587 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

I find it very difficult to accept Destroyers as champions of freedom when all synthetics are denied that freedom. The spirit of the choice favors organics. I understood that fact when the choice was first presented to me.

However, Controllers and Synthesizers aren't champions of freedom, either. Refuse might have an argument, but it isn't exactly a convincing way to fight a war. So does this mean that Mass Effect 3 completely tramples on the concept of freedom of choice? Is that the meta interpretation? Or are we supposed to view the Reapers as symbolic of something, like the Unknown itself?

[mvaning]

Argolas wrote...


But you’re taking away our future. Without a future, we have no hope. Without hope… we might as well be machines, programmed to do what we’re told.

"You have more hope than you know. . . . but. . . . Synthesis is the ideal solution. "

[DeinonSlayer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I find it very difficult to accept Destroyers as champions of freedom when all synthetics are denied that freedom. The spirit of the choice favors organics. I understood that fact when the choice was first presented to me.

However, Controllers and Synthesizers aren't champions of freedom, either. Refuse might have an argument, but it isn't exactly a convincing way to fight a war. So does this mean that Mass Effect 3 completely tramples on the concept of freedom of choice? Is that the meta interpretation? Or are we supposed to view the Reapers as symbolic of something, like the Unknown itself?

In the Deus Ex quote I provided earlier, quite a few innocent people die with Jensen in the ending where he makes that little speech as a result of the choice. It's collateral damage. If every one of those people happened to have green eyes, it wouldn't mean Jensen acted out of discrimination against green-eyed people.

I liken Destroy more to the end of BDTS than anything else.

[mvaning]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I find it very difficult to accept Destroyers as champions of freedom when all synthetics are denied that freedom. The spirit of the choice favors organics. I understood that fact when the choice was first presented to me.

However, Controllers and Synthesizers aren't champions of freedom, either. Refuse might have an argument, but it isn't exactly a convincing way to fight a war. So does this mean that Mass Effect 3 completely tramples on the concept of freedom of choice? Is that the meta interpretation? Or are we supposed to view the Reapers as symbolic of something, like the Unknown itself?

 That is my meta-interpretation.

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I find it very difficult to accept Destroyers as champions of freedom when all synthetics are denied that freedom. The spirit of the choice favors organics. I understood that fact when the choice was first presented to me.

The fact that it's synthetics that die is irrelevant. "Some people die" is all that matters. Some people die to ensure the Reapers are killed and the majority can live in peace.

The only reason it's synthetics is because the kid telling you that "all Turians and Vorcha will die" doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[BleedingUranium]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I liken Destroy more to the end of BDTS than anything else.

Yes, choosing to kill Balak at the cost of the hostages is probably to best comparison to Destroy in the series.

[clennon8]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I find it very difficult to accept Destroyers as champions of freedom when all synthetics are denied that freedom. The spirit of the choice favors organics. I understood that fact when the choice was first presented to me.

I guess that goes toward everybody seeing different things in the endings.  I do in fact see Destroy as the pro-determinism choice.  When I choose it, I'm not inwardly or outwardly saying "Yay organics! Screw you geth!" 

Modifié par clennon8, 12 février 2013 - 12:33 .

[Auld Wulf]

@OP

"[...] in which ending does Shepard infuse the galaxy with his organic essence? "

This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what's going on in the Synthesis ending. I guess it was a bit of a head-scratcher for you. No, I'm not going to explain it again, I've done so too many times already. Those who understand what's happening there (both metephorically and literally) will get it, and those who don't will be in the dark and make silly assumptions.

Plus, your post comes over as a thing riddled with paranoia as a basis for genocide apologism (Destroy support). I'm sorry, but I don't support rampant paranoia (a tool of luddites if ever there was one) as a basis for an argument. That kind of reminds me of how luddites argued that router radiation would cook brains and whatnot. Same kind of nonsense. And I'm tired of that, really.

I know this is aimed at me. And I'm kind of flattered that I've made you think enough that you feel so defensive that you have to write a thread trying to apologise for your genocidal tendencies. But I'm sorry, you're still a genocide-fetishist and a luddite. You're not my kind of person. And I'm not going to be diplomatic about it, either. I'm tired of trying to be diplomatic with anyone who thinks that genocide is ever a good idea.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 12 février 2013 - 12:34 .

[clennon8]

Well. Ladies and gentleman, the voice of reason has arrived.

[DeinonSlayer]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

"[...] in which ending does Shepard infuse the galaxy with his organic essence? "

This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what's going on in the Synthesis ending. I guess it was a bit of a head-scratcher for you. No, I'm not going to explain it again, I've done so too many times already. Those who understand what's happening there (both metephorically and literally) will get it, and those who don't will be in the dark and make silly assumptions.

Let me just stop you right there, Auld. Why do you feel compelled to open your posts with an insult? It's never that someone has a reasoned, principled disagreement with whatever your stance is; you consistently argue that others are simply too stupid to grasp what you're trying to say. Why is that?

Plus, your post comes over as a thing riddled with paranoia as a basis for genocide apologism (Destroy support). I'm sorry, but I don't support rampant paranoia (a tool of luddites if ever there was one) as a basis for an argument. That kind of reminds me of how luddites argued that router radiation would cook brains and whatnot. Same kind of nonsense. And I'm tired of that, really.

There it is again. Genocide apologist. Luddite. Leading with insults. And weren't you the one arguing against Destroy on the basis that some "unknown parties" out there in the galaxy will pose a threat if the Reapers aren't around to stop it? Who's being paranoid?

I know this is aimed at me. And I'm kind of flattered that I've made you think enough that you feel so defensive that you have to write a thread trying to apologise for your genocidal tendencies. But I'm sorry, you're still a genocide-fetishist and a luddite. You're not my kind of person. And I'm not going to be diplomatic about it, either. I'm tired of trying to be diplomatic with anyone who thinks that genocide is ever a good idea.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, then. You've contributed nothing to the discussion.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 février 2013 - 12:43 .

[CosmicGnosis]

*Sigh*

All synthetics dying is different from all turians, vorcha, and humans dying. Why? Because turians, vorcha, and humans are different organic species. They are species that are a part of the larger organic domain of life.

Destroy obliterates the entire synthetic domain of life. Granted, synthetics are a minority relative to organics. But doesn't that make the choice even more twisted? Sacrifice the smaller domain of life for the salvation of the larger domain of life?

I just can't buy the "collateral damage" argument. If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage? Destroy deliberately targets all synthetics, and even technology in general. High-EMS limits the damage to technology, but still kills synthetics. The low-EMS variant is arguably more "equal" than the high-EMS variant, but some organics still survive.

Here's a quote from one of the leaked scripts:

Catalyst: The energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will be destroyed. As will much of the technology your kind rely on.

It was always there. "Organics will prevail at our expense." Destroy is fundamentally anti-synthetic.

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

[clennon8]

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

Me too.  Although I'd be even less happy about it than I am now.  I guess that makes me a galacticide fetishist or some such.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Fully agreed with OP.

[BleedingUranium]

clennon8 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

Me too.  Although I'd be even less happy about it than I am now.  I guess that makes me a galacticide fetishist or some such.

Oh, I certainly wouldn't be happy about it either, and I did't want the Geth to die, Legion was my favourite character in ME. But there's no other option.

[DeinonSlayer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

*Sigh*

All synthetics dying is different from all turians, vorcha, and humans dying. Why? Because turians, vorcha, and humans are different organic species. They are species that are a part of the larger organic domain of life.

Destroy obliterates the entire synthetic domain of life. Granted, synthetics are a minority relative to organics. But doesn't that make the choice even more twisted? Sacrifice the smaller domain of life for the salvation of the larger domain of life?

I just can't buy the "collateral damage" argument. If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage? Destroy deliberately targets all synthetics, and even technology in general. High-EMS limits the damage to technology, but still kills synthetics. The low-EMS variant is arguably more "equal" than the high-EMS variant, but some organics still survive.

Here's a quote from one of the leaked scripts:

Catalyst: The energy can be released as a destructive force. Organics will prevail at our expense. All synthetic life will be destroyed. As will much of the technology your kind rely on.

It was always there. "Organics will prevail at our expense." Destroy is fundamentally anti-synthetic.

Cosmic, do you save Aralakh Company (dozens of lives) or the Rachni Queen (one life)? If so, on what grounds?

[spotlessvoid]

The catalyst wants synthesis. He tried it before. The boss off the Reapers wants synthesis. What could possibly go wrong?

[CosmicGnosis]

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

Well, I wouldn't. At some point, a line has to be drawn. What is the point of destroying the Reapers if you doom all life in the galaxy to extinction? Frankly, I prefer the Reaper harvest. Limited existence is better than none. I'm not going to blow up the galaxy to save it.

[Cyberfrog81]

Self-evolving (if that was a thing) would intrigue me a great deal. Nature is too slow, and too harsh.

But the way I interpret ME and the endings leads me to suspect... that fans of the Synthesis ending are fans of something it isn't.

[DeinonSlayer]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

Well, I wouldn't. At some point, a line has to be drawn. What is the point of destroying the Reapers if you doom all life in the galaxy to extinction? Frankly, I prefer the Reaper harvest. Limited existence is better than none. I'm not going to blow up the galaxy to save it.

Agreed. There is a threshold beyond which the casualties are unacceptable. EDI and the Geth alone (provided they're still alive) are acceptable. I believe we discussed the Virtual Aliens before, though, Cosmic. I don't believe they were wiped out in Destroy. EDI says the Geth and the Reapers are the only synthetic civilizations of note in the galaxy - it's entirely possible the ship the Virtual Aliens resided in was destroyed before the Crucible could be finished.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 12 février 2013 - 12:58 .

[ruggly]

I'll be amazed if you can ever see past your nose someday

Auld Wulf wrote...

@OP

"[...] in which ending does Shepard infuse the galaxy with his organic essence? "

This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what's going on in the Synthesis ending. I guess it was a bit of a head-scratcher for you. No, I'm not going to explain it again, I've done so too many times already. Those who understand what's happening there (both metephorically and literally) will get it, and those who don't will be in the dark and make silly assumptions.

Plus, your post comes over as a thing riddled with paranoia as a basis for genocide apologism (Destroy support). I'm sorry, but I don't support rampant paranoia (a tool of luddites if ever there was one) as a basis for an argument. That kind of reminds me of how luddites argued that router radiation would cook brains and whatnot. Same kind of nonsense. And I'm tired of that, really.

I know this is aimed at me. And I'm kind of flattered that I've made you think enough that you feel so defensive that you have to write a thread trying to apologise for your genocidal tendencies. But I'm sorry, you're still a genocide-fetishist and a luddite. You're not my kind of person. And I'm not going to be diplomatic about it, either. I'm tired of trying to be diplomatic with anyone who thinks that genocide is ever a good idea.

[CosmicGnosis]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Cosmic, do you save Aralakh Company (dozens of lives) or the Rachni Queen (one life)? If so, on what grounds?

I save the rachni queen because I want to give her species a chance at rebirth. The krogan will be fine; I cure the genophage. If the queen dies, then the hope of rachni rebirth is lost.

[clennon8]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

Well, I wouldn't. At some point, a line has to be drawn. What is the point of destroying the Reapers if you doom all life in the galaxy to extinction? Frankly, I prefer the Reaper harvest. Limited existence is better than none. I'm not going to blow up the galaxy to save it.

Make no mistake, it would be the suckiest win option ever.  But organic life would eventually arise in the galaxy once again.  Free of the Reapers.

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

Yes. I already said that. Destroy is sacrifice some so the Reapers die. Any details beyond that are not important to me.

If Destroy killed all life in the galaxy, I'd still pick it.

Well, I wouldn't. At some point, a line has to be drawn. What is the point of destroying the Reapers if you doom all life in the galaxy to extinction? Frankly, I prefer the Reaper harvest. Limited existence is better than none. I'm not going to blow up the galaxy to save it.

Because new life would show up eventually, and that life would be free from the Reapers' oppression. "If just one survivor is left standing at the end of a war, then the fight was worth it."

So you're saying submission is preferable to extinction?

[BleedingUranium]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Cosmic, do you save Aralakh Company (dozens of lives) or the Rachni Queen (one life)? If so, on what grounds?

I save the rachni queen because I want to give her species a chance at rebirth. The krogan will be fine; I cure the genophage. If the queen dies, then the hope of rachni rebirth is lost.

I do the same.