617 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

[Enhanced]

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

Have you seen the synthesis epilogue? It's all explained.

Modifié par Enhanced, 14 février 2013 - 06:17 .

[Ieldra]

@clennon8:
Here's the difference:

"I hate Synthesis. I hate what it does. Changing everyone is wrong, no matter that you think it's beneficial. It shouldn't be your choice to make."
"I could never choose Control. I wouldn't trust my own Shepard with that power. Nobody should have that much power in the first place"

I'm perfectly fine with that. I disagree of course, but that's diversity of opinions .

"Synthesis doesn't do what the epilogue says. Everything's happy? That's because they're all brainwashed."
"Control? The ending where Shepard will install a reign of terror that lasts forever?"
"Destroy? You're handing the galaxy over to the leviathans."

These are trying to gain agency over others' games. I am most definitely not Ok with that, and btw, I said so in the Destroy/leviathan thread..

[BleedingUranium]

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

Same reasons people made synthetics before?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Why do I bother posting.

[Fawx9]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

Unless you think it's wrong because it offers no direct proof.

It only has a theory. You challenge it by choosing destory and try to prove that its theory doesn't hold.

no, that is an observation by the catalyst, not an opinion. The catalyst doesn't have opinions. (see lore)

It observed that synthetics rebelled.

We observed that the organic creators started a war and synthetics defended themselves. We also observed them coming to terms.

His observations are just that. Observations. He has no way to prove that a hypothetical race of synthetics will wipe out all organic life.

The same way we can't prove that a future organic race will wipe out everyone else.

Modifié par Fawx9, 14 février 2013 - 06:19 .

[dreamgazer]

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

Why wouldn't they? Has that universe lost all hubris and ambition?

Because as long as those things still exist, a significant problem will continue to exist.

[Mcfly616]

Synthesis is the solution to the problem....



And I'm a "Destroyer"....


People can think whatever they want about it, or the ethics of it.....but the point BW was trying to convey was a peaceful, galactic utopia.

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

You cannot let the Reapers go unpunished. They murdered countless other species. And I find it odd that people are willing to overlook that and give the Reapers the galactic version of community service as if their crimes were not a big deal.

The answer to genocide is more genocide?

Punish them, control them, synthesize them- -- it's all over regardless of what you pick. Destroy serves no deterrence function since the situation's a one-off. Revenge may be emotionally satisfying, but it's no way to make decisions.

While I agree that we should not make decisions based on vengeance, but I failed to see why the destruction of reapers serve no deterrence. Everyone in the galaxy witnesses this: when you do deeds like that, there are consequences. This applies to everyone, not just the reapers, this is setting up an example to groups like Cerberus

[Wayning_Star]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

Same reasons people made synthetics before?

but,there is no such thing as synthetics after synthesis... see the logic problem?

everything/one are syntho-organic. end of chaos...end of cycle of build and destroy(evolution overdrive) and the end of the reaper threat, they're not needed as the catalyst harvest is 'no more'.

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@clennon8:
Here's the difference:

"I hate Synthesis. I hate what it does. Changing everyone is wrong, no matter that you think it's beneficial. It shouldn't be your choice to make."
"I could never choose Control. I wouldn't trust my own Shepard with that power. Nobody should have that much power in the first place"

I'm perfectly fine with that. I disagree of course, but that's diversity of opinions .

"Synthesis doesn't do what the epilogue says. Everything's happy? That's because they're all brainwashed."
"Control? The ending where Shepard will install a reign of terror that lasts forever?"
"Destroy? You're handing the galaxy over to the leviathans."

These are trying to gain agency over others' games. I am most definitely not Ok with that, and btw, I said so in the Destroy/leviathan thread..

I'm not really seeing a meaningful difference.  Seems like you're trying to gain agency over the way other people interpret the story and the opinions they express.

[Argolas]

Enhanced wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

Have you seen the synthesis epilogue? It's all explained.

Remind me.

[Codename_Code]

Synthesis is my friend : A book about the benefits of being a husk. By Marauder shields.

[Wayning_Star]

dreamgazer wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

Why wouldn't they? Has that universe lost all hubris and ambition?

Because as long as those things still exist, a significant problem will continue to exist.

bah humbuggy simplifaction of the need for evolution to learn new tricks...

[Fawx9]

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

Same reasons people made synthetics before?

but,there is no such thing as synthetics after synthesis... see the logic problem?

everything/one are syntho-organic. end of chaos...end of cycle of build and destroy(evolution overdrive) and the end of the reaper threat, they're not needed as the catalyst harvest is 'no more'.

Which is headcannon.

The Shepard's Understanding was in no way portrayed to be contagious. Synthetics can still be built as pure synthetics.

[Argolas]

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

ask yourself: Why would they?

Same reasons people made synthetics before?

but,there is no such thing as synthetics after synthesis... see the logic problem?

everything/one are syntho-organic. end of chaos...end of cycle of build and destroy(evolution overdrive) and the end of the reaper threat, they're not needed as the catalyst harvest is 'no more'.

Everything, at least everything in the known galaxy, is synthesized, but when we build new Synthetics they would be Synthetics while new Organics can still rise in new garden worlds.

[Enhanced]

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

Unless you think it's wrong because it offers no direct proof.

It only has a theory. You challenge it by choosing destory and try to prove that its theory doesn't hold.

no, that is an observation by the catalyst, not an opinion. The catalyst doesn't have opinions. (see lore)

It observed that synthetics rebelled.

We observed that the organic creators started a war and synthetics defended themselves. We also observed them coming to terms.

His observations are just that. Observations. He has no way to prove that a hypothetical race of synthetics will wipe out all organic life.

The same way we can't prove that a future organic race will wipe out everyone else.

Not just rebellions. It has observed the elimination of entire species. Leviathans confirmed that.

Modifié par Enhanced, 14 février 2013 - 06:25 .

[Wayning_Star]

Argolas wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does Synthesis solve the supposed synthetics killing organics problem? What's stopping synthepeople from making pure synthetics that will then kill everyone?

Have you seen the synthesis epilogue? It's all explained.

Remind me.

you start'n trouble again?!? lol

[90s Kai]

Well this is fun. My very first comment on the Ending debacle. Anyways:
I chose Destroy. Why? Because I felt that it was the best choice. The Reapers have been part of the galaxy for years beyond counting. They let civilitazions rise up then tear them down only to repeat the process. The shaped the galaxy how they felt it should be i.e. creating the mass relays, the Citadel etc. As Leviathan said, "Evolution became an experiment." I will admit I was intrigued by the other choices but the more I thought about it the more and less they apealled to me. Galactic civilization has been in the shadow of the Reapers for so long that I believed it was time for them to rise up and make their own future, shape it how they see fit. I guess what it all boils down to is that all the choices will have consequences. Good and bad. And we will probably never find out what those consequences are. I may be "boring" for choosing the Destroy option. Some may say I didn't think "outside the box." But it was my choice. You don't have to love it, hell, you don't even have to like it. All you can do is understand and respect it. Like how I respect and understand everyone else who chose Control or Synthesis.

[Wayning_Star]

Enhanced wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

Unless you think it's wrong because it offers no direct proof.

It only has a theory. You challenge it by choosing destory and try to prove that its theory doesn't hold.

no, that is an observation by the catalyst, not an opinion. The catalyst doesn't have opinions. (see lore)

It observed that synthetics rebelled.

We observed that the organic creators started a war and synthetics defended themselves. We also observed them coming to terms.

His observations are just that. Observations. He has no way to prove that a hypothetical race of synthetics will wipe out all organic life.

The same way we can't prove that a future organic race will wipe out everyone else.

Not just rebellions. It has observed the elimination of entire species. Leviathans confirmed that.

folks forget that 'current' cycle as well.. strange but true.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

What about Low-EMS destroy then? That is quite a different setting than the others. Being ME-meets-fallout more or less.

[Nerevar-as]

lordhugorune wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

That´s the worst. There´s no fridge horror because people are changed in a way they can´t be anything but happy about what was done to them. In a mental scale, it´s like rewriting the heretic geth on a galactic scale. If I can say anything positive about synthesis, is it made me realize what the rewrite meant.

The other way to think about it, is it right that Shepherd, having this one chance to enable organic life to attain transcendence, reject it, when life may never have another chance for millions of years? He is at the crossroads of all history, the consequences of what he chooses not to do, and what will be lost, must weigh as much as the consequences of what he chooses.

I know that, had I been in that universe, I'd have been pretty darn pissed off about Shepherd avoiding that option, if I wasn't in the ground or the belly of a Reaper by this stage of course.

Shepard: Hey, inhabitants of the galaxy! The AI behind all this death & destruction (and millions of years of cycles of genocide) just told me to add my organic energy to a beam of energy, and it´ll remade the galaxy into a tech-organic utopia for every life form! Here I go!

And had you been in that universe, your idea of transcendence doesn´t give you the right to force it in everything else. So ****** off if you like, but leave everyone else out of it. That´s why Sarif´s ending in DE:HR worked. For all advantages augmentations had, getting them was each individual´s choice (although I doubt anyone would reject them when they went nano anyway)

[Wayning_Star]

ayanna wrote...

Well this is fun. My very first comment on the Ending debacle. Anyways:
I chose Destroy. Why? Because I felt that it was the best choice. The Reapers have been part of the galaxy for years beyond counting. They let civilitazions rise up then tear them down only to repeat the process. The shaped the galaxy how they felt it should be i.e. creating the mass relays, the Citadel etc. As Leviathan said, "Evolution became an experiment." I will admit I was intrigued by the other choices but the more I thought about it the more and less they apealled to me. Galactic civilization has been in the shadow of the Reapers for so long that I believed it was time for them to rise up and make their own future, shape it how they see fit. I guess what it all boils down to is that all the choices will have consequences. Good and bad. And we will probably never find out what those consequences are. I may be "boring" for choosing the Destroy option. Some may say I didn't think "outside the box." But it was my choice. You don't have to love it, hell, you don't even have to like it. All you can do is understand and respect it. Like how I respect and understand everyone else who chose Control or Synthesis.

they call that defiance of aquiescence. Just say'n

some choice must be a winner or it's not a game about winning, per se.. is my biggest complaint..lol

[Ieldra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I did not. Our objective is to stop the cycle. We all do that. We all win. All the epilogues are good epilogues (not sure about Renegade Control, but I'm willing to give even that the benefit of the doubt, especially if you consider the leviathans). The way we do that is influenced by our very diverse preferences, but we all win. 

Yet three options don't guarentee the cycle stops. If the Reapers are still around, the cycle has a chance of continueing. This is not acceptable.

There is never any guarantee. Who says nobody can ever build a Reaper again post-Destroy? If you invoke the Reaper cycle continuing as a significant risk, even though we're told the cycle will end in Synthesis, I'll invoke the risk of organic extinction at the hands of synthetics which *is* told as being a significant risk. Add the leviathans, and everyone who dislikes Synthesis OR Destroy has another hook for invoking bad scenarios. But there's a difference beween "The leviathans will likely become a problem" and "you're handing the galaxy over to the leviathans".

Consider the story as a story. It tells us we win. We win in different ways, but we all win. Why is that so hard to accept? The manner some people argue here, you'd think it's more important for them that others have a bad ending than that they themselves have a good one. Or is it just that they feel they can't have a good one so others' have to be bad as well? Why not make their own better instead? The effort spent on these forums trying force a bad headcanon on others' games is astounding.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 février 2013 - 06:34 .

[Fawx9]

Enhanced wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Ticonderoga117: The OP is arguing from a metagame standpoint, independent of Shepard's in-universe objectives. I understand the point being made, but disagree. Synthesis represents an utterly stagnant civilization, as all conflict has been removed. That's the problem with utopias and perfection and stuff, really.

Control could actually be interesting as the galaxy struggles against a Reaper dictatorship. Conflict could arise between factions that worship the Reapers as benevolent guardians and those that see them as oppressive overlords. It has potential and room to evolve.

Destroy, though? That's still an interesting future, as the galaxy has to rebuild itself without any magical outside help. We really have no idea what things will look like in 100 years. Who gains power? What new technologies are created that are based off the Crucible and leftover Reaper bits? What happens if some worlds remain cut off from one another due to the crippled relay network and thus develop on their own?

the catalys ruins the fun with destroy, as it states it won't work as it's the problem, not the cure to the problem.

Note: the catalyst is a trusted source of informaton.

Unless you think it's wrong because it offers no direct proof.

It only has a theory. You challenge it by choosing destory and try to prove that its theory doesn't hold.

no, that is an observation by the catalyst, not an opinion. The catalyst doesn't have opinions. (see lore)

It observed that synthetics rebelled.

We observed that the organic creators started a war and synthetics defended themselves. We also observed them coming to terms.

His observations are just that. Observations. He has no way to prove that a hypothetical race of synthetics will wipe out all organic life.

The same way we can't prove that a future organic race will wipe out everyone else.

Not just rebellions. It has observed the elimination of entire species. Leviathans confirmed that.

And?

This cycle observed the 'exitinction' of the Rachnii through war plus put batarians on the endangered species list. Does that mean that an organic race will eventually wipe out all other life?

Modifié par Fawx9, 14 février 2013 - 06:32 .