617 réponses à ce sujet

[JesseLee202]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

noobcannon wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

Siiiigh.

I wish I could say something slowly in text, but the only way to do that is to obnoxiously type each letter multiple times, and I'm not going to do that.

Synthesis is optional.

The game tells you this, multiple times. One of the endings says so (via EDI), and the Catalyst tells you. You're not choosing for everyone, since everyone can have the right to choose for themselves whether they want to be included on this whole Catalyst thing or not.

Can we stop with the "Synthesis is forced upon us all!" fallacy now? Please? The only way one could say Synthesis is forced on anyone is to disregard the game's lore, but if you're going to do that then there's no point in you taking part in an argument at all, since everything then is moot.

w  u  l  f.     s y n t h e s i s          i s           n o t     o p t i o n a l.       i     r e p e a t        s y n t h e s i s          i s           n o t     o p t i o n a l.         t h e      g a m e     d o e s     not       s a y      t h i s        a t       a  n  y        p o i n t. 

Luddite.

GENOCIDE FETISHIST! 

[d-boy15]

Auld Wulf wrote...
Synthesis is optional.

oh... and I supposed geth in destroy ending can choose to kill themselves or continued living too, awesome.

[Wayning_Star]

Indy_S wrote...

How does an a tree decide whether to get affected by synthesis? If it can't choose, how can a person?

I blame Hackett, for putting Shep in charge through Anderson. Dummies even built the crucible to do it..go figure.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Siiiigh.

I wish I could say something slowly in text, but the only way to do that is to obnoxiously type each letter multiple times, and I'm not going to do that.

Synthesis is optional.

The game tells you this, multiple times. One of the endings says so (via EDI), and the Catalyst tells you. You're not choosing for everyone, since everyone can have the right to choose for themselves whether they want to be included on this whole Catalyst thing or not.

Can we stop with the "Synthesis is forced upon us all!" fallacy now? Please? The only way one could say Synthesis is forced on anyone is to disregard the game's lore, but if you're going to do that then there's no point in you taking part in an argument at all, since everything then is moot.

Well done!  OMG!

Scout: Green synthesis wave approaching. Anyone want to opt out?
Luddite: I want out.
Scout: Okay, all those who want to opt out line up behind the Luddite here.

(1/4 of the town scrambles to line up - red thanix blast hits and kills all of the luddites)
(Green synthesis wave passes over town - all survivors and reapers now have glowing green eyes and green nanites making green circuitry in them and rewriting dna in the organics, and putting dna in the synthetics.)

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 15 février 2013 - 02:48 .

[Col.Aurion]

Wow, This is bad and U should Feel bad.

[JedTed]

What's said in the OP is one of the reasons i don't choose Destroy. It's also the same reason i don't save the Council in ME1. Both decisions pretty much return the galaxy to the status quo, the alternatives provide far more interesting storytelling potential in my opinion.

[Galbrant]

I know one way to opt out of synthesis.

*slides a Carnifex across the table*

You know what to do.

[BleedingUranium]

How does synthesis solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics? Why couldn't synthepeople create pure synthetics that would then kill everyone?

That supposed problem is the entire reason for choosing Synthesis (or Control), so if it doesn't solve it...

[Meltemph]

BleedingUranium wrote...

How does synthesis solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics? Why couldn't synthepeople create pure synthetics that would then kill everyone?

That supposed problem is the entire reason for choosing Synthesis (or Control), so if it doesn't solve it...

There are some who believe that synthesis no longer makes them organic.... Ya, I dont know either.

[Col.Aurion]

JesseLee202 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

noobcannon wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...
Siiiigh.
I wish I could say something slowly in text, but the only way to do that is to obnoxiously type each letter multiple times, and I'm not going to do that.
Synthesis is optional.
The game tells you this, multiple times. One of the endings says so (via EDI), and the Catalyst tells you. You're not choosing for everyone, since everyone can have the right to choose for themselves whether they want to be included on this whole Catalyst thing or not.
Can we stop with the "Synthesis is forced upon us all!" fallacy now? Please? The only way one could say Synthesis is forced on anyone is to disregard the game's lore, but if you're going to do that then there's no point in you taking part in an argument at all, since everything then is moot.

w  u  l  f.     s y n t h e s i s          i s           n o t     o p t i o n a l.       i     r e p e a t        s y n t h e s i s          i s           n o t     o p t i o n a l.         t h e      g a m e     d o e s     not       s a y      t h i s        a t       a  n  y        p o i n t. 

Luddite.

GENOCIDE FETISHIST! 

Pycho Rapist! 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Galbrant wrote...

I know one way to opt out of synthesis.

*slides a Carnifex across the table*

You know what to do.

Wait! ...

[dreamgazer]

Galbrant wrote...

I know one way to opt out of synthesis.

*slides a Carnifex across the table*

You know what to do.

I honestly can't tell if you're advocating destroy or pulling a Saren.

[Ieldra]

BleedingUranium wrote...
How does synthesis solve the supposed problem of organics being killed by synthetics? Why couldn't synthepeople create pure synthetics that would then kill everyone?

That supposed problem is the entire reason for choosing Synthesis (or Control), so if it doesn't solve it...

Read my Synthesis thread. This has been answered half a year ago. Also, this is off-topic.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 06:09 .

[mvaning]

It's funny how with these endings in order to justify your own ending you have to go to great lengths to argue against the other endings. All in all, they are all terrible choices and it is a matter of which one is the lesser evil.

I choose destroy because
1) I believe in justice. None of the other options provide closure or a sense of justice for millions of years of reaper genocide.
2) I believe in the importance of evolutionary continuity. In the history of man, there has never been any good outcomes to playing with genetics for evolutionary goals. Even selective breeding in dogs has lead to severe hereditary diseases and disabilities. If Synthesis is the inevitable, it would be important for this inevitability to occur naturally without force.

3) I think that too much power in the hands of one person will ultimately lead to corruption.

4) None of the choices guarantee peace. If Bioware is trying to push on us that Synthesis will provide an everlasting peace, I call BS. Same with control. There is no realistic magic wand that will bring peace to us in real life. It is not something that I can relate to in a game that tries to pose as partially realistic.
Evolution occurs as a result of the struggle to survive. The game makes it clear that the evolution and growth of new species is a continuous thing. If this is continuous, then that means new species will develop and will ultimately come in conflict with the existing ones. Even with the Synthesis approach, conflict will happen. So you may as well stop trying to control evolution and let the universe take its course naturally. That's not a "sacred nature" ideology, its a realistic ideology base on the history of man, basic ethics and the principles of evolution.

The only problem with destroy is the genocide of the geth and the death of EDI. However, they are machines and the destruction could be purely a hardware reset. When our human bodies die, we lose everything but a machine can be salvaged and rebuilt. If the memories and software processes in these machines still exist, they can be restored to what they originally were or better. They can be "rebuilt" just like the citadel and the mass relays can. This might be more headcanon but I would like to think that it is true.

All of this in mind, I still stand that all endings ultimately pose morally abhorrent choices on equal levels.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

mvaning wrote...

2) I believe in the importance of evolutionary continuity. In the history of man, there has never been any good outcomes to playing with genetics for evolutionary goals. Even selective breeding in dogs has lead to severe hereditary diseases and disabilities. If Synthesis is the inevitable, it would be important for this inevitability to occur naturally without force.

Just want to point out that, there's been a lot of controversy against people saying the Destroy option is a rejection of technology and such (Reaper version and otherwise), but I think posts like this are really where that general notion comes from. I've read people take this stance quite often in favor of Destroy. I think this idea of evolutionary continuity - consciously or not - basically plays to a romanaticized idea of nature itself and puts it at odds with technology, especially that of Reaper design, which was made for the expressed purpose of accelerating and guiding our evolution.

[Sajuro]

I choose destroy because of the chaos of unguided evolution, sure bad things happen and people will kill other people, but liberty and freedom to do what's right also lies within that. If you are forced to do the right thing, then it isn't the same as doing the right thing, and given the Reapers were about introducing machine like order to evolution all through the series, Synthesis is not for me

[mvaning]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Just want to point out that, there's been a lot of controversy against people saying the Destroy option is a rejection of technology and such (Reaper version and otherwise), but I think posts like this are really where that general notion comes from. I've read people take this stance quite often in favor of Destroy. I think this idea of evolutionary continuity - consciously or not - basically plays to a romanaticized idea of nature itself and puts it at odds with technology, especially that of Reaper design, which was made for the expressed purpose of accelerating and guiding our evolution.

I completely disagree.   Technology does not oppose evolutionary continuity.   Technology is part of evolution.   The reapers represent the notion that there needs to be a solution to conflict.    The problem is, there will always be conflict.     The very nature of evolution makes conflict happen.    These conflicts needs to happen.   The idea is not a rejection of technology, it is a rejection of the notion that you can suddenly have realistic peace and unburdened prosperity with the wave of a hand.    There is nothing "romantic" about that.    It is a realistic and ethical approach. 

Modifié par mvaning, 15 février 2013 - 06:43 .

[cyrslash1974]

string3r wrote...

It was the main premise of the entire series, wether it's boring or not I choose destroy every time.

Same.

[nos_astra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Just want to point out that, there's been a lot of controversy against people saying the Destroy option is a rejection of technology and such (Reaper version and otherwise), but I think posts like this are really where that general notion comes from. I've read people take this stance quite often in favor of Destroy. I think this idea of evolutionary continuity - consciously or not - basically plays to a romanaticized idea of nature itself and puts it at odds with technology, especially that of Reaper design, which was made for the expressed purpose of accelerating and guiding our evolution.

Well, the game follows this theme: The uplifting of the krogan, the genophage, Saren creating new Rachni are depicted as having bad consequences. 

Modifié par klarabella, 15 février 2013 - 06:51 .

[mvaning]

To follow up on this. . . I'm going to post the exact definition of "Romantized"

Romanticized
Verb
Deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion: "the tendency to romanticize nonindustrial societies".


The notion that we should let evolution and conflict happen is, in large contrast, an actual rejection of the ideas posed by the other two options present. Indeed, there is nothing romantic about saying that conflict needs to happen and evolution needs to naturally occur. What is "Romanticized" is the idea that Control and Synthesis will somehow magically relieve us of the burdens of conflict. So no, this view of "Evolutionary continuity" is not romanticism, it is the rejection of romanticism.

Modifié par mvaning, 15 février 2013 - 06:53 .

[cyrslash1974]

However, if destroy wasn't an available option, I would pick control rather than synthesis. Geths and Quarians, EDI-Joker : synthetics and organics are already in peace, no need to force them.

But this solution also validates the logic of the catalyst and reapers are still a danger, I choose destroy.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

mvaning wrote...

I completely disagree.   Technology does not oppose evolutionary continuity.   Technology is part of evolution.

This just goes back to the idea of "we build our own path." That is, technology is fine, it just must come from us.

The reapers represent the notion that there needs to be a solution to conflict.

It would be more accurate to say that the Reapers represent a solution to organic extinction. They didn't solve the conflict.

The problem is, there will always be conflict.     The very nature of evolution makes conflict happen.    These conflicts needs to happen.

Suffice it to say, I disagree. But this one's a bit loaded, so I'll leave it at that.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

klarabella wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Just want to point out that, there's been a lot of controversy against people saying the Destroy option is a rejection of technology and such (Reaper version and otherwise), but I think posts like this are really where that general notion comes from. I've read people take this stance quite often in favor of Destroy. I think this idea of evolutionary continuity - consciously or not - basically plays to a romanaticized idea of nature itself and puts it at odds with technology, especially that of Reaper design, which was made for the expressed purpose of accelerating and guiding our evolution.

Well, the game follows this theme: The uplifting of the krogan, the genophage, Saren creating new Rachni are depicted as having bad consequences.

Not always.

The asari uplifted the elcor. They weren't even advanced enough to find the nearest mass-relay. No problem there.

The story is full of different messages/themes, some directly contradicting others. Gotta be careful.

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

mvaning wrote...

I completely disagree.   Technology does not oppose evolutionary continuity.   Technology is part of evolution.

This just goes back to the idea of "we build our own path." That is, technology is fine, it just must come from us.

I have nothing against technology. I also have nothing against technology that does not come from "us" (I usually don't have any real relation to the scientists who invent new stuff anyway). I do have something against technology from a source of someone who messed around with the very same technology in the past and did horrible stuff with it (Harvests, Husks, Collectors...)

The reapers represent the notion that there needs to be a solution to conflict.

It would be more accurate to say that the Reapers represent a solution to organic extinction. They didn't solve the conflict.

Organic life as a whole can't get extinct as long as there are garden worlds, and there even seem to be constantly popping up new ones (over a long time but time's not an issue to the intelligence as we now). Only individuals, species and such can be killed, and the reapers do that.

The problem is, there will always be conflict.     The very nature of evolution makes conflict happen.    These conflicts needs to happen.

Suffice it to say, I disagree. But this one's a bit loaded, so I'll leave it at that.

That's really a little big to discuss here, it's already OT enough.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Argolas wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

mvaning wrote...

I completely disagree.   Technology does not oppose evolutionary continuity.   Technology is part of evolution.

This just goes back to the idea of "we build our own path." That is, technology is fine, it just must come from us.

I have nothing against technology. I also have nothing against technology that does not come from "us" (I usually don't have any real relation to the scientists who invent new stuff anyway). I do have something against technology from a source of someone who messed around with the very same technology in the past and did horrible stuff with it (Harvests, Husks, Collectors...)

... Okay? Thank you for agreeing with me.

The reapers represent the notion that there needs to be a solution to conflict.

It would be more accurate to say that the Reapers represent a solution to organic extinction. They didn't solve the conflict.

Organic life as a whole can't get extinct as long as there are garden worlds, and there even seem to be constantly popping up new ones (over a long time but time's not an issue to the intelligence as we now). Only individuals, species and such can be killed, and the reapers do that.

I thought that went without saying.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 15 février 2013 - 07:22 .