354 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Panda]

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Racial and religious differences have been one of the largest causes of mass murders / genocides. Many millions of people have been killed because of racial and ethnic intolerence.

Your argument is akin to saying that merging all races and religions together into one gray blob would be a solution to global violence.

That is all kinds of wrong, and quite honestly a disturbing point of view to hold. After a game built on bringing different factions together, united, the synthesis ending is a big kick in the 'nads. Morally repugnant on may levels.

Why embrace diversity and tolerance when we can just genetically rewrite everyone to make them the same!?

Krogan is still krogan and Asari is still Asari.


It's just an upgrade to facilitate easier peaceful overtures post-war.


Why stay weak? Evolve today!

Assuming you're not trolling, that is a very naive point of view.

Your view is that by implanting some cybernetic parts into everyone, that there will be world peace? What kind of argument is that? 

 ME3 if anything showed that synthetic and organic life COULD coexist peacefully - synthesis literally dismantles a main overarching theme of not only the game, but the entire trilogy. Tolerance.

And you're wrong. THat's only one example where it worked when there has been millions of examples that show that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. An anomaly doesn't prove the entire idea wrong. Therefore, synthesis is valid.

So do you disagree with diversity? Do you think that homogenity is the answer to all our problems? 

Synthesis doesn't make everything the same.

Krogan are still Krogan, Asari are still Asari. Consider the Shepard, the template for which all upgrades are based on, the Shepard is still a flesh and blood human, just with a few bits and pieces attached that improve them.

So you'd be okay with someone drugging you and planting synthetic parts into you without you knowing? 

How could you possibly argue that doing such a thing to trillions of people is a moral and ethical choice? I'm disturbed that there are so many who would be willing to force such a change on trillions and see nothing wrong with it. 

As I see it, the galaxy is not fit to make decisions for itself. If not for Shepard, it'd already be extinct. Shepard is the avatar of this cycle, the choice alone belongs to Shepard. Would you save those who cannot save themselves?

[Ticonderoga117]

OperatingWookie wrote...
The reapers are trying to help the younger races, they're just misguided. Synthesis saves them from their wrongdoings and improves everyone. It's a win-win situation except Shepard, who is dead.

By using lasers? Lasers with yields in the kT range? Uh huh....

Oh, and why didn't they build this power source in the first place? Oh, no reason? Well crap. Guess they weren't trying to help until some morons thought it would be an AWESOME plot twist in the third game.

[PainCakesx]

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

[Red Panda]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...
The reapers are trying to help the younger races, they're just misguided. Synthesis saves them from their wrongdoings and improves everyone. It's a win-win situation except Shepard, who is dead.

By using lasers? Lasers with yields in the kT range? Uh huh....

Oh, and why didn't they build this power source in the first place? Oh, no reason? Well crap. Guess they weren't trying to help until some morons thought it would be an AWESOME plot twist in the third game.

The crucible did not reveal itself as a solution until the end of the game. Helping the younger races ascend was the superior solution based on empirical evidence from past cycles.

[Red Panda]

PainCakesx wrote...

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

Can the galaxy survive the Reapers without Shepard? No.

Could Russia survive without Lenin? Yes.

Just because Shepard is simply one woman does not mean that she can't represent the galaxy at a crictical moment and help it get through the conflict.

[PainCakesx]

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

Can the galaxy survive the Reapers without Shepard? No.

Could Russia survive without Lenin? Yes.

Just because Shepard is simply one woman does not mean that she can't represent the galaxy at a crictical moment and help it get through the conflict.

So because Shepard is particularly good at killing things and not dying, that endows him the authority to determine the genetic future of the galaxy?

[Auintus]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

I'm glad you can like it, but I still can't. Would my mind be different post-Synthesis? Would I still be ME after the synthesis? The only comparison I can think of is if someone offered to make me verrrrry happy with just a tiny injection. Would you accept pure, guaranteed, blissfully contended happiness at the cost of losing your soul?

I agree, Destroy hints at killing All Geth. I don't like it. I don't like killing EDI either. But as I've said before, I don't trust the Reapers. They lied about just about everything, so I'll risk they're staying true to form when I hit the red button.

The way I see it, Synthesis is only a physical change. Maybe mental too, but it doesn't change the personality. Look at the end slides. They are doing what they would be doing. Nothings changed but the body.
But that's my point of view. It's good that you can see that. I can accept any of the ending choices(except refuse), but that doesn't mean I won't question your reasoning. For example...

If so, why wouldn't they lie about the red button? "Jump into the beam Shepard, that's how you make the Crucible kill all the Reapers. Nope, just the Reapers, everyone else will be fine." If it was trying to deceive you, it could do so much better.
As I recall, the Reapers never lie. They are content to tell you how(from their perspective) you are inferior and you will be ascended into Reaper form. They tell you how they've harvested many before, and intend to harvest many after. Deception isn't much the Reaper's MO.

[Red Panda]

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

Can the galaxy survive the Reapers without Shepard? No.

Could Russia survive without Lenin? Yes.

Just because Shepard is simply one woman does not mean that she can't represent the galaxy at a crictical moment and help it get through the conflict.

So because Shepard is particularly good at killing things and not dying, that endows him the authority to determine the genetic future of the galaxy?

I suppose that endows her the authority to kill as many as the Reapers did by killing the Reapers along with other synthetics. Or to become a dictator, eternal, infinite and immortal.

There is no authority to choose any of those. It's simply doing what one must to survive.

[PainCakesx]

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

Can the galaxy survive the Reapers without Shepard? No.

Could Russia survive without Lenin? Yes.

Just because Shepard is simply one woman does not mean that she can't represent the galaxy at a crictical moment and help it get through the conflict.

So because Shepard is particularly good at killing things and not dying, that endows him the authority to determine the genetic future of the galaxy?

I suppose that endows her the authority to kill as many as the Reapers did by killing the Reapers along with other synthetics. Or to become a dictator, eternal, infinite and immortal.

There is no authority to choose any of those. It's simply doing what one must to survive.

Killing beings hellbent on the deaths of trillions is entirely justified. 

All 3 endings are morally questionable which is one reason why the ending is so problematic. Of the three endings, Destroy and arguably Control are the only 2 that make any sort of sense. Synthesis is based of a naive premise, not to mention the space magic involved in a ray of light being able to alter the DNA of every being in the galaxy.

Imposing genetic change on trillions of innocent people without their consent is not justified in any shape or form.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 30 janvier 2013 - 02:57 .

[Red Panda]

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

Can the galaxy survive the Reapers without Shepard? No.

Could Russia survive without Lenin? Yes.

Just because Shepard is simply one woman does not mean that she can't represent the galaxy at a crictical moment and help it get through the conflict.

So because Shepard is particularly good at killing things and not dying, that endows him the authority to determine the genetic future of the galaxy?

I suppose that endows her the authority to kill as many as the Reapers did by killing the Reapers along with other synthetics. Or to become a dictator, eternal, infinite and immortal.

There is no authority to choose any of those. It's simply doing what one must to survive.

Killing beings hellbent on the deaths of trillions is entirely justified. 

All 3 endings are morally questionable which is one reason why the ending is so problematic.

Finally!

Look at my sig. Do you think I love synthesis?

All I wanted was to get people to accept all the endings as legitimate choices.

[Auintus]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

They refuse the Old Machines. EDI would rather die than let the Reapers continue. Also, who the hell said we were ready for Synthesis? Who the hell said the Catalyst's best intentions were good for us?

Sorry, but the Reapers need to go. Synthesis is what they want. Control doesn't get rid of them either. Destroy it is.

So? They wanted to determine thier own future. They never said they would throw it away to save everyone else. Legion expresses desire to understand organics. Synthesis helps him do that. I think he'd side with me.
What's to be ready for? Giving nuclear weapons to cavemen, no, but this is completely different. Shepard was already mostly what the Catalyst intended. That's why the Crucible could use his whatever to instigate Synthesis. It's just another leap ahead.

So the memories, the cultures, of a thousand civilizations have to be erased for, what, revenge? The goal is to stop the harvest. All three options achieve this.
What I don't understand is why people think destruction is the only way to deal with an enemy. Occupation(Control) or establishing peace(Synthesis) are more often the options taken in real life.

[PainCakesx]

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Who am I to impose my will on trillions of people? Who are you to make that decision?

Shepard is simply a man. A charismatic and good soldier, but a man nonetheless. To believe oneself to be capable of unilaterally determining the genetic future of trillions because the lowly peons are incapable of thinking for themselves is a trait common in one group of people - totalitarian dictators.

It's not right.

Can the galaxy survive the Reapers without Shepard? No.

Could Russia survive without Lenin? Yes.

Just because Shepard is simply one woman does not mean that she can't represent the galaxy at a crictical moment and help it get through the conflict.

So because Shepard is particularly good at killing things and not dying, that endows him the authority to determine the genetic future of the galaxy?

I suppose that endows her the authority to kill as many as the Reapers did by killing the Reapers along with other synthetics. Or to become a dictator, eternal, infinite and immortal.

There is no authority to choose any of those. It's simply doing what one must to survive.

Killing beings hellbent on the deaths of trillions is entirely justified. 

All 3 endings are morally questionable which is one reason why the ending is so problematic.

Finally!

Look at my sig. Do you think I love synthesis?

All I wanted was to get people to accept all the endings as legitimate choices.

Just because all 3 endings are terrible doesn't make them all equally terrible. Synthesis, of the 3, is the worst on many levels.

[Auintus]

PainCakesx wrote...

Killing beings hellbent on the deaths of trillions is entirely justified. 

Imposing genetic change on trillions of innocent people without their consent is not justified in any shape or form.

They don't see it as death. They see it as preservation. Not of the individual, but of the culture. Their goal is to make sure that a race's entire culture isn't lost to the synth-organic conflict. So they remember, and set back the clock to postpone the war. In destroying them, you are not destroying genocidal maniacs, but true historians, and their entire libraries with them. That is what I see as unjustified.

No one is complaining in the slides. I had a choice to make and I did what I thought was best for everyone. And it worked.

[Ticonderoga117]

OperatingWookie wrote...
The crucible did not reveal itself as a solution until the end of the game. Helping the younger races ascend was the superior solution based on empirical evidence from past cycles.

But the Catalyst knew of the Crucible well before this cycle. It's an AI, it can evaluate the design and determine, that when plugged into his Citadel, you get this outcome. Yet not once did he try it before.

None of what you are saying is holding up.

[Auintus]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...
The crucible did not reveal itself as a solution until the end of the game. Helping the younger races ascend was the superior solution based on empirical evidence from past cycles.

But the Catalyst knew of the Crucible well before this cycle. It's an AI, it can evaluate the design and determine, that when plugged into his Citadel, you get this outcome. Yet not once did he try it before.

None of what you are saying is holding up.

He knew is as an anti-reaper device. Until it was hooked up to the Citadel, he had no idea that it could correctly apply his preferred solution.

[PainCakesx]

Auintus wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

Killing beings hellbent on the deaths of trillions is entirely justified. 

Imposing genetic change on trillions of innocent people without their consent is not justified in any shape or form.

They don't see it as death. They see it as preservation. Not of the individual, but of the culture. Their goal is to make sure that a race's entire culture isn't lost to the synth-organic conflict. So they remember, and set back the clock to postpone the war. In destroying them, you are not destroying genocidal maniacs, but true historians, and their entire libraries with them. That is what I see as unjustified.

No one is complaining in the slides. I had a choice to make and I did what I thought was best for everyone. And it worked.

What's in the slides is irrelevant. BioWare's belief was that by merging synthetics and organics, that there would be galactic peace and all would be well. This argument was justified by claiming that "there would be no organic life or synthetic life, just life." 

The slides support BioWare's world view, but I and many reject that altogether. The notion that such "synthesis" would lead to eternal peace is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a while. I don't deny that people look happy in the slides, simply the premise of the ending in the first place.

[Ticonderoga117]

Auintus wrote...
So? They wanted to determine thier own future. They never said they would throw it away to save everyone else. Legion expresses desire to understand organics. Synthesis helps him do that. I think he'd side with me.
What's to be ready for? Giving nuclear weapons to cavemen, no, but this is completely different. Shepard was already mostly what the Catalyst intended. That's why the Crucible could use his whatever to instigate Synthesis. It's just another leap ahead.

So the memories, the cultures, of a thousand civilizations have to be erased for, what, revenge? The goal is to stop the harvest. All three options achieve this.
What I don't understand is why people think destruction is the only way to deal with an enemy. Occupation(Control) or establishing peace(Synthesis) are more often the options taken in real life.

Synthesis doesn't make a lick of sense on the scale and timetable presented in game, don't even try.  The fact that Synthesis magically transfers "understanding" to the Geth is absurd. We don't even know ourselves, never mind having one end all be all record.

Synthesis is peace only because we've surrendered. Control is not occupation. Control is becomign what you have fought against, at least in this context.

[Ticonderoga117]

Auintus wrote...
He knew is as an anti-reaper device. Until it was hooked up to the Citadel, he had no idea that it could correctly apply his preferred solution.

Power source. It's a power source. And since the Citadel contains the do-dads for the RGB endings, HE KNEW.

He knew and did NOTHING. All because "they weren't ready", didn't qualify that, and then said we were somehow ready.

[Jadebaby]

Faust1979 wrote...

On my second play through I chose synthesis and it was an even better ending than destruction. From what I've been seeing from playing the game back to back, the people that have been saying the endings don't fit with the games are completely wrong! these endings have been great and I liked seeing all the races I helped and the wars I stopped bring people to together. In the epilog Shep kept saying she was alive I guess she didn't die in the beam and she became something else as well. 

lol this is a troll thread if I ever saw one..

[Auintus]

PainCakesx wrote...

What's in the slides is irrelevant. BioWare's belief was that by merging synthetics and organics, that there would be galactic peace and all would be well. This argument was justified by claiming that "there would be no organic life or synthetic life, just life." 

The slides support BioWare's world view, but I and many reject that altogether. The notion that such "synthesis" would lead to eternal peace is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a while. I don't deny that people look happy in the slides, simply the premise of the ending in the first place.

"It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of him."

Conflict arises from an "Us vs. Them" mentality. With the lines between synthetic and organic blurred, that's one less thing that people can fight over. Perfect? Probably not, but it solves one problem.

[k.lalh]

JadeShepard wrote...

(snip)

lol this is a troll thread if I ever saw one..

^

[PainCakesx]

Auintus wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

What's in the slides is irrelevant. BioWare's belief was that by merging synthetics and organics, that there would be galactic peace and all would be well. This argument was justified by claiming that "there would be no organic life or synthetic life, just life." 

The slides support BioWare's world view, but I and many reject that altogether. The notion that such "synthesis" would lead to eternal peace is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a while. I don't deny that people look happy in the slides, simply the premise of the ending in the first place.

"It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of him."

Conflict arises from an "Us vs. Them" mentality. With the lines between synthetic and organic blurred, that's one less thing that people can fight over. Perfect? Probably not, but it solves one problem.

So would you be okay with merging all ethnic races and religions? As I said before, these two factors have been two of the biggest contributors to wars and genocides.

[Auintus]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Synthesis doesn't make a lick of sense on the scale and timetable presented in game, don't even try.  The fact that Synthesis magically transfers "understanding" to the Geth is absurd. We don't even know ourselves, never mind having one end all be all record.

Synthesis is peace only because we've surrendered. Control is not occupation. Control is becomign what you have fought against, at least in this context.

Sure it does, but fine, I won't try to convince you.
Understanding of what it is to be organic. It's not like they understand everything about us, but they are made capable of empathizing.

Not surrender, compromise. Each side gives a little. The Reapers have their programming fulfilled and the galaxy gets their knowledge and their aid in rebuilding.
And occupation as in "foreign power in charge of local government," it is actually a very accurate parallel.

[Auintus]

PainCakesx wrote...

Auintus wrote...

"It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of him."

Conflict arises from an "Us vs. Them" mentality. With the lines between synthetic and organic blurred, that's one less thing that people can fight over. Perfect? Probably not, but it solves one problem.

So would you be okay with merging all ethnic races and religions? As I said before, these two factors have been two of the biggest contributors to wars and genocides.

People are people, ethnicity is irrelevent. So yes, I would.
Religion is external to being, so that is not an accurate parallel.  Besides, it would be better off eliminated rather than merged. But that's just my opinion.

[Auintus]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Auintus wrote...
He knew is as an anti-reaper device. Until it was hooked up to the Citadel, he had no idea that it could correctly apply his preferred solution.

Power source. It's a power source. And since the Citadel contains the do-dads for the RGB endings, HE KNEW.

He knew and did NOTHING. All because "they weren't ready", didn't qualify that, and then said we were somehow ready.

Those do-dads mean absolutely nothing in and of themselves. It's like having an on/off switch with no concept of a lightbulb.
He didn't know. He couldn't have.