaxy to develop as it wishes and for future synthetics to develop as they wish.

[CosmicGnosis]

Frudi, if you're going to sugarcoat Destroy, then don't complain about people sugarcoating Control and Synthesis.

Now, I don't know if you've ever done that, but just in case, don't ever do it.

[Indy_S]

There's a difference between speculation and writing the story. BioWare intends for us to do the latter while saying the former.

[CosmicGnosis]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

- Kills synthetics; prevents synthetics from continuing their quest for personhood

Here's the thing about synthetics - seeing as they're, you know, synthetic, we can always -build- and -program- more. 

- The galaxy is prejudiced again synthetic intelligences; choosing Destroy does nothing to challenge this prejudice

Perhaps synthetics should work to challenge this themselves, instead of a) asking an organic to do it for them, moaning and weeping about how misunderstood they are, and c) engaging in hostile isolation for the better part of 300 years. Shooting foreign craft on sight is not a great way to endear yourself to the galaxy at large. 

- It's clearly the pro-organic choice; Shepard's synthetic aspect is sacrificed so that his organic aspect can survive (the opposite of Control)

You say this like it's a bad thing. But in any event, why -is- this a bad thing? What makes this inferior to sacrificing his organic aspects so that the synthetic ones survive? 

- Depending on EMS, it either destroys or damages technology; even if technology is merely damaged, there is a cleaner way to end the cycle (Control)

Quite the contrary. The only thing that seems to be damaged or destroyed are the relays and synthetic intelligences. Both of which are eminently replaceable. 

- Throws away the knowledge contained within the Reapers; in my opinion, conquering the Lovecraftian entities means understanding them, not killing them and treating them as mysterious, unknowable monsters

In Lovecraft's mythos, attempting to understand or comprehend what you're facing tends to only lead to being driven insane. 

It's like the Ark at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. You can't really "look" at them without being struck down. Not that this would ever happen in a Lovecraft story, but if you get the chance to destroy one of them, or in ME's case, many of them, you take it. 

- One of the leaked scripts had a more consistent version of Destroy; the mass relays were destroyed only in that specific ending (this is relevant because it provides insight into the logic of the Destroy choice)

Irrelevant, as this isn't the case in the final game, but Bioware hardly needs to further beat into players that they think Synthesis is the best option. 

Pro-organic is not necessarily bad. I just don't like the implications that it carries. It's sacrificing a hated domain of life for the preservation of another domain of life.

I fundamentally disagree with Lovecraft's fear of the unknown. Therefore, I don't buy into the "impossible to understand" philosophy. It reeks of neo-Luddism, and reminds me of the Illusive Man's comment about the mass relays:

"When humanity discovered the mass relays, when we learned there was more to the galaxy than we imagined, there were some who thought the relays should be destroyed. They were scared of what we'd find, terrified of what we might let in. But look at what humanity has achieved. Since that discovery, we've advanced more than the past ten thousand years combined."

I agree with the Illusive Man. Interestingly, humanity did encounter the Reapers because of the relays. But I still think that it was worth it. After all, the cycle was ended.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:38 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

frudi wrote...
And Rannoch? All we see is a single shot of a city that happens to have no Geth in the frame. Or alternatively it's a barren wasteland because, with Creators gone, the Geth have no more interest in maintaining their legacy. How very conclusive

So... still waiting for that evidence that a single synthetic is destroyed by the red wave.

Consider that we do not see a wasteland Rannoch if we sided with the Geth and chose blue/green, but instead we get a slide with Geth in what I would suppose is a geth city . A slide which never appears in destroy (without Reapers of course). And I think saying that destroy kills the Geth is a reasonable conclusion.

[Indy_S]

Issues with Control and especially Synthesis... those on the other hand don't disappear no matter how much one tries to sugarcoat the results.

I'll agree with that. Conceptually muddled.

As for the OP, I still believe in my point from the third post:

Indy_S wrote...

I don't think it is possible to explain why Destroy is not thematically anti-synthetic. You're reasons for not choosing it are pretty strong with regards to that theme. Assuming the conflict is 'inevitable', Destroy directly stalls the issue, as does Synthesis, as does the cycles. However, Destroy is the only one that removes the influence of the cycle and allows for the chance to change. Allowing the people of the future to come to their own decision about synthetics is perhaps the only way that they will gain an equal standing in life.

Or you could just force equality with the other two choices.

[CosmicGnosis]

frudi wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Frudi, if you're going to sugarcoat Destroy, then don't complain about people sugarcoating Control and Synthesis.

Now, I don't know if you've ever done that, but just in case, don't ever do it.

What am I sugarcoating? I'm just not drawing wild unfounded assumptions from things we're never even shown.

Issues with Control and especially Synthesis... those on the other hand don't disappear no matter how much one tries to sugarcoat the results.

EDI's name is on the memorial wall. As far as I know, this doesn't happen even if you get her body destroyed in Low-EMS Control. And you get this picture if you side with the geth on Rannoch, and then choose Destroy:



Yes, Destroy kills synthetics.

[wright1978]

[quote]Indy_S wrote...

I don't think it is possible to explain why Destroy is not thematically anti-synthetic. You're reasons for not choosing it are pretty strong with regards to that theme. Assuming the conflict is 'inevitable', Destroy directly stalls the issue, as does Synthesis, as does the cycles. However, Destroy is the only one that removes the influence of the cycle and allows for the chance to change. Allowing the people of the future to come to their own decision about synthetics is perhaps the only way that they will gain an equal standing in life.

Or you could just force equality with the other two choices. [/quote][/quote]

I agree that if you believe in the inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics then destroy is anti-synthetic. However i certainly don't believe the conflict is inevitable as there's zero reliable evidence that it is. Therefore destroy is pro freedom, pro organic and pro synthetic life and the death of geth is an incidental casualty of war. It could be the Asari, humans, turians etc as far as i'm concerned.

[CosmicGnosis]

wright1978 wrote...

I agree that if you believe in the inevitable conflict between synthetics and organics then destroy is anti-synthetic. However i certainly don't believe the conflict is inevitable as there's zero reliable evidence that it is. Therefore destroy is pro freedom, pro organic and pro synthetic life and the death of geth is an incidental casualty of war. It could be the Asari, humans, turians etc as far as i'm concerned.

I just can't bring myself to view the synthetic sacrifice as being similar to a "turian sacrifice". Synthetic destruction is fitting for a choice that affects technology. Destroy is the choice that targets the "unnatural". In the context of the Mass Effect universe, I don't think the "unnatural" is bad.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:21 .

[CosmicGnosis]

I think the assumption that synthetics are not killed in the Destroy ending is simply an attempt to invalidate the other choices. It perfects the Destroy ending by removing its most obvious downside. It might also have ties with IT, which is another attempt to invalidate all non-Destroy choices.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:28 .

[Indy_S]

There is literally NOTHING they can produce to satisfy you, frudi. BioWare chose for this scene to tell, not show. And they were light on the telling anyway.

And CosmicGnosis, I agree that unnatural isn't bad here. But the choice is either to force equality on everyone or provide a clean slate for it. Is life greater than liberty? That's the question, I suppose.

[Someone With Mass]

I see Destroy as an act of mercy more than anything else.

The geth don't have to suffer because of the Reapers' unfathomable stupidity anymore. Not to mention that the geth I met in ME3 really weren't the same as the ones I met in ME2, since in the latter game, they took a stand for what they believed, while it's cast aside completely in ME3.

Oh and by the way, ME3? Learn the difference between a Dyson sphere and a Dyson bubble.

[d-boy15]

It called sacrifice a few for many, every war have that sort of thing.

Destroy not necessary pro-organic, you can view it like that if it make you feel better. many peoples
who choose destroy see Geth and EDI as the price of freedom and they can accepted it. I don't see
many of them choose it just to kill synthetics. Destroy leave the galaxy in uncertain future, it get rid
of the influence from Reaper and allow galaxy to choose their own path. if their choice is to destroy
themselves then so be it. also, Freedom is never come cheap...

Control is not cleaner way to end the cycle. When you have big gun on you ass, you don't call it
a freedom and I'm sure not every race (or everyone) will accept Reaper protection.

and to be fair saying the conflict between organic and synthetic is inevitable is like you say cat and
dog always get into fight.

you can't choose destroy? go with the other choice then, no one can forcing you to choose it. even
some of the pro-destroy are sometimes being an **** but I'm sure they can't control you.

Modifié par d-boy15, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:39 .

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Sacrifice, it is needed in war.

Your paragraphs don't hold a match to my sentence.

[CosmicGnosis]

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Sacrifice, it is needed in war.

Your paragraphs don't hold a match to my sentence.

My Shepard gives up his life to become the one who can save the many.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

He still saves tons of lives. Unless you think the Reapers (controlled or green) deserve to live.

And you can always recreate EDI and the Geth, store their memories on a database.

[DirtyPhoenix]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

ZeCollectorDestroya wrote...

Sacrifice, it is needed in war.

Your paragraphs don't hold a match to my sentence.

My Shepard gives up his life to become the one who can save the many.

Good.. so you finally saw the (blue) light.

[simonrana]

d-boy15 wrote...
It called sacrifice a few for many, every war have that sort of thing.

Destroy not necessary pro-organic, you can view it like that if it make you feel better. many peoples
who choose destroy see Geth and EDI as the price of freedom and they can accepted it. I don't see
many of them choose it just to kill synthetics. Destroy leave the galaxy in uncertain future, it get rid
of the influence from Reaper and allow galaxy to choose their own path. if their choice is to destroy
themselves then so be it. also, Freedom is never come cheap...

Seconded. If you happened to be playing an anti-synthetic Shepard then Destroy caters for your anti-synthetic viewpoint, but it also caters just as well for any Shepard that firmly believes in destroying the Reapers once and for all, no matter what the cost.

If the Destroy option was "kill all Reapers but also wipe out Earth" I would still find it the best solution, since ensuring the Reapers are gone for good seems like the most important thing to me.

Modifié par simonrana, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:28 .

[wright1978]

simonrana wrote...

If the Destroy option was "kill all Reapers but also wipe out Earth" I would still find it the best solution, since ensuring the Reapers are gone for good seems like the most important thing to me.

QFT