587 réponses à ce sujet

[BirdsallSa]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

BirdsallSa wrote...
He's not whining. he's pointing out the truth. And you're one to talk about facts. The IT cult has no facts, it's just a bunch of conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. So you self-entitled destroyers can keep on whining, because the tried and true Bioware fans, the synthesizers and the controllers, aren't going away just because you go crying on a couple threads.

Oh look, here's some more whine as well.  How very predictable.  Keep mewling, child.

You have a funny idea of what "whine" means.

[BleedingUranium]

DKJaigen wrote...

Sometimes you dont need consent. Sometimes you need to drag people kicking and screaming onto the right path. Losing your humanity is not really a problem because humanity is overrated. Starchild has no reason to lie anyway. If you do the refuse ending he shuts down catalyst.

I hope you never, ever hold a position of authority.

Han Shot First wrote...

Glancing over this thread, it seems that argument that Destroy is genocide has one again reared its ugly head. This is a misuse of the term 'genocide,' as Destroy does not fit the legal definition.

Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines genocide as "acts commited with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."

I bolded the important bit in regards to Shepard's decision to destroy. Assuming for a moment that the Geth are sapient beings with the same rights as organics, in order for Destroy to fit the legal definition of genocide, it would have had to have been Shepard's intent to annilate the Geth. That however, is not the case.

The Geth are merely destroyed as an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers. Their destruction is a horrific example of collateral damage, but it is not an example of genocide. The Crucible was neither built or activated for the purpose of annihilating the Geth.

Furthermore I would argue that the need to destroy the Reapers, who were in the processes of annihilating galactic civilization, had already killed billions in the current cycle, and had caused countless mass extinctions in previous cycles, constitutes military necessity.

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.

military necessity

That is an excellent post. The endings have pros and cons, but calling Destroy genocide shows a lack of understanding of one or both of those concepts.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 février 2013 - 04:33 .

[Cyberfrog81]

Solaxe wrote...

Look how many anti-synthesis threads do we have compared to destroy hate threads. Control and Synthesis fans are mature enough to don't give a damn about other people's choices in a game.

Maybe there are more anti-synthesis threads simply because of how terrible Synthesis is (or rather, is seen as being)?

And clearly they do "give a damn", otherwise there wouldn't have been good discussions in this thread. :happy:

You also "give a damn" (does that make you immature? ), since apparently you came here just to hate on destroyers. Well, keep it up! People like you do more damage to the Synthesis "image" than I could.

[ElSuperGecko]

Han Shot First wrote...
The Geth are merely destroyed as an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers. Their destruction is a horrific example of collateral damage, but it is not an example of genocide. The Crucible was neither built or activated for the purpose of annihilating the Geth.

Furthermore I would argue that the need to destroy the Reapers, who were in the processes of annihilating galactic civilization, had already killed billions in the current cycle, and had caused countless mass extinctions in previous cycles, constitutes military necessity.

I believe the vast majority of the galactic races would back you in this.  Asari, Turian, Krogan, Quarian, Volus, even humanity themselves.

Let's not forget, the Geth have willingly worked alongisde the Reapers in all three games, directly modified themselves and altered their programming with Reaper tech and proven themselves unreliable and untrustworthy.

Why do so many go to any lengths to preserve what is essentially and always has been an enemy faction?  Too many people watch "Short Circuit" as a kid, maybe?

Not that it matters, the Geth never survived past Rannoch in my playthrough.  They don't factor into the final decision in any way shape or form.

[CronoDragoon]

Solaxe wrote...

Look how many anti-synthesis threads do we have compared to destroy hate threads. Control and Synthesis fans are mature enough to don't give a damn about other people's choices in a game.

Oh, really? Certain posters in this thread prove otherwise.

There are more anti-synthesis threads because there are many more Destroyers. If there were an equal amount of anti-synthesis and anti-Destroy threads, then that would imply Destroy has the higher ratio of mature people.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 18 février 2013 - 05:11 .

[shodiswe]

What the Catalyst said is that it can't be forced. When the Catalyst said that it meant that it can't force Shepard because that invalidates the goal of syntheis.
The idea of Synthesis was to allow Organics and synthetics to live free of fear adn wars and stay the same. Simply to be free. If the original design (that is Shepard) was forced then it would be nothign more than an indoctrinated puppet like TIM and TIM wasn't even good enough for Control.

So if the catalyst used a mindelss puppet like TIM then it would have a galaxy filled with mindless puppets and it's mission to save organics from synthetics would have faield as those pupets would die without direct intervention. The Catalysts goal was to achive this by easing the transition between synthetics and organics. To do so organics were fitted with a certain amount of upgrades allowing them to interact with synthetics and technology throguh their implants.

By allowing more efficient communication people can solve their issues before they escalate. What the catalyst wanted to do was create a galactic internet that people culd surf whenever they feelt the need. As understanding increases agression decreases.
Even if some people might still have agressive tendencies they will fidn it harder to find supporters to back them up or get a nation to back them up.

Anyway, the main thing I wanted to say, is that the "It can't be fored, was in reference to Sheaprd, since that would be a fail. The the same way as TIM said that any changes to Shepard would be a fail of Project Lazarus.

I belive the Catalyst might have been behind the Lazarus project and used TIM to run it for him. TIM is after all just a tool. The result was a Cybernetic/organic lifeform that retained it's identity but gained benefits from the cybernetic upgrades. A perfect template for synthesis.
It's also possible that Sheaprd has some latent cybernetic ports to the brain since in Project Overlord we can see how Shepards body got overriden and Shepard enters a state in between real and syntheticconsensus and actualy fights a compute upload in what's probably halfvirtual space and half the dull lab room where the testsubject was held.

So it was never about not forcing the galaxy, but rather a design and template that couldn't be forced or it would be a failure. The Husks would be a failure since they can't sustain their own life or procreate on their own. Shepard on the other hand was an organic with cybernetic augmentation who could live a normal life. Therefor Shepard symbolized sucess for the Catalyst, however for it to be a true sucess the whole galaxy needed the same upgrades.
Shepard was the "desired" blueprint for synthesis. The blueprint couldn't be forced or it would be a fail since the selfsuficiency and capabilities of the subject would reflect the endresult of all life in the galaxy. The rest of the galaxy woud be transformed into this ideal of perfection, their approval was not nessesary for the sucessful design.

I'm not saying it's moraly correct, just how I think it worked. It works, but the creator was a monster, a well intentioned monster because that's what it was programed to be. By a set of creatures the Leviathans that considered all life beneath them and therefor they put no limitations on what methors or what considerations that the catalyst should take in persuing the goal. From the Catalysts point of view the biggest problem in gettign organics and synthetics to coexist was the slow and painfully inefficient communication that Organics used.
How can there be peace when one side can't communicate properly!

Modifié par shodiswe, 18 février 2013 - 05:08 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
The Geth are merely destroyed as an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers. Their destruction is a horrific example of collateral damage, but it is not an example of genocide. The Crucible was neither built or activated for the purpose of annihilating the Geth.

Furthermore I would argue that the need to destroy the Reapers, who were in the processes of annihilating galactic civilization, had already killed billions in the current cycle, and had caused countless mass extinctions in previous cycles, constitutes military necessity.

I believe the vast majority of the galactic races would back you in this.  Asari, Turian, Krogan, Quarian, Volus, even humanity themselves.

Let's not forget, the Geth have willingly worked alongisde the Reapers in all three games, directly modified themselves and altered their programming with Reaper tech and proven themselves unreliable and untrustworthy.

Why do so many go to any lengths to preserve what is essentially and always has been an enemy faction?  Too many people watch "Short Circuit" as a kid, maybe?

Not that it matters, the Geth never survived past Rannoch in my playthrough.  They don't factor into the final decision in any way shape or form.

The geth are worth trusting IMO. Regardless they still all volunteered to join Shepard's fight to destroy the reapers. They, along with EDI, prefer their destruction over the continued existence of the Reapers, so destroy is always my option.

[Hadeedak]

Just because they'd rather be destroyed than lose doesn't make it any less Shepard's choice that kills them.

Destroy is certain, pragmatic, efficient, and accepts a level of casualties to use the Reapers-off switch. Those casualties may include Shepard, decidedly include EDI, and if the geth are still around, includes them. Depending on your EMS, it may include a lot more. It's a level of compromise for victory (which all the endings have). In this case, the compromise is your allies.

[Reorte]

Hadeedak wrote...

Just because they'd rather be destroyed than lose doesn't make it any less Shepard's choice that kills them.

But he didn't chose to kill them even though he knew it would (unless that was the reason that swayed a player towards destroy but anyone that keen on blowing up the geth will probably have got them killed at Rannoch). That makes a big difference.

Is picking a side on Rannoch genocide if you don't have the chance to make peace? No, unless you're picking it to kill one side, not to preserve the other one. Motivation matters as much as outcome.

[shodiswe]

Reorte wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Just because they'd rather be destroyed than lose doesn't make it any less Shepard's choice that kills them.

But he didn't chose to kill them even though he knew it would (unless that was the reason that swayed a player towards destroy but anyone that keen on blowing up the geth will probably have got them killed at Rannoch). That makes a big difference.

Is picking a side on Rannoch genocide if you don't have the chance to make peace? No, unless you're picking it to kill one side, not to preserve the other one. Motivation matters as much as outcome.

Even if their motivation isn't to kill the geth, it's only slightly better, it's still billions of people. That has to die for a very unclear benefit or reason. Except for maybe, soem kind of revenge, or reaper phobia. When all that's needed is to stop them from ever killing anyone else for the sake of the cycle. the other options accomplishes this with minimal losses instead of massive losses..

That like a bankrobbery.

1. send in grenades and kill everyone in side the bank, a few bankrobbers, the bank personel and maybe a hundred customers. (destroy)

2. Negotiate a surender, then imprison the bankrobbers.. (control)

3. not sure... Offer them jobs in lawenforcement?   (synthesis)


4. throw in a few cases with control codes for all the nukes on the planet and a control device. Then tell them you're storming the bank guns blazing... (Refuse)

Modifié par shodiswe, 18 février 2013 - 09:54 .

[BleedingUranium]

Real world examples don't work, because pure evil only exists in fiction. Proper comparisons can only be made to them.

The Reapers, the Borg, Sauron and his Orcs, the Flood, etc.

There's also a Synthesis-like consistency to all of those.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This is the same as the token posts/threads where people deny that the cutscene of Shepard-lives (going by the file name) isn't a significant factor to them in choosing Destroy. When that charge is made, it's virtually always met with denial. Then you open a thread like "Why did you choose your ending?" and it's brought up as the reason for Destroy *very* frequently.

No doubt a lot of people will jump on this post I'm writing right here and respond to that charge with denial (unless I nip it in the bud as I'm attempting to do by writing this part), creating the illusion of virtually nobody choosing it for that reason. Why is it met with such strong denial? I guess when asked, people feel like they're being charged with selfish reasoning, or not having "stronger" reasons. However, based on empirical evidence, it *is* a strong reason. And, for that matter, reason for anything else (MEHEM ... and look no further than: "Shepard deserved better").

So people can come in here and all claim that it's got nothing to do with anything but destroying the Reapers. I don't blame others for not wanting to be seen as "Luddites" and I'm not charging them of being one, either. However, there's a dissonance between what people are claiming here, and what I read in countless posts otherwise (even not related to the ending. It is so common to read posts like "I wish we didn't have to give the geth Reaper code" or the posts about us being "not ready" for this power or that technology and "making our own path," playing to "nature" argument (technology is fine with me... so long as we achieved it *naturally*). To an extent, I feel that is a conditioned response, because the game itself plays to some of those ideas here and there. Not always, but the times when they do are more prominent than otherwise, because the implications are larger - case in point: krogan uplift (everyone knows the story) vs. elcor uplift ("what? huh?").

I think all you've really managed to do here is make a lot of people deny choosing Destroy for the explicit reason of being anti-technology. I would expect as much, but I am not so easily convinced. I think people have internal motivations at play here they may not be aware of - not limited to the topic at hand.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 18 février 2013 - 10:57 .

[ruggly]

I deny everything you said and I most certainly do not have MEHEM banner.

[BleedingUranium]

I choose Destroy because it's the only ending where the Reapers die. Full stop.

[Reorte]

shodiswe wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Just because they'd rather be destroyed than lose doesn't make it any less Shepard's choice that kills them.

But he didn't chose to kill them even though he knew it would (unless that was the reason that swayed a player towards destroy but anyone that keen on blowing up the geth will probably have got them killed at Rannoch). That makes a big difference.

Is picking a side on Rannoch genocide if you don't have the chance to make peace? No, unless you're picking it to kill one side, not to preserve the other one. Motivation matters as much as outcome.

Even if their motivation isn't to kill the geth, it's only slightly better, it's still billions of people. That has to die for a very unclear benefit or reason. Except for maybe, soem kind of revenge, or reaper phobia. When all that's needed is to stop them from ever killing anyone else for the sake of the cycle. the other options accomplishes this with minimal losses instead of massive losses..

That like a bankrobbery.

1. send in grenades and kill everyone in side the bank, a few bankrobbers, the bank personel and maybe a hundred customers. (destroy)

2. Negotiate a surender, then imprison the bankrobbers.. (control)

3. not sure... Offer them jobs in lawenforcement?   (synthesis)


4. throw in a few cases with control codes for all the nukes on the planet and a control device. Then tell them you're storming the bank guns blazing... (Refuse)

Well it isn't really billions, is it? The geth aren't really countable at all (although I suppose the rather poor "Hey, they're improved by suddenly making each progam a fully-fledged individual so we don't need that boring unique alien mind any more" thing on Rannoch spoiled that).

It isn't like a bank robbery, unless the bank robbers are somehow threatening to kill absolutely everyone. The consequences of letting the bankrobbers rob the bank aren't significant enough for it to be a valid analogy because it changes the proportionality of your proposed solutions.

A better example is "Do you drop a bomb on an enemy munitions factory, knowing that it employs civilians and nearby civilian houses will be caught in the blast (they've stupidly placed all their military assets in the same factory too)?"  Meanwhile the enemy is saying "Why don't you stop fighting and become our leader, we'll do what you say, honest" or "Suddenly believe all our value, religion, customs, we'll do the same with yours and we'll no longer want to fight." Actually, make that "you and the other country over there who isn't actually attacking you but we're killing most of you because they might come along and kill all of you, even though you've only had the odd skirmish with them and mostly the two of you mind your own business."

edit: On second thoughts the bank robbery isn't such a bad analogy if the robbers have a proven track record of lots of killing in every robbery. Then the Control alternative is "You lead is instead, we'll totally listen to you, honest." There's no good Synthesis analogy in this case because it doesn't make any sense anyway

Modifié par Reorte, 19 février 2013 - 12:33 .

[Cyberfrog81]

Shepard: "I've seen your solution. Your people turned into monsters."
TIM: "Hardly. They're being improved."

Yeah, I think what TIM did to all those civilians (more than likely inspired by Reapers whispering in his head) was kind of bad. And what the Reapers do when they create Cannibals, Brutes, Banshees, etc... yeah, I do think that's a little nasty.

So given their track record, forgive me for being a little wary of a solution that is going to "improve" every organic in the galaxy at once.

Claiming that this is a general hostility towards "technology" is hardcore strawmanning.

[Auld Wulf]

@Cyberfrog81

Except, no it isn't. Because the Synthesis ending shows us that those fears are unwarranted, it shows us what actually happens. What happens is transhumanism, to which the natural opposition is ludditism. So it's not a strawman at all. It is, however, a fallacy to claim that the reapers have some kind of evil, ulterior motive, when the Synthesis ending proves that they do not.

[o Ventus]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@Cyberfrog81

Except, no it isn't. Because the Synthesis ending shows us that those fears are unwarranted, it shows us what actually happens. What happens is transhumanism, to which the natural opposition is ludditism. So it's not a strawman at all. It is, however, a fallacy to claim that the reapers have some kind of evil, ulterior motive, when the Synthesis ending proves that they do not.

Applying meta-gaming logic to a query proposed to Shepard from an enemy that has the utter worst track record in history when it comes to combining organics and synthetics.

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Also, ludditism is most certainly not the opposite of transhumanism. Not at all. I would call you a troll, but by this point I'm sure you're convinced of your delusions.

[Auld Wulf]

Also...

"Which species do you slaughter next? If the krogan get in your way, do you eliminate every last krogan? If one salarian does something that displeases you, do you destroy every last salarian? If you find a hanar whose appearance you dislike, do you just arbitrarily kill off their entire species? Where does it end? Genocide is never excusable, and those who opt for genocide are invariably monsters. History has shown them to be such. And you stand with the greatest monsters of all. I'm sure that Hitler would be very, very proud of you, Shepard."

That's a good reason not to choose Destroy, in my opinion. War is won not with Player 1 destroying The Bad Guys, war is won by ending it with the least possible amount of casualties. Both Control and Synthesis provide the least possible amount of casualties.

I still can't help but see the need to pick Destroy as anything other than genocidal ludditism.

I don't know if I'd ever be able to call a Destroyer friend, as you don't exactly stand up to scrutiny when compared against my standards for humanity.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 19 février 2013 - 01:30 .

[Auintus]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@Cyberfrog81

Except, no it isn't. Because the Synthesis ending shows us that those fears are unwarranted, it shows us what actually happens. What happens is transhumanism, to which the natural opposition is ludditism. So it's not a strawman at all. It is, however, a fallacy to claim that the reapers have some kind of evil, ulterior motive, when the Synthesis ending proves that they do not.

While I agree with your statement, I would like to point out that that knowledge is only obtained afterwards, Shepard, first arriving at the Crucible, has absolutely no idea whether the Catalyst is telling the truth.
I mostly trusted it because I figured that if it really wanted to deceive me, it would say that the beam would trigger the destruction of the Reapers, or just leave me sitting there wondering what the hell to do next.

[ruggly]

Auld Wulf wrote...
I am incapable of seeing past the end of my own nose

Agreed.

[Indy_S]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Also...

"Which species do you slaughter next? If the krogan get in your way, do you eliminate every last krogan? If one salarian does something that displeases you, do you destroy every last salarian? If you find a hanar whose appearance you dislike, do you just arbitrarily kill off their entire species? Where does it end? Genocide is never excusable, and those who opt for genocide are invariably monsters. History has shown them to be such. And you stand with the greatest monsters of all. I'm sure that Hitler would be very, very proud of you, Shepard."

That's a good reason not to choose Destroy, in my opinion. War is won not with Player 1 destroying The Bad Guys, war is won by ending it with the least possible amount of casualties. Both Control and Synthesis provide the least possible amount of casualties.

I still can't help but see the need to pick Destroy as anything other than genocidal ludditism.

I don't know if I'd ever be able to call a Destroyer friend, as you don't exactly stand up to scrutiny when compared against my standards for humanity.

And your obliviousness is why so few people take you seriously. And your standards for humanity? Are you implying that our morality can be derived from our actions in a video game? Seriously?

[Auintus]

o Ventus wrote...

Applying meta-gaming logic to a query proposed to Shepard from an enemy that has the utter worst track record in history when it comes to combining organics and synthetics.

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Also, ludditism is most certainly not the opposite of transhumanism. Not at all. I would call you a troll, but by this point I'm sure you're convinced of your delusions.

Even if you ignore the meta-gaming, the Catalyst explains everything that will happen. It all depends on whether you trust it, not meta-gaming necessary.

That statement did nothing to strengthen your argument or any reasonable individual's personal opinion of you.

Being as ludditism, to my understanding, is a general dissapproval of technological advancement, while transhumanism is accepting technology as part of the human state, I would say that they are, if not in direct conflict, certainly mutually incompatible.

[Auintus]

Indy_S wrote...

Are you implying that our morality can be derived from our actions in a video game? Seriously?

Not the actions themselves, but consider how you defend those actions. I come here because human psychology is interesting. Your decisions and your defense of those decisions allow glimpses into your mind. It shows how you think, where your values lie, how you treat others and under what circumstances. The "what" is irrelevent. What decision you made doesn't interest me. All of them successfully stop the Reapers, since I don't count Refuse. The "why" that lies behind it is what matters. That is what is applicable to reality.

[o Ventus]

Auintus wrote...

Even if you ignore the meta-gaming, the Catalyst explains everything that will happen. It all depends on whether you trust it, not meta-gaming necessary.

That statement did nothing to strengthen your argument or any reasonable individual's personal opinion of you.

Being as ludditism, to my understanding, is a general dissapproval of technological advancement, while transhumanism is accepting technology as part of the human state, I would say that they are, if not in direct conflict, certainly mutually incompatible.

1. Unless he meant something else by "what the ending shows us", he's referring to something other than the Catalyst conversation. It doesn't show you anything.

2. I'm not looking for approval.

3. Incompatible doesn't equal opposites. I can be hypothetically opposed to transhumanism while at the same time not being a Luddite.