286 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

Organic vs synthetics being the central conflict is such a joke it's not even funny.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Religious person here:

Synthesis is gravely contrary to Catholic teaching, at the very least. It says that humanity is flawed at the root, that it must change into something else in order to thrive. Correcting defects through genetic engineering/cybernetics/green space magic is fine. Altering healthy tissue to become "more than human" is not, because it flies in the face of the notion that we are created in the image of God.

Synthesis borrows some symbolism from religion and myth, but the idea itself is your standard secular utopianism.

Well, Christianity also sees humans as inherently flawed because of original sin, right? And I, as someone who chooses Synthesis, do not see humanity as inherently flawed rather than inherently limited, and I find the idea of overcoming those limits, of becoming more than human, fundamentally desirable. I can see how that would appear to clash with the theomorphism, but I wonder if the idea is really about our physical nature rather than our ability to make decisions freely.

[Obitim]

xsdob wrote...

Because people like to be correct, and like to be cruel to others they perceive as different than them. And becasue they view themselves as the majority, they lose any incentive to not give into base urges of being a complete dick to their fellow human beings when it comes to choices they made. It's all a consequence of this medium, and being able to write whatever you want with no consequences to yourself and no one ever having to see who you are, or who the person your talking to is. Once you break it down it really is just the ugly side of human nature coming forward in those types of people, if control or synthesis were the popular ones than you'd be seeing this same problem with them.

Still doesn't mean these dicks shouldn't get called out for acting the way they do. Hell, I would be more open about how destroy is one of my cannon endings for one of my shepards if It wasn't for these crazy people waving their epeens everywhere.

Everyone is a keyboard warrior...

Modifié par Obitim, 22 janvier 2013 - 02:37 .

[Steelcan]

Argolas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I think the perception that Synthesis is an "abomination" of nature is actually inspired by religion and traditional beliefs about life.

Or just a belief in free will

That is true beyond the possibility of Synthesis altering minds.

Free will does not come without a price, and that price is uncertainty. We don't know if catastrophes, like synthetics killing organics, may happen in the future, but that's kind of the point: We are free, so we don't know what happens. Completely eliminating the possibility of future catastrophes is by definition not possible without removing free will.

. I was going more for the lack of consent.

[Argolas]

Steelcan wrote...

. I was going more for the lack of consent.

Well yeah, but trazillion years old starchild appearantly didn't have the time to stop the attack for a while and talk to the galaxy about that wonderful solution it came up with, so there was no way of making sure on that one.

[Fawx9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LTKerr wrote...
Destroy only kills synthetics because the writters couldn't think anythink better to sell the other two options.

You didn't see the thematic balance then? That Destroy is thematically pro-organic, Control thematically pro-Synthetic, and Synthesis attempting to overcome the dichotomy? I'm not saying it's all well-written, but the death of the synthetics fits Destroy like a glove, thematically. In fact, the permanent destruction of the relays fits it as well. Bioware just chose to compromise their artistic integrity in the latter for the sake of the majority of players who chose Destroy, while keeping the main pro-organic theme intact.

While in theory it fits, I think most people that choose Destory just reject the notion that it's only supposed to be pro organic. It could be easily seen 10 months ago that most Destroyers also fought for peace between the Quarian and Geth and also related well to EDI (her characterization nitpicks not withstanding).

I'd argue that the literal Destroy faction can be split into 2 camps where one group agrees with its pro organic choice, while the other chooses it simply because it destroys the Reapers while feeling cheated that it auto kills the Synthetics as well. I'd also argue that the later is at least more vocal in their opinion than the former. Which is why the arguement that the death of the Synthetics was simply a balancing act to make the other two endings more viable seemingly so popular.

Which when you think about it, if Bioware was going for the paradigm you described, outside of Refuse/Mods, this could be taken as the biggest rejection to the endings in terms of concepts.

Modifié par Fawx9, 22 janvier 2013 - 03:06 .

[Ieldra]

xsdob wrote...
Because people like to be correct, and like to be cruel to others they perceive as different than them. And becasue they view themselves as the majority, they lose any incentive to not give into base urges of being a complete dick to their fellow human beings when it comes to choices they made. It's all a consequence of this medium, and being able to write whatever you want with no consequences to yourself and no one ever having to see who you are, or who the person your talking to is. Once you break it down it really is just the ugly side of human nature coming forward in those types of people, if control or synthesis were the popular ones than you'd be seeing this same problem with them.

Kind of makes me relieved that my preferred choice is not the most popular one. Then I'd had to deal with the extremists in my own faction, and that would be almost worse.

Still doesn't mean these dicks shouldn't get called out for acting the way they do. Hell, I would be more open about how destroy is one of my cannon endings for one of my shepards if It wasn't for these crazy people waving their epeens everywhere.

Indeed. I don't really *like* Destroy, but I'm a roleplayer, too. I made a Shepard who would choose Destroy. I just couldn't go through with it so far because those crazies have poisoned my mind against it. Unfortunately, a memetic poison isn't that easy to avoid when partaking in internet debates.

[Obitim]

I ended up playing through to see each ending and how it played out, not from a fresh shepard but from the same one.

I initially went for synthesis as I felt that was the 'best' option in my own opinion to stop the conflict without sacrificing any race. I then went for Destroy due to the Easter Egg, and finally I went for paragon control, not played my renegade shepard through it yet for renegade control, but I'm sure at some point I'll have a pop,

[LTKerr]

Fawx9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LTKerr wrote...
Destroy only kills synthetics because the writters couldn't think anythink better to sell the other two options.

You didn't see the thematic balance then? That Destroy is thematically pro-organic, Control thematically pro-Synthetic, and Synthesis attempting to overcome the dichotomy? I'm not saying it's all well-written, but the death of the synthetics fits Destroy like a glove, thematically. In fact, the permanent destruction of the relays fits it as well. Bioware just chose to compromise their artistic integrity in the latter for the sake of the majority of players who chose Destroy, while keeping the main pro-organic theme intact.

While in theory it fits, I think most people that choose Destory just reject the notion that it's only supposed to be pro organic. It could be easily seen 10 months ago that most Destroyers also fought for peace between the Quarian and Geth and also related well to EDI (her characterization nitpicks not withstanding).

I'd argue that the literal Destroy faction can be split into 2 camps where one group agrees with its pro organic choice, while the other chooses it simply because it destroys the Reapers while feeling cheated that it auto kills the Synthetics as well. I'd also argue that the later is at least more vocal in their opinion than the former. Which is why the arguement that the death of the Synthetics was simply a balancing act to make the other two endings more viable seemingly so popular.

Which when you think about it, if Bioware was going for the paradigm you described, outside of Refuse/Mods, this could be taken as the biggest rejection to the endings in terms of concepts.

That's mostly my point of view. Since ME3 was released I've read less than 10 people chosing Destroy because they hate/don't care about synthetics and hundreds/thousands (well.. everyone else) because it destroys the Reapers (and they all feel cheated, as you said). As you also said, Destroy is the nearest option that allows us to say "I don't like these endings" besides Refuse or MEHEM or any mod, and it's the option that fits better with Mass Effect lore (I could say it's the only one, anyway).

[Ieldra]

Fawx9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LTKerr wrote...
Destroy only kills synthetics because the writters couldn't think anythink better to sell the other two options.

You didn't see the thematic balance then? That Destroy is thematically pro-organic, Control thematically pro-Synthetic, and Synthesis attempting to overcome the dichotomy? I'm not saying it's all well-written, but the death of the synthetics fits Destroy like a glove, thematically. In fact, the permanent destruction of the relays fits it as well. Bioware just chose to compromise their artistic integrity in the latter for the sake of the majority of players who chose Destroy, while keeping the main pro-organic theme intact.

While in theory it fits, I think most people that choose Destory just reject the notion that it's only supposed to be pro organic. It could be easily seen 10 months ago that most Destroyers also fought for peace between the Quarian and Geth and also related well to EDI (her characterization nitpicks not withstanding).

I'd argue that the literal Destroy faction can be split into 2 camps where one group agrees with its pro organic choice, while the other chooses it simply because it destroys the Reapers while feeling cheated that it auto kills the Synthetics as well. I'd also argue that the later is at least more vocal in their opinion than the former. Which is why the arguement that the death of the Synthetics was simply a balancing act to make the other two endings more viable seemingly so popular.

True. But rejecting a theme doesn't make it vanish. The pro-organic theme is part of Destroy whether or not people like or accept it, just as goal-oriented evolution and overcoming conflict through making people more similar are themes of Synthesis even though in almost all interpretations by those who choose Synthesis, the impossibility of the former is acknowledged and the latter is replaced by "avoiding extinction as the *outcome* of conflict" rather than the conflict itself, thus avoiding that utopian vibe.

As for feeling cheated, I could say that as well, since I like the outcome of Synthesis but feel it's tainted by forcing it on everyone. Only as opposed to the pro-organic theme in Destroy, I am not convinced that this aspect was intended as a core part of the identity of the Synthesis option. The big picture Synthesis could as easily have been a long-term consequence of Synthesizing Shepard and making him its avatar. That would have compromised the sacrifice theme, though, and that *was* part of the intended core identity of Synthesis. I would like to reject that, but it's only possible with heavy mental rewriting and headcanon.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 janvier 2013 - 03:25 .

[Fawx9]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

LTKerr wrote...
Destroy only kills synthetics because the writters couldn't think anythink better to sell the other two options.

You didn't see the thematic balance then? That Destroy is thematically pro-organic, Control thematically pro-Synthetic, and Synthesis attempting to overcome the dichotomy? I'm not saying it's all well-written, but the death of the synthetics fits Destroy like a glove, thematically. In fact, the permanent destruction of the relays fits it as well. Bioware just chose to compromise their artistic integrity in the latter for the sake of the majority of players who chose Destroy, while keeping the main pro-organic theme intact.

While in theory it fits, I think most people that choose Destory just reject the notion that it's only supposed to be pro organic. It could be easily seen 10 months ago that most Destroyers also fought for peace between the Quarian and Geth and also related well to EDI (her characterization nitpicks not withstanding).

I'd argue that the literal Destroy faction can be split into 2 camps where one group agrees with its pro organic choice, while the other chooses it simply because it destroys the Reapers while feeling cheated that it auto kills the Synthetics as well. I'd also argue that the later is at least more vocal in their opinion than the former. Which is why the arguement that the death of the Synthetics was simply a balancing act to make the other two endings more viable seemingly so popular.

True. But rejecting a theme doesn't make it vanish. The pro-organic theme is part of Destroy whether or not people like or accept it, just as goal-oriented evolution and overcoming conflict through making people more similar are themes of Synthesis even though in almost all interpretations by those who choose Synthesis, the impossibility of the former is acknowledged and the latter is replaced by "avoiding extinction as the *outcome* of conflict" rather than the conflict itself, thus avoiding that utopian vibe.

As for feeling cheated, I could say that as well, since I like the outcome of Synthesis but feel it's tainted by forcing it on everyone. Only as opposed to the pro-organic theme in Destroy, I am not convinced that this aspect was intended as a core part of the identity of the Synthesis option. The big picture Synthesis could as easily have been a long-term consequence of Synthesizing Shepard and making him its avatar. That would have compromised the sacrifice theme, though, and that *was* part of the intended core identity of Synthesis. I would like to reject that, but it's only possible with heavy mental rewriting and headcanon.

Well to me, the main theme of Destroy is giving everyone, Organic and Synthetic, the ability to forge their own future. Free of outside control or influence even if that leads us over the edge of a volcano. The fact that it's only the Synthetics having to bend over just seems stupid and contrived.

Which is most likely because I felt that we dealt with the whole Synthetic/Organic problem over the course of the series and it was finished with.

What might have been interesting is if Destory played off of your negotiations throughout the series. Depending on who you gathered would play into what the thing targetted. With options that take out organics or synthetics individually, while also having an outcome from the peace options that would lead to a Destory that, while refined,  still takes out a large number of organics and synthetics and doesn't kill off an entire species.

[Chris Priestly]

Thats enough name calling and insults.


LOCKDOWN!