Eterna5 wrote...
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
BleedingUranium wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
The only good argument against Synthesis is that it is forced. The rest is headcannon and emotional knee jerk tat.
So the fact that both of them are only supported by the villains means nothing to you?
Or that neither of them solves the supposed problem they exist to solve?
I don't care that the villian supports them. Hitler supported guns, cleary by using guns in the war we are just as bad?
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
Neither Control nor Synthesis solve the supposed problem. A problem which only has been shown to exist in the mind of the Reapers, not in reality.
Indy_S wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
And if the problem isn't perceived as one? 'Synthetics and organics will always come into conflict'. Why would I put any emphasis on that above other forms of conflict? Control and Synthesis don't target other conflict (supposedly) so I don't see them as a superior alternative. Destroy is a reset; I don't care if there's conflict in the future, the one I'm here for gets resolved.
Eterna5 wrote...
I don't care that the villian supports them. Hitler supported guns, cleary by using guns in the war we are just as bad?
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
Sc2mashimaro wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
I don't care that the villian supports them. Hitler supported guns, cleary by using guns in the war we are just as bad?
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
"The villain supports them" is an appeal to address the source. If you believe you can trust the source's word on what will happen, Control and even Synthesis do make more sense than if you don't believe the source. That's obviously the first thing that needs to be addressed.
Not saying you are indoctrinated or not, your opinion is as valid as mine. But not believing the source does not mean that I support genocide, it means I feel lik the Reapers are trying to scare me away from making the choice they know I need to make to win.
I think there are significant ethical problems with synthesis, even if you believe the catalyst, but someone recently got me to understand controllers a little better: ASSUMING you trust the source. And that's key, I think.
Modifié par Eterna5, 21 février 2013 - 04:26 .
BleedingUranium wrote...
CosmicGnosis wrote...
Eh... I understand that Shepard fears that TIM will build a Reaper, but there is also that utterly asinine "this place is an abomination" argument.
And what's wrong with that argument?
I was referring crimes against an absolute ethical standard.Wayning_Star wrote...
...
note: when using the word "crimes" that infers legal defense in civilized nations. How could you envision the legal aspects to denote crime and punishment, unless we're talking taking the law into our own hands, but condemning it when it suits our compunctions?
Well, its a sci-fi story, but Shep and the player are still people with some standard of ethics.CosmicGnosis wrote...
...
As a sci-fi story, a place can't be spiritually tainted. It makes no sense. Legion states it best:
"This facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others."
Modifié par Obadiah, 21 février 2013 - 04:30 .
CosmicGnosis wrote...
As a sci-fi story, a place can't be spiritually tainted. It makes no sense. Legion states it best:
"This facility is data. It has no inherent ethical value. Destroying it will not return those lost. Keeping it may save others."
CosmicGnosis wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
The Reapers tell you that, because you're super special, you can grab these electrical rods that will electrocute you and kill you, but then you'll be able to control them. Supported by the Reapers and their slaves.
The Reapers tell you that, because you're super special, you can jump into a beam of energy that will break you apart and kill you, but in doing so fuse all organic and synthetic life everywhere together to make eternal peace and happiness. Supported by the Reapers and their slaves.
Without any meta-gaming, why would you ever do either of these things?
I'm playing a video game. I don't expect the Catalyst to defend its dissertation to me. Granted, I would like more evidence for its claims, but I still accept what BioWare was trying to get at.
KBomb wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
Headcannon, maybe. But most people who support Control and Synthesis take it with some degree of face value. Irrational? Hell no.
I changed my quote around somewhat because I don't want to put out the impression that I view all arguments like that.
The majority I have seen are ripe with headcanon, supposition and pure emotion. Nothing tangible. Taking it with face value is one thing, making up things about it to rationalize it or to make one feel good about themselves is irrational, especially when followed by insulting one's intelligence or ethics simply because they chose destroy. I am well aware that is the case in some pro-destroy arguments too, but some pro-control/synthesis are just vile about it, without providing much fact behind it.
Couldn't agree more. What I tend to see is that people feel a need to impose their binary opposition on the game. Player 1 is the good guy, the Reapers/Catalyst must be 0. Therefore the point of Player 1 is to destroy 0. As I've written in my sig. Really, Destroy is for people who love binary opposition, and are willing to condone genocide in order to abate their need for binary opposition.Eterna5 wrote...
Headcanon, maybe. But most people who support Control and Synthesis take it with some degree of face value. Irrational? Hell no.
Modifié par Auld Wulf, 21 février 2013 - 04:33 .
Eterna5 wrote...
Sc2mashimaro wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
I don't care that the villian supports them. Hitler supported guns, cleary by using guns in the war we are just as bad?
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
"The villain supports them" is an appeal to address the source. If you believe you can trust the source's word on what will happen, Control and even Synthesis do make more sense than if you don't believe the source. That's obviously the first thing that needs to be addressed.
Not saying you are indoctrinated or not, your opinion is as valid as mine. But not believing the source does not mean that I support genocide, it means I feel lik the Reapers are trying to scare me away from making the choice they know I need to make to win.
I think there are significant ethical problems with synthesis, even if you believe the catalyst, but someone recently got me to understand controllers a little better: ASSUMING you trust the source. And that's key, I think.
All three choices require a leap of faith. You trust the Catalyst when he tells you how to Destroy him, I trust the Catalyst when he tells me how to control him. The only choice that does not require some degree of faith and trust is refusal.
GethPrimeMKII wrote...
CosmicGnosis wrote...
BleedingUranium wrote...
The Reapers tell you that, because you're super special, you can grab these electrical rods that will electrocute you and kill you, but then you'll be able to control them. Supported by the Reapers and their slaves.
The Reapers tell you that, because you're super special, you can jump into a beam of energy that will break you apart and kill you, but in doing so fuse all organic and synthetic life everywhere together to make eternal peace and happiness. Supported by the Reapers and their slaves.
Without any meta-gaming, why would you ever do either of these things?
I'm playing a video game. I don't expect the Catalyst to defend its dissertation to me. Granted, I would like more evidence for its claims, but I still accept what BioWare was trying to get at.
Im honestly getting quite sick of the "its just a video game" defense whenever you guys lack a decent counter argument.
Auld Wulf wrote...
Couldn't agree more. What I tend to see is that people feel a need to impose their binary opposition on the game. Player 1 is the good guy, the Reapers/Catalyst must be 0. Therefore the point of Player 1 is to destroy 0. As I've written in my sig. Really, Destroy is for people who love binary opposition, and are willing to condone genocide in order to abate their need for binary opposition.Eterna5 wrote...
Headcanon, maybe. But most people who support Control and Synthesis take it with some degree of face value. Irrational? Hell no.
Fans of Control and Synthesis have no genocide to offer knee jerk defences for. So what we see is Destroy fans coming up with thee absolutely ridiculous, specious 'arguments' (air-quotes) to try to put Control and Synthesis down.
Here's a common Synthesis/Control argument: "Destroy is kind of bad because of all the genocide. It's like a White Supremacist's wet dream, all you have to do is switch out the geth for black people and you're good to go. It's really not a pleasant thing. I mean, you could pick Control and then just free any peoples contained within the Reaper consensuses and then just destroy the reaper ships. So essentially, Destroy is just Control plus genocide."
Here's a common Destroy argument: "Yeah, well the Catalyst is a bad man who does bad things. The reapers are bad men who do bad things. We can't trust them, we have to blow 'em all up! They're completely, absolutely evil and there's no other way of looking at it. They're just evil. They're so evil that we, the good guys, just have to kill them all. The genocide of the geth is fine, I'm okay with that if the reapers die too. I won't do Control because the Reapers will brain control me to do evil things! Because they're faceless evil! That's what they do! Evil!"
Well, the Syntehsis/Control argument is pretty sound. The Destroy argument has a glaring hole. That hole is is that the Control ending shows us that there's no grounds for the paranoia whatsoever. That you could indeed take control of the Reapers and use that control to just rid the galaxy of them, if you absolutely had to, to sate your paranoia. (Or you could just use reaper tech to make lives better for people. Whatever works for you.)
The rebuttal I've often got from this point is that canon isn't canon. The endings aren't canon, somehow. And this is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I hate polarised positions, but I've absolutely yet to see a Destroy fan give me a good argument for why they pick Destroy over Control, since Destroy is nothing more than Control plus genocide. That's what it is. When you boil things down, it's just that. You could do all in Destroy that you could in Control, but for some reason, people are happier seeing EDI, the geth, and any other artificial intelligences we don't know about all dead.
That's what I can't accept.
To me, a war won... to a rational mind, a war won? A war is won with the least amount of casualties. They call us irrational? They are wrong. What's irrational is using genocide to end a war. Now that's irrational. And there's absolutely no justification for it. Yet they try. Some even go as far as to say that Destroy would be the option for them no matter what - real life, you name it. And we're irrational.
You know what I call that?
I call that irony.
Auld Wulf wrote...
*snip*
Auld Wulf wrote...
Couldn't agree more. What I tend to see is that people feel a need to impose their binary opposition on the game. Player 1 is the good guy, the Reapers/Catalyst must be 0. Therefore the point of Player 1 is to destroy 0. As I've written in my sig. Really, Destroy is for people who love binary opposition, and are willing to condone genocide in order to abate their need for binary opposition.
Fans of Control and Synthesis have no genocide to offer knee jerk defences for. So what we see is Destroy fans coming up with thee absolutely ridiculous, specious 'arguments' (air-quotes) to try to put Control and Synthesis down.
Here's a common Synthesis argument: "Destroy is kind of bad because of all the genocide. It's like a White Supremacist's wet dream, all you have to do is switch out the geth for black people and you're good to go. It's really not a pleasant thing. I mean, you could pick Control and then just free any peoples contained within the Reaper consensuses and then just destroy the reaper ships. So essentially, Destroy is just Control plus genocide."
Here's a common Destroy argument: "Yeah, well the Catalyst is a bad man who does bad things. The reapers are bad men who do bad things. We can't trust them, we have to blow 'em all up! They're completely, absolutely evil and there's no other way of looking at it. They're just evil. They're so evil that we, the good guys, just have to kill them all. The genocide of the geth is fine, I'm okay with that if the reapers die too. I won't do Control because the Reapers will brain control me to do evil things! Because they're faceless evil! That's what they do! Evil!"
Well, the Syntehsis argument is pretty sound. The Destroy argument has a glaring hole. That hole is is that the Control ending shows us that there's no grounds for the paranoia whatsoever. That you could indeed take control of the Reapers and use that control to just rid the galaxy of them, if you absolutely had to, to sate your paranoia. (Or you could just use reaper tech to make lives better for people. Whatever works for you.)
The rebuttal I've often got from this point is that canon isn't canon. The endings aren't canon, somehow. And this is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I hate polarised positions, but I've absolutely yet to see a Destroy fan give me a good argument for why they pick Destroy over Control, since Destroy is nothing more than Control plus genocide. That's what it is. When you boil things down, it's just that. You could do all in Destroy that you could in Control, but for some reason, people are happier seeing EDI, the geth, and any other artificial intelligences we don't know about all dead.
That's what I can't accept.
To me, a war won... to a rational mind, a war won? A war is won with the least amount of casualties. They call us irrational? They are wrong. What's irrational is using genocide to end a war. Now that's irrational. And there's absolutely no justification for it. Yet they try. Some even go as far as to say that Destroy would be the option for them no matter what - real life, you name it. And we're irrational.
You know what I call that?
I call that irony.
Eterna5 wrote...
Sc2mashimaro wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
I don't care that the villian supports them. Hitler supported guns, cleary by using guns in the war we are just as bad?
Control and Synthesis solve the problem, Destroy is a band aid.
"The villain supports them" is an appeal to address the source. If you believe you can trust the source's word on what will happen, Control and even Synthesis do make more sense than if you don't believe the source. That's obviously the first thing that needs to be addressed.
Not saying you are indoctrinated or not, your opinion is as valid as mine. But not believing the source does not mean that I support genocide, it means I feel lik the Reapers are trying to scare me away from making the choice they know I need to make to win.
I think there are significant ethical problems with synthesis, even if you believe the catalyst, but someone recently got me to understand controllers a little better: ASSUMING you trust the source. And that's key, I think.
All three choices require a leap of faith. You trust the Catalyst when he tells you how to Destroy him, I trust the Catalyst when he tells me how to control him. The only choice that does not require some degree of faith and trust is refusal.
clennon8 wrote...
Why Destroy is NOT a trick
1. Association: Control (TIM) and Synthesis (Saren) are negatively associated with indoctrinated villains, while Destroy is repeatedly endorsed by Shepard's friends and allies. It is also worth noting that Javik mentions an indoctrinated pro-Control faction that existed during his own Cycle. This faction caused dissent, which ultimately led to the demise of the Prothean empire. Furthermore, Javik describes the Zha'til, a fine example of Synthesis helped along by the Reapers. The implications are clear. Control and Synthesis are dangerous ideas, particularly when they involve the Reapers. Destroy is not so burdened by negative connotations.
Am I guilty of committing an association fallacy in the preceding paragraph? Perhaps. But "story logic" and "real world logic" don't perfectly overlap. Reality doesn't have a narrative; it is an unpurposed stream of moments, governed by cause and effect, unable to be condensed into a digestible amount of words or frames. Stories, on the other hand, have jobs to do, and a certain amount of time to do them in. In short, I believe these associations are ones the story intended us to make. They have a purpose within the Mass Effect narrative.
Ask yourself this question. If the most successful mass murderer and brainwasher in galactic history keeps propagating the same perverted "solutions" through indoctrinated agents, Cycle after Cycle, why should we believe those same solutions, suggested by the same entity, will work in our favor now? Is it because we're talking directly to the brainwashing mass murderer instead of one of his minions? Is it simple faith that this time will somehow be different?
2. The Crucible: While nobody understands precisely how the Crucible works, Shepard is informed on more than one occasion that the Crucible is capable of incredible destructive power, sufficient to wipe out the Reapers. Therefore, when Shepard arrives at the decision chamber, he arrives with the knowledge that he should be able to destroy the Reapers. To be told otherwise would be a dead giveaway to an alert Shepard that something was amiss.
Note: The low-EMS "control only" scenario is a corner case where the Crucible was built to incorporate the human proto-Reaper "brain" salvaged by TIM from the intact Collector base, but is too heavily damaged to destroy the Reapers. In the low-EMS "destroy only" scenario, the Crucible was built to incorporate the human proto-Reaper "heart," a power source which gives it sufficient power to destroy the Reapers despite the heavy damage the Crucible has sustained
3. Meta-logic: So, if Starchild is trying to trick Shepard into picking Synthesis or Control, then why isn't Destroy a booby-trap? It's a reasonable question, but not the knock-down argument some of you may think it is. Let me explain. In the previous point, I established that Shepard arrives at the decision chamber with the expectation that he will be able to destroy the Reapers. Therefore, Destroy must be available as an option, and Starchild must reveal it, even as he tries to once again spin his age-old illusion involving Control and/or Synthesis. Now, if Starchild wants to trick Shepard (and by extension Bioware wants to trick the player) then the illusion must be carefully maintained. Things have to be depicted in a way that works both on a narrative level and a meta level. There are constraints on what Bioware can do when trying to pull off this grand trick that will keep players talking about their game for a full year or more after its release. If, for example, Starchild said "Go shoot that tube if you want to destroy us," but then Shepard was able to explore the area and find the "real" Destroy option... Well, that would be a dead giveaway, wouldn't it? The illusion would be shattered, not only for Shepard, but for the player. Again, Bioware is constrained in what they can do, both from a cinematic perspective and a story-telling perspective, in order to maintain the illusion. Thus we see Shepard walking up to the tube, shooting it as it explodes in his face, and presto, all the Reapers fall over dead.
Modifié par clennon8, 21 février 2013 - 04:41 .
CosmicGnosis wrote...
Goodness, sorry. I meant that I don't expect a character in any medium to present to me an impeccable defense of their plan. If they did, it would take a lot of time. This applies to video games, movies, books, etc. You might be able to get away with it in a book, however.
GethPrimeMKII wrote...
Auld Wulf is quickly becoming the new Sieval.
Yeah, he's pretty tiresome. I wish I had a binary switch to hide his posts.GethPrimeMKII wrote...
Auld Wulf is quickly becoming the new Sieval.
Indy_S wrote...
CosmicGnosis wrote...
Goodness, sorry. I meant that I don't expect a character in any medium to present to me an impeccable defense of their plan. If they did, it would take a lot of time. This applies to video games, movies, books, etc. You might be able to get away with it in a book, however.
You're worried about pacing? An impeccable defense isn't required. A sensical defense consistent with the narrative is required.
Retour en haut
