779 réponses à ce sujet

[Reikilea]

I am not sure I would take advice about colours from someone who wrote DA2.

Red.

But I get it. It´s personal choice.

[Applepie_Svk]

Auintus wrote...

TreguardD wrote...

No. Really all three "possibilities" are black. Not shades of grey. Black.

Destroy is genocide.
Synthesis will spur suicides
Control puts under a meglomania.

All because we accept a false dichotomy.

Destroy may be genocide, but it puts the reigns behind the galaxy firmly back in the hands of the races. Additionally, if the geth die at Rannoch, it's not genocide.
Your comments on Control and Synthesis are baseless speculation.

Additionally, black assumes no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Synthesis provides a technological leap, Control puts the galaxy's most powerful military force in the hands of your own character, and Destroy lets you kill off the quarians and the geth if you are going for a maximum-casualties run.
See? They're all grey.

You still playin his xenophobic game... it´s the cycle of circular logich which you cannot break - only by refuse and you know how it turned out.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 02 avril 2013 - 10:36 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

cerberus1701 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

It is necessary if you believe it is necessary. If you don't, then there are three other options. That's why they gave us choice. 

Two other options. Refuse doesn't break the cycle.

HA! You are wrong! Refuse does break the cycle! I've got you now!

The next cycle eliminates the Reapers. They destroy them. We fought a terrible war so they don't have to.

It does break the cycle, but, wait for it,  you have no idea at all if the end scene is the NEXT cycle.

You assume, but that scene could have been 10 cycles down the road. Or more.

Twitter canon. -- Gamble said so.

[Auintus]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

You still playin his xenophobic game... it´s the cycle of circular logich which you cannot break - only by refuse and you know how it turned out.

Eh...what?

[Uncle Jo]

Auintus wrote...

*snip*

Wait, nevermind. You clearly did not cure the genophage, since you are so obviously for the free will of every living being. In which case you are wrong in my eyes, rather than your own.

Additionally, a benign, if unwanted, biological modification is a small crime compared to the death of the Geth, EDI, and erasure of the memories of the harvested.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

This confirms my suspicions. David Gaider is truly evil.

[Pelle6666]

I am more annoyed that the writers made a huge leap from science fiction and introduced magic just to make synthesis possible without any kind of foreshadowing what so ever. It's just a silly ending to a otherwise fantastic and believable story.
Destroy was the ending most of us expected but had the "kill all synthetics" -twist and control kinda made sense after all Illusive Man's plotting and research but the twist there is that Shepard dies (Yes, dies, having your memories stored on a data chip is not life, folks). Synthesis makes no sense at all in the narrative and seams to me to have just been crowbared in there to make up a third option. It magically solves a conflict that has been raging for millions of years by splitting Shepard's body into small particles and... change the DNA and/or hardware of every organic or synthetic organism in the galaxy...?

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

You're missing the point there. The game doesn't give you an idealistic option for destroy. It's rather bleak. It is genocide of synthetics as well. Intent or no, they are all dead. Simply calling it collateral damage doesn't make it any better. And this is coming from me, a destroyer.

Also, you're misusing of the term military necessity.

You have two other options open to you, or three if you like. I can't see a justifiable reason for the Reapers existence. I destroy. It's more to do with a rejection of their belief in the future vs. yours. I choose to end the problem of the Reaper threat by destroying them. Is that what you were going for?

. Well it's not genocide of synthetics.  The geth are already dead.

[Auintus]

Steelcan wrote...

Well it's not genocide of synthetics. The geth are already dead.

The geth may be alive in someone's playthrough, so it still has to be considered. And then there's EDI.

Modifié par Auintus, 02 avril 2013 - 10:43 .

[Knight of Dane]

Last I checked Mass Effect was a role playing game.

I have faith that the writers can properly develop the franchise without canon'izing the wrong ending.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

KENNY4753 wrote...

sooooooo waffles.......

You saw Malukah's Facebook photo, too?

[Zavox]

Can we stop this already? It's clear to all of us that those that choose synthesis and wave away the downsides to the choice as being a small crime, simply haven't ever been inside an ethics 101 classroom.

[phillip100]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

This confirms my suspicions. David Gaider is truly evil.

Yeah how dare he choose an ending BSN doesn't like!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Who were promptly EXTERMINATED by the Daleks.

. And then...

Nah, man I can think of much worse.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 02 avril 2013 - 10:46 .

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

Can we stop this already? It's clear to all of us that those that choose synthesis and wave away the downsides to the choice as being a small crime, simply haven't ever been inside an ethics 101 classroom.

Explain to me how exclusive death is preferable to universal alteration. How are my ethics inferior to yours when you choose to make a sacrifice to bring about more death and I choose to forge the bridge between organics and synthetics that ends the cycle with no further loss of life beyond my own?

[Applepie_Svk]

Auintus wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

You still playin his xenophobic game... it´s the cycle of circular logich which you cannot break - only by refuse and you know how it turned out.

Eh...what?

He is comming from premise that organics and synthetics are both xenophobic for some unkown reason, even if his logic contradict each other conclusions - Organics seeks perfection thru synthetics and synthetics seeking for understanding - /yet they are going to kill each other for some unkown reason/

By choosing destroy you are still proving a premise that synthetic life is no worth saving, therefore you are taking synthetic life as non-equal to organic life. It´s stupid game designed to prove Leviathans xenophobic logic and stupidity of Catalyst which was living for billions of years not recognizing that he was the only thing which kept this insaninity running again and again...

[AlanC9]

Steelcan wrote...

TreguardD wrote...

No. Really all three "possibilities" are black. Not shades of grey. Black.

Destroy is genocide.
Synthesis will spur suicides
Control puts under a meglomania.

All because we accept a false dichotomy.

. I didnt catch any acceptance of the Catalyst in Destroy.  There's a line that says "There has to be another way". But it could easily mean that there has to be another way to prevent the war that "inevitably" will arise.

Besides killing the reapers isn't genocide, it's military necessity.

I didn't see any acceptance of the Catalyst in Control either.

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Can we stop this already? It's clear to all of us that those that choose synthesis and wave away the downsides to the choice as being a small crime, simply haven't ever been inside an ethics 101 classroom.

Explain to me how exclusive death is preferable to universal alteration. How are my ethics inferior to yours when you choose to make a sacrifice to bring about more death and I choose to forge the bridge between organics and synthetics that ends the cycle with no further loss of life beyond my own?

Simple. You choose to take the CHANCE to forge a bridge with pretty much every ethic trodden upon in the process. If it were a guarantee I might overlook it (probably still won't), but it's not. Every discussion about this subject with synthetic proponents seems to be involved with hindsight.

Either way, it's the 'it's only a small crime' that always gets me worked up. Just accept and come out that you pay a huge price for the bridge, but you think that the end justifies the means.

Modifié par Zavox, 02 avril 2013 - 10:57 .

[Auintus]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

He is comming from premise that organics and synthetics are both xenophobic for some unkown reason, even if his logic contradict each other conclusions - Organics seeks perfection thru synthetics and synthetics seeking for understanding - /yet they are going to kill each other for some unkown reason/

By choosing destroy you are still proving a premise that synthetic life is no worth saving, therefore you are taking synthetic life as non-equal to organic life. It´s stupid game designed to prove Leviathans xenophobic logic and stupidity of Catalyst which was living for billions of years not recognizing that he was the only thing which kept this insaninity running again and again...

I would disagree.
The Catalyst is operating from significantly more data than we are offered in the trilogy. The organics to synthetics part refers to our drive to create technology to improve our well-being, which inevitably results in synthetic life. The synthetics to organics part refers to Legion's ability to understand the "what" behind human actions, but not the "why." Their attempts to understand organics end in failure and eventually drive synthetics to eliminate organics for some reason or another. We are not given enough data to know. In our cycle, the geth fought in self-defense. I highly doubt that every previous cycle's synthetics were as benign.
It is not the Catalyst and certainly not the Leviathan's fault that Destroy targets all synthetics. The races created the Crucible, not the Catalyst. Remember Javik's die-hard hatred of synthetics? Several races could think like that, and engineer the Crucible to target all of them. And we have no idea what it does because we're just following the manual.
I will agree that the Catalyst's ego causes problems. The only way the cycle ends is through the Crucible. Only through the intervention of the races can true peace be achieved. Yet the Catalyst never though to see if maybe the races could help. I blame that on the Leviathan's ego.

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

Simple. You choose to take the CHANCE to forge a bridge with pretty much every ethic trodden upon in the process. If it were a guarantee I might overlook it (probably still won't), but it's not. Every discussion about this subject with synthetic proponents seems to be involved with hindsight.

Either way, it's the 'it's only a small crime' that always gets me worked up. Just accept and come out that you pay a huge price for the bridge, but you think that the end justifies the means.

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.

[KENNY4753]

@Julia- who? I just said a very random thought that pooped into my head

[Blarg]

phillip100 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

This confirms my suspicions. David Gaider is truly evil.

Yeah how dare he choose an ending BSN doesn't like!

I'm going to assume that response was sarcastic, and not serious. In which case, I agree with said sarcasm.

I mean, is it really so bad that one person chose X ending? It doesn't affect you at all, and it is their universe to do what they want in.
It kinda makes me think of the whole "gay marriage disrupts straight marriage" argument. Given, it's a game and isn't on the same level as that argument, but the concept is the same and rather ridiculous.

Can we all just get along?

Modifié par blaaaaaaaaaarg, 02 avril 2013 - 11:09 .

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Simple. You choose to take the CHANCE to forge a bridge with pretty much every ethic trodden upon in the process. If it were a guarantee I might overlook it (probably still won't), but it's not. Every discussion about this subject with synthetic proponents seems to be involved with hindsight.

Either way, it's the 'it's only a small crime' that always gets me worked up. Just accept and come out that you pay a huge price for the bridge, but you think that the end justifies the means.

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.

Only if you believe the catalyst... again it's all hindsight. Why would you believe the catalyst? Before the ending I would simply see shooting a tube next to the catalyst as only destroying the catalyst.

[SmokePants]

Go watch Lincoln. If you can't see how that relates to this whole discussion, then rewatch it until you do. It is not the responsibility of the developers to present the player with clean, ivory tower decisions. Each choice has a cost to it, like pretty much every decision in life. In ME1, you can sacrifice ships to save the council or you can sacrifice the council to save the ships. It would not work if it was simply a choice to save the council or leave them to die. Although, since you never see the sacrificed ships in ME1, I'm sure many viewed it as simply cruelty vs kindness, ignoring that other lives were lost off-screen.

Regarding genocide, most of you are forgetting that the game does not assume that Shepard believes that synthetics are alive. If Shepard does not view them as equal to organics, then he would not view their edestruction as genocide. They're machines and can be rebuilt.

If a particular Shepard does believe them to be alive, then he should probably avoid Destroy. I ouldn't use the term "genocide", though. That word is meant for ethnic cleansing. The killing of members of a racial group for no other reason than being born into the racial group. There is no such thing as "regrettable genocide". People committing genocide do so deliberately and systematically.

Technically, you are committing genocide against the Reapers, if you really insist on using the word. And I'm sure the Batarians view Shepard hurling that asteroid at their colony as an act of genocide. So, I guess you can check the "war criminal" box for Shepard before he even gets to the Catalyst, if you're so inclined.

Modifié par SmokePants, 02 avril 2013 - 11:15 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Simple. You choose to take the CHANCE to forge a bridge with pretty much every ethic trodden upon in the process. If it were a guarantee I might overlook it (probably still won't), but it's not. Every discussion about this subject with synthetic proponents seems to be involved with hindsight.

Either way, it's the 'it's only a small crime' that always gets me worked up. Just accept and come out that you pay a huge price for the bridge, but you think that the end justifies the means.

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.

Destroy is infinitely preferable for reasons I discussed back in my earlier argument. That you dismissed without reading.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 avril 2013 - 11:18 .