587 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

Auintus wrote...

Eezo. It has been in the ME universe since day one and I've never heard a damn word about it. Element zero is technically a neutron, which does absolutely none of what it is lauded to do in ME. Tell me, how does it make sense to accept something that is explained wrong, but argue against something that isn't explained at all.
I can and have BS-ed an explanation for Synthesis that doesn't even break physics. It assumes incredibly advanced technology, sure, but eezo's done worse than that.
Anti-progressive? The one decision that actually involves taking things forward, rather than setting them back to normal? How do you come to that?

Eezo is a conceit of the setting, though. It is practically analogous to space magic, I know, but it is fundamental to the situation presented in the Mass Effect Universe. It makes things work. A failure to accept this is very much an inability to accept Mass Effect. Suspension of disbelief is mandatory here and the game chooses to not show off eezo but rather have explanations present around the game and in the codex.

Synthesis is a contrivance. It is not fundamental to the situation and is introduced without foreshadowing. Suspension of disbelief is not mandatory here and might be broken when this strange thing gets put into the limelight. From a narrative perspective, it's entirely possible to argue against something that isn't explained while still accepting something explained wrong.

[shodiswe]

Auintus wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

To use the Hitler comparison, there is no comparable Auschwitz where one can go and see the effect, or the Cambodian mass graves where there is documented evidence of human bones stacked upon each other. Like the rest of the game, theres no visual confirmation of the event, it all happens off screen and the effect is diluted.

Side with the geth on Rannoch and choose Destroy. Rannoch is barren in the ending slides. Confirmation enough for me, anyway.

That seems reasonable, most people should accept that as a logical interpretation. If there was soemtihng more interesting than a dead barren world then im pretty sure BW would show it like they did with the other worlds or in the other endings.

Did an uprooted tree that was "confirmed" standing the day before, get torn down by the wind over the night if noone saw it happen?

Modifié par shodiswe, 19 février 2013 - 02:07 .

[Indy_S]

shodiswe wrote...

Auintus wrote...
Side with the geth on Rannoch and choose Destroy. Rannoch is barren in the ending slides. Confirmation enough for me, anyway.

That seems reasonable, most people should accept that as a logical interpretation. If there was soemtihng more interesting than a dead barren world then im pretty sure BW would show it like they did with the other worlds or in the other endings.

Did an uprooted tree that was "confirmed" standing the day before, get torn down by the wind over the night if noone saw it happen?

If you can draw a contrast, yes. I didn't see Rannoch as a thriving planet. I saw a wasteland amid my attempts to shoot a Reaper with a laser pointer. Seeing it then become a wasteland isn't much of a contrast.

[BleedingUranium]

Indy_S wrote...

From a purely biological standpoint, they are alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, they are not sapient. From a purely biological standpoint, the Geth are not alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, the Geth are sapient. You have to strike a balance and there is simply no definitive answer to 'what constitutes alive?'. The idea that someone can have the fulcrum at an extreme does not surprise me.

You explained it perfectly, and everyone ignored it. <_<

I believe Synthetic life is just as valid as organic life, and the narrative supports that view. In the Mass Effect universe, this is a fact.

That said, I always pick Destroy.

[78stonewobble]

Well if we suppose intelligence and the rights that morally goes with that intelligence (in this case more of being self aware) is wholly dependent on the "platform" (human body and brain) then there is nothing to prevent say a scrupulous "Prison rent a sexbot Incorporated." to buy post-death consciousness'es and use these to make more realistic or better robots.

We wouldn't even have to invent ai then. Just reuse dead people in robot bodies. They aint got no rights.

[clennon8]

Indy_S wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
People not viewing things as alive does not mean that they are not alive.

If I said I don't believe Ants are alive would ants not be alive? Or would I just be an ignorant fool? 

From a purely biological standpoint, they are alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, they are not sapient. From a purely biological standpoint, the Geth are not alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, the Geth are sapient. You have to strike a balance and there is simply no definitive answer to 'what constitutes alive?'. The idea that someone can have the fulcrum at an extreme does not surprise me.

This was a very elegant way of explaining it.  Nicely put, Indy.

On another note, far too much spamming, e-peen measuring and attempts at jimmie-rustling occurred on the previous page.

Modifié par clennon8, 19 février 2013 - 06:03 .

[MJoshier]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...
Picking genocide is one thing, when you are very clearly told that you will be killing (in cold blood) every artificial form of life out there. This includes the geth, EDI, whatever consciousnesses exist enslaved within the reaper consensus, and any artificial life we don't already know about. The defence of that act of genocide is what makes a person look bad.

We DO NOT negotiate with terrorists.

The Catalyst is a terrorist, an unrepentant mass murderer, and a coward.  effectively holding Synthetic life hostage.  It is using the Geth and EDI etc as a shield against Destroy.  It is attempting to dissuade you from making that decision by presenting it in a negative light.  It is attempting to coerce you into making a decision which it approves of, one which fits it's own modus operandi.

Once again, we DO NOT negotiate with terrorists.

The "lives" of EDI and the Geth may very well be forfeit in choosing Destroy, HOWEVER the Geth and EDI have already accepted that their "lives" could very well be forfeit by joining in the war to stop the Reapers in the first place.

I agree with you Gecko

[noobcannon]

"You thought you were so special? Better than everyone else outside this room? You traded your freedom for the luxury of feeling superior. You accepted the group's will over your own conviction, no matter who you hurt. You thought you were just "going along for the ride", and you could just walk away at any moment. But where were you heading? How far would you have gone? Take a look at your future....."

Modifié par noobcannon, 20 février 2013 - 09:41 .

[MJoshier]

Indy_S wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

That's something I like. I flipped the two: Destroy has the payoff worth the cost while Synthesis is abhorrant to me. I think straight-up slavery is worse than murder. A loss of freedom is worth more than loss of life. And if Synthesis removes conflict as the Catalyst implies, I can't see that as anything but manipulation, brain-washing, a loss of choice. Control enforces a strict set of ethics, one not open to adaptation or disagreement. Both of these are against what I believe. After the red wave hits everything, the galaxy can go back to normal. This is something I can get behind.

I think its pushing it a little far to say slavery. Everyone in the ending is behaving according to their personality beforehand, so I refuse to believe that Synthesis severely altered their psychology. And the Catalyst only says that it removes the Synthetic-Organic conflict, not conflict as a whole, though I believe EDI does imply that in her monologue.
The one thing I tend not to mention about Synthesis is that it only makes one decision for the galaxy, and they can do whatever they want afterwards, but it is a decision that permanently changes every species on a genetic level, thus casading that decision down to every being that would ever be born in the galaxy. If I didn't have a bit of an ego issue, I might consider that too much responsibility.
I do agree on you interpretation of Control, though.
Like I said...somewhere, different minds, different priorities. My goal is to end the war with no more loss of life, your goal is to remove the Reaper threat permanently. I consider the cost of Synthesis to be worth it, and you believe the same for Destroy. No one would willingly sacrifice an entire race unless they truly believed it was for the best.

I think I should make it clear that the slavery-murder comparison was an example of valuing something more than life. Everything else is very agreeable with me. I bear the Geth no ill will but GTFO of my galaxy. (/humour)

I'd like to add to this, slavery-murder would also indicate that the Starchild/construct was committing it, it's not a living being and also didn't see what it was doing as murder due to the fact it said the "harvest" multiple times, but to us, organic beings, and even the geth it was a mass-murderer. I also would have liked to save the geth and edi in choosing destroy because they do value life, but i'd much rather destroy the reapers once and for all to prevent anymore cycles and any more 'harvesting' of entire galactic societies. (as in EVERY spacefaring civilization) 

[Hadeedak]

What I always enjoy in science fiction is how people envision the perspective of other, and the perspective of the monster. Frequently, they're the same, but good science fiction seldom has an antagonist who's in it for the fun of being horrible. The best known example is probably the Buggers in Ender's Game, who (spoilers!) are shocked and horrified to realize that humans are individuals and that by killing them, they're committing murder. I think that's what I like about the Reapers. They intrigue me. I want to know how they think and how they function. I don't think we'll be getting many more answers, but the riddle of understanding the other has always intrigued me in fiction.

Edit: And Noob, your control Shep may have been agreeing with the Reapers. Hell, maybe he'll even pick the cycle back up. Mine won't. 

Modifié par Hadeedak, 20 février 2013 - 10:06 .

[clennon8]

MJoshier wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

That's something I like. I flipped the two: Destroy has the payoff worth the cost while Synthesis is abhorrant to me. I think straight-up slavery is worse than murder. A loss of freedom is worth more than loss of life. And if Synthesis removes conflict as the Catalyst implies, I can't see that as anything but manipulation, brain-washing, a loss of choice. Control enforces a strict set of ethics, one not open to adaptation or disagreement. Both of these are against what I believe. After the red wave hits everything, the galaxy can go back to normal. This is something I can get behind.

I think its pushing it a little far to say slavery. Everyone in the ending is behaving according to their personality beforehand, so I refuse to believe that Synthesis severely altered their psychology. And the Catalyst only says that it removes the Synthetic-Organic conflict, not conflict as a whole, though I believe EDI does imply that in her monologue.
The one thing I tend not to mention about Synthesis is that it only makes one decision for the galaxy, and they can do whatever they want afterwards, but it is a decision that permanently changes every species on a genetic level, thus casading that decision down to every being that would ever be born in the galaxy. If I didn't have a bit of an ego issue, I might consider that too much responsibility.
I do agree on you interpretation of Control, though.
Like I said...somewhere, different minds, different priorities. My goal is to end the war with no more loss of life, your goal is to remove the Reaper threat permanently. I consider the cost of Synthesis to be worth it, and you believe the same for Destroy. No one would willingly sacrifice an entire race unless they truly believed it was for the best.

I think I should make it clear that the slavery-murder comparison was an example of valuing something more than life. Everything else is very agreeable with me. I bear the Geth no ill will but GTFO of my galaxy. (/humour)

I'd like to add to this, slavery-murder would also indicate that the Starchild/construct was committing it, it's not a living being and also didn't see what it was doing as murder due to the fact it said the "harvest" multiple times, but to us, organic beings, and even the geth it was a mass-murderer. I also would have liked to save the geth and edi in choosing destroy because they do value life, but i'd much rather destroy the reapers once and for all to prevent anymore cycles and any more 'harvesting' of entire galactic societies. (as in EVERY spacefaring civilization) 

Even being generous in considering all perspectives, Starchild has to be considered a mass murderer.  First of all, you're still killing people when you "harvest"  them.  Perhaps something of them is captured in the process, an echo of someone who once lived, but they are nevertheless dead.  Second, many, many organics are not "harvested" at all.  They are flat out killed or turned into some sort of abomination.

Modifié par clennon8, 21 février 2013 - 12:43 .

[Hadeedak]

The question becomes, then, do you judge the other through the lens of yourself? Do you treat the Catalyst as you would a human? Do you treat it as a broken machine? And so on and so forth.

[ruggly]

Hadeedak wrote...
Do you treat it as a broken machine?.

It's clearly broken, and I need to kick it and smash it.  Kicking and smashing fixes everything.

[Hadeedak]

All we REALLY need is for Shepard to have some duct tape, and this whole mess could have been avoided.

Proper application of duct tape and a decent pair of pliers can solve any problem.

[ruggly]

Spit shine it up a bit after that and you're good to go.

[Bill Casey]

Hadeedak wrote...

The question becomes, then, do you judge the other through the lens of yourself? Do you treat the Catalyst as you would a human? Do you treat it as a broken machine? And so on and so forth.

The Catalyst is a machine. Do we deny that? No, because it is not relevent. We too are machines, just machines of a different type. It was created by organics. Do we deny that? No, again it is not relevent. Children are created from the building blocks of their parents DNA. Are they property?

[Wayning_Star]

Bill Casey wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

The question becomes, then, do you judge the other through the lens of yourself? Do you treat the Catalyst as you would a human? Do you treat it as a broken machine? And so on and so forth.

The Catalyst is a machine. Do we deny that? No, because it is not relevent. We too are machines, just machines of a different type. It was created by organics. Do we deny that? No, again it is not relevent. Children are created from the building blocks of their parents DNA. Are they property?

according to Leviathan, we're all property, and not very reliable tools either.

[Bill Casey]

We are not the Leviathan...

[Wayning_Star]

Bill Casey wrote...

We are not the Leviathan...

In what ways? Shep doesn't want to dominate the residing apex race(s)?

[Bill Casey]

Certainly no Shepard I ever played...

[Wayning_Star]

Bill Casey wrote...

Certainly no Shepard I ever played...

Picked refuse then? Ok. I didn't know for sure.

the thing always came at me like a bigger fish story, as who gets what, when and how. NO matter how 'noble' we try to be, it always boiled down to the simplistic choices of evolution, as that is the basis of the catalyst program. IF the actors within the play were advanced enough to gain access to the choices. Advances being what they are, could be from personal choice or it could just be from technological progress.

Anyone who makes a choice falls into a domineering attitude toward the problems that face the MEU. Even if you don't, someone else will..

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 21 février 2013 - 01:05 .

[Bill Casey]

Refuse and Destroy all day...

[Auintus]

clennon8 wrote...
Even being generous in considering all perspectives, Starchild has to be considered a mass murderer.  First of all, you're still killing people when you "harvest"  them.  Perhaps something of them is captured in the process, an echo of someone who once lived, but they are nevertheless dead.  Second, many, many organics are not "harvested" at all.  They are flat out killed or turned into some sort of abomination.

Absolutely. Judging by the number of Reapers and the regular cycles, we can imagine that the harvest has been occuring for at least a few million years. Each Reaper requires several million of the "host" species to create the core. Then you count the Reapers' style of war and you have death tolls with more zeros than I care to type. That was never in question.
But if a mass murderer is willing, and capable, to even work towards redeeming themself in the slightest, why not give them that chance? Remember that unlike your average serial killer, the Catalyst has a reason and a (relatively) benevolent goal. The Catalyst makes clear its purpose and explains exactly how Synthesis will achieve that. Following Synthesis, they help rebuild, they share what they remember. Destroy sacrifices an ally to slaughter a surrendering enemy and throw away all that they have, and are willing, to offer. From a pragmatic standpoint, I can't justify Destroy.

[Bill Casey]

There is no Reaper surrender...
The Catalyst is the one providing the ultimatum...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 février 2013 - 01:20 .

[Auintus]

Bill Casey wrote...

There is no Reaper surrender...
The Catalyst is the one providing the ultimatum...

You make the choice. If you look at the options(refuse isn't an option), they rather directly mirror the overtones of your average surrender.
Destroy: Annihilation. Ensure that they will never be a threat again. You can bet that there will be people harvesting Reaper tech and using it themselves, much like overtaking a destroyed enemy's resources.
Control: Occupation. The enemy remains, but under your control and watchful eye.
Synthesis: Peace. Both sides come to an agreement and begin cooperating. We take the Reaper's little evolutionary leap and they willingly ceasefire and become what will likely be our greatest allies.
And you get to choose. It is a diplomatic negotiation and effectively a surrender from the Catalyst. Were it to choose so, it could have left Shepard there with no idea what to do and trashed the Crucible at its own leisure. Instead, it helps, willingly showing you how to trigger whichever effect you want, and just standing by as it happens, no matter what you choose.