103 réponses à ce sujet

[Fraq Hound]

Feel's morally wrong to turn everyone in the universe into robots without their permission.

Somehow this got the reputation for being the "Good" ending.

Modifié par Fraq Hound, 22 mars 2013 - 08:56 .

[Ieldra]

NeonFlux117 wrote...
Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy.

Tell me, why exactly is that bad? I mean yeah, I get that people want a choice about it, but it's not as if anyone has a choice about the biochemistry they're built of in the first place. If the result is good, why is that worse than Destroy? As for synthetics being rebuilt post-Destroy, that's not the point. They won't be the same synthetics, the old synthetics are dead! You're killing a billion or more sapient life forms. You may be able to justify it as a necessary sacrifice, but there's no whitewashing the choice.

[Eterna]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

No. Synthesis is Playing God- much like the catalyst does with it's ultra killing machines the reapers. And lets take indoctrination out of this for a bit.

It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.

Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.

All of the endings are in some way unethical.  It really isn't a valid argument against Synthesis but at the endings as a whole. 

Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy. And destroy is the least unethical- it's more necceassary sacrafice than un-ehthical. The geth an EDI can be rebuilt- that is if you believe Casper The Genocidal Ghost, whole other debate there. But synthesis is just gross in about everyway. 

But that's the point,  Synthesis is more unethical to you and Destroy is better. Just like Control is better for me and Synthesis is worse. 

The endings are subjective, in and of itself Synthesis is no worse than Destroy, Control is no better than Destroy etc. It is totally your own opinion that Synthesis is worse, but this is not a fact, it is a subjective opinion that not everybody will agree with. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 22 mars 2013 - 09:05 .

[B.Shep]

No. Catalyst and the Reapers spent millions of years doing the same thing while expecting a different result. They can go to hell with their synthesis ideal.

[NeonFlux117]

Ieldra2 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...
Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy.

Tell me, why exactly is that bad? I mean yeah, I get that people want a choice about it, but it's not as if anyone has a choice about the biochemistry they're built of in the first place. If the result is good, why is that worse than Destroy? As for synthetics being rebuilt post-Destroy, that's not the point. They won't be the same synthetics, the old synthetics are dead! You're killing a billion or more sapient life forms. You may be able to justify it as a necessary sacrifice, but there's no whitewashing the choice.

whereas in Synthesis your letting three big bad things happen. 

1. Reapers Survive

2. Shepard is dead

3) Play God and alter all genetic code of species of galaxy using reaper code and Shepards "organic" energy. 

 You play God and alter trillions of individual life forms DNA, so they can become "the pinnacle of evolution". Synthesis at it's very core is forced, even tho the catalyst tell you it can't be, lol. Also, it's taking away free will from the galaxies species. I wonder what Wrex, and the Turians and Asari. and all of Shepards friends and allies would say about re-writting genetic code. Go play Legions loyalty mission in ME2 and find out. 

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 22 mars 2013 - 09:08 .

[NeonFlux117]

Eterna5 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

No. Synthesis is Playing God- much like the catalyst does with it's ultra killing machines the reapers. And lets take indoctrination out of this for a bit.

It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.

Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.

All of the endings are in some way unethical.  It really isn't a valid argument against Synthesis but at the endings as a whole. 

Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy. And destroy is the least unethical- it's more necceassary sacrafice than un-ehthical. The geth an EDI can be rebuilt- that is if you believe Casper The Genocidal Ghost, whole other debate there. But synthesis is just gross in about everyway. 

But that's the point,  Synthesis is more unethical to you and Destroy is better. Just like Control is better for me and Synthesis is worse. 

The endings are subjective, in and of itself Synthesis is no worse than Destroy, Control is no better than Destroy etc. It is totally your own opinion that Synthesis is worse, but this is not a fact, it is a subjective opinion that not everybody will agree with. 

I said to each their own in my last post and response to you. Quit fishing. 

[Wayning_Star]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...
Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy.

Tell me, why exactly is that bad? I mean yeah, I get that people want a choice about it, but it's not as if anyone has a choice about the biochemistry they're built of in the first place. If the result is good, why is that worse than Destroy? As for synthetics being rebuilt post-Destroy, that's not the point. They won't be the same synthetics, the old synthetics are dead! You're killing a billion or more sapient life forms. You may be able to justify it as a necessary sacrifice, but there's no whitewashing the choice.

whereas in Synthesis your letting three big bad things happen. 

1. Reapers Survive

2. Shepard is dead

3) Play God and alter all genetic code of species of galaxy using reaper code and Shepards "organic" energy. 

 You play God and alter trillions of individual life forms DNA, so they can become "the pinnacle of evolution". Synthesis at it's very core is forced, even tho the catalyst tell you it can't be, lol. Also, it's taking away free will from the galaxies species. I wonder what Wrex, and the Turians and Asari. and all of Shepards friends and allies would say about re-writting genetic code. Go play Legions loyalty mission in ME2 and find out. 

nah, god would just shake down the whole mess and start over.. I'd guess it's more about Mother Nature as to the choices poor beleaguered  organics needs machine tools to up end her..lol

nature and evolution have little in common with pesky morals..

edit: Legion, do I have a soul? (and what, exactly IS that by the way Shep, just curious.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 22 mars 2013 - 09:14 .

[Eterna]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

No. Synthesis is Playing God- much like the catalyst does with it's ultra killing machines the reapers. And lets take indoctrination out of this for a bit.

It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.

Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.

All of the endings are in some way unethical.  It really isn't a valid argument against Synthesis but at the endings as a whole. 

Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy. And destroy is the least unethical- it's more necceassary sacrafice than un-ehthical. The geth an EDI can be rebuilt- that is if you believe Casper The Genocidal Ghost, whole other debate there. But synthesis is just gross in about everyway. 

But that's the point,  Synthesis is more unethical to you and Destroy is better. Just like Control is better for me and Synthesis is worse. 

The endings are subjective, in and of itself Synthesis is no worse than Destroy, Control is no better than Destroy etc. It is totally your own opinion that Synthesis is worse, but this is not a fact, it is a subjective opinion that not everybody will agree with. 

I said to each their own in my last post and response to you. Quit fishing. 

No, you made an absolute statement and then to escape repirsal you added that tidbit at the end. 

[NeonFlux117]

Yikes!!! Eterna5 you got a real issue and problem with my views and cannot engage in constructive debate and discourse. So I'll be exiting this thread. Sorry OP for Eterna5's behavior and his/her attempt to make this argumentative, I like your topic and wish you success in your discussion.

[Auld Wulf]

michaelfierro1990 wrote...

[...] because lets face it, this is science FICTION, not science NON-FICTION.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm really so tired of seeing people around these parts making the argument that science-fiction stories should be filled with science-fact. It's not done much for my average estimation of BSN intellect, it truly hasn't. It's nice to see just one other person understand the difference between fact and fiction, and to understand why the divide is important.

michaelfierro1990 wrote...

That being said, what I see as the biggest point debated in this choice is the moral implications. That many people (myself included) feel it is horrific and immoral for Shepard to make such a drastic change with out the galaxy's consent.

Every ending does that, though.

Control - There's a new overlord in town, and his/her name is Shepard.
Destroy - So much bloody death... the galaxy doesn't so many "bonus genocides."
Synthesis - The ill and frail are cured of illness and frailty without their consent.

Yeah, admittedly, perfect people are taking one for the team by being upgraded without their consent. But I think as soon as they understand what they're getting, they'd be okay with it. Only a tiny minority of neo-luddites would be upset. Synthesis is kind of like buying an iPhone for someone, as that's an upgrade to their day-to-day life that they'll eventually find invaluable, but they'll be iffy about it at first.

So we're dealing with a tiny minority. Yeah, it sucks for the tiny minority. But the fact is is that most people are quickly going to realise why it's beneficial (like an iPhone), and the rest are going to appreciate having their illnesses/frailty cured. It'll provide an equality that a lot of people haven't ever really known. So we're talking about the 99% versus the 1% here.

Whilst there is a questionable element to it, I still find Synthesis far less questionable than any of the other options. And far more beneficial than the other options.

Anyway. The extra explanation is nice but it's essentially extra handholding for what should already be obvious. I thought that even the EC was handholding because I called the nature of Synthesis even before the EC. Hell, even before the Leviathan DLC I was trying to explain to people around the Internet that the Reapers were basically there because of an AI created by an inept ancient species. So to me it's all been kind of obvious.

Still... if it helps others, sure.

[Wayning_Star]

Auld Wulf wrote...

michaelfierro1990 wrote...

[...] because lets face it, this is science FICTION, not science NON-FICTION.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm really so tired of seeing people around these parts making the argument that science-fiction stories should be filled with science-fact. It's not done much for my average estimation of BSN intellect, it truly hasn't. It's nice to see just one other person understand the difference between fact and fiction, and to understand why the divide is important.

michaelfierro1990 wrote...

That being said, what I see as the biggest point debated in this choice is the moral implications. That many people (myself included) feel it is horrific and immoral for Shepard to make such a drastic change with out the galaxy's consent.

Every ending does that, though.

Control - There's a new overlord in town, and his/her name is Shepard.
Destroy - So much bloody death... the galaxy doesn't so many "bonus genocides."
Synthesis - The ill and frail are cured of illness and frailty without their consent.

Yeah, admittedly, perfect people are taking one for the team by being upgraded without their consent. But I think as soon as they understand what they're getting, they'd be okay with it. Only a tiny minority of neo-luddites would be upset. Synthesis is kind of like buying an iPhone for someone, as that's an upgrade to their day-to-day life that they'll eventually find invaluable, but they'll be iffy about it at first.

So we're dealing with a tiny minority. Yeah, it sucks for the tiny minority. But the fact is is that most people are quickly going to realise why it's beneficial (like an iPhone), and the rest are going to appreciate having their illnesses/frailty cured. It'll provide an equality that a lot of people haven't ever really known. So we're talking about the 99% versus the 1% here.

Whilst there is a questionable element to it, I still find Synthesis far less questionable than any of the other options. And far more beneficial than the other options.

Anyway. The extra explanation is nice but it's essentially extra handholding for what should already be obvious. I thought that even the EC was handholding because I called the nature of Synthesis even before the EC. Hell, even before the Leviathan DLC I was trying to explain to people around the Internet that the Reapers were basically there because of an AI created by an inept ancient species. So to me it's all been kind of obvious.

Still... if it helps others, sure.

no no no Auld.. I guessed it first..
Star Trek STNG Moments 51 The Survivors - YouTube

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 22 mars 2013 - 09:18 .

[Saboteur-6]

Did the lot of you even pay attention to the OP? It's not a debate about why you feel the CURRENT Synthesis ending is "bad", it poses the question that :

IF the concept of a Synthesis ending was handled in a way that was morally responsible (IE NOT forced on to the Galaxy"), would you be more likely to choose Synthesis?

[Auld Wulf]

@NeonFlux117

It's because the moment you said "playing God" you pulled the neo-luddite card as a descriptor for yourself. See, we're "playing God" every damned day for the betterment of everyone. The progression of science (medical science especially) only occurs because we're "playing God" and tampering with nature.

You need to pick up a Science journal at some point (Nature is nice) to see what we're actually doing right now. It just sounds like you're living in the past and sticking your head in the sand about scientific advancement. In fact, many of the conveniences you take for granted exist because we chose to explore and experiment. Because we "played God."

I really dislike that statement. "Playing God." I like it because it's outdated now by at least ten decades.

[Wayning_Star]

Vech24 wrote...

Did the lot of you even pay attention to the OP? It's not a debate about why you feel the CURRENT Synthesis ending is "bad", it poses the question that :

IF the concept of a Synthesis ending was handled in a way that was morally responsible (IE NOT forced on to the Galaxy"), would you be more likely to choose Synthesis?

oh, yeah that too..but I'm curious about the moral of such a thing as if that would actually matter to end the reaper threat?

The problematics of it is that the nature of synthetic life and its interaction with organic sentience is the question. Machines with 'morals' takes on organics without them?

[Wayning_Star]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@NeonFlux117

It's because the moment you said "playing God" you pulled the neo-luddite card as a descriptor for yourself. See, we're "playing God" every damned day for the betterment of everyone. The progression of science (medical science especially) only occurs because we're "playing God" and tampering with nature.

You need to pick up a Science journal at some point (Nature is nice) to see what we're actually doing right now. It just sounds like you're living in the past and sticking your head in the sand about scientific advancement. In fact, many of the conveniences you take for granted exist because we chose to explore and experiment. Because we "played God."

I really dislike that statement. "Playing God." I like it because it's outdated now by at least ten decades.

all you really has to say was that moral high ground isn't applicable to current science in the MEU. The very event of it is tantamount to who's more powerful, not who's more intelligent.

[Fraq Hound]

Vech24 wrote...

Did the lot of you even pay attention to the OP? It's not a debate about why you feel the CURRENT Synthesis ending is "bad", it poses the question that :

IF the concept of a Synthesis ending was handled in a way that was morally responsible (IE NOT forced on to the Galaxy"), would you be more likely to choose Synthesis?

I struggle to find a way for Synthesis to be handled in Me3 without it being morally reprehensible...

I mean it's not like Shepard and the Kid Who Ruined the Trilogy had time to poll the galaxy and discover if each and every person was okay with having their DNA altered.

Maybe I just lack imagination...

Either way, it's a dumb ending for an otherwise fantastic franchise.

/golfclap Bioware

[Astartes Marine]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Tell me, why exactly is that bad?

Forcing an unnatural change upon trillions of sentient beings without any form of consent without any knowledge of side effects, long term negative effects, etc.  Oh and it's tantamount to submission to the Reapers' leader as far as I'm concerned.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I mean yeah, I get that people want a choice
about it, but it's not as if anyone has a choice about the biochemistry
they're built of in the first place.

That's a natural thing, something that no one has control of, synthesis is an option chosen by one and forced upon all whether they like it or not. 

Ieldra2 wrote...
If the result is good

Depends on whether you view being part machine afterwards as "good".  I'd forever hate Shepard for such arrogant thinking and help find a way to reverse the changes to become pure organic again and cease being some freak hybrid.

Ieldra2 wrote...
You're killing a billion or more sapient life forms.

You're making the assumption that machines can actually be "alive". 

I also doubt very much they're gone anyways.  The starbrat says all Synthetics will be targeted, including Shepard...but Shepard lives so his accuracy in predictions is already off.  All synthetics, since the abomination included Shepard as an example, would mean ALL synthetics even implants and prosthetics as well as VIs and AIs.
I must also stress that VIs are used in just about EVERY piece of technology around in the ME universe. 
Since the galaxy survives quite apparently despite this "prediction" I question whether or not the starbrat was telling the truth or just trying to make the option seem less desireable.
Also there was that little quote of "there will still be losses, but no more than has already been lost." from starbrat further making things confusing as to what exactly will be lost, if anything.

Coupled with what little was shown from even the EC in regards to what civilizations are still intact and which ones don't make it there's alot that's still too ambigious and unknown.  They Geth and EDI weren't shown in the slides so does that mean they're gone?  If we're assuming that then Elcor/Hanar/Drell/Volus weren't shown either so are they gone as well?  Damn BioWare and the speculation and the continued lack of clarity. 

This is just my opinion and all, but there was too little logic with the starbrat for him to sway me from my goal of freeing the galaxy from the fear of the Reapers.

[cerberus1701]

The problem with Synthesis is not simply the result.

Shepard has no right....no right whatsoever to decide, completely on his own to fundamentally alter the nature of every sapient being in the galaxy without their knowledge or consent.

Especially not when it's touted as subjectively "better" by a crazed AI.

[Fraq Hound]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@NeonFlux117

It's because the moment you said "playing God" you pulled the neo-luddite card as a descriptor for yourself. See, we're "playing God" every damned day for the betterment of everyone. The progression of science (medical science especially) only occurs because we're "playing God" and tampering with nature.

You need to pick up a Science journal at some point (Nature is nice) to see what we're actually doing right now. It just sounds like you're living in the past and sticking your head in the sand about scientific advancement. In fact, many of the conveniences you take for granted exist because we chose to explore and experiment. Because we "played God."

I really dislike that statement. "Playing God." I like it because it's outdated now by at least ten decades.

Right?

Because remember that time Earth scientists altered the DNA of every human being on the planet and made us one with the robots?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

No.

[CosmicGnosis]

Michael Gamble, the producer, likes Synthesis. What does that say about him?

[Drewton]

Yestare7 wrote...

Never. Look at the people around, your loved ones.
Imagine them being transformed into pseudo-robots.

It is unthinkable.

Welcome to Synthesis, we have candy!!

This

[Yestare7]

B.Shep wrote...

No. Catalyst and the Reapers spent millions of years doing the same thing while expecting a different result. They can go to hell with their synthesis ideal.

+1   current or new, Synthesis is the bottom of the barrel:sick:

Modifié par Yestare7, 22 mars 2013 - 10:15 .

[Drewton]

Literal-ending synthesis is the worst thing to happen to the MEU.

[Reorte]

Sorry OP, you lost any credibility with the old "it's science FICTION" stupidity. And no, the fact it's complete nonsense is only one reason I don't like it, it would still be abhorrent no matter what although at least if it wasn't complete and utter gibberish it would possibly be OK having it in the game.

Modifié par Reorte, 22 mars 2013 - 10:18 .