265 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfva2]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I've often tried to explain with Destroy that why I can't do it isn't only because of the evils presented by killing so many, but also by the souls torn asunder by this action. Most notably that of Jeff Moreau. I haven't had the will to put to words why I feel the way I do, as I always felt it should have been entirely all too obvious -- obvious that you're not just harming synthetics with this. And why I could never bring myself to do this to Jeff.

This explains it better than I ever could. So have a read of that and come back here.

EDI had become Jeff's raison d'etre, his centre, his very life. When you snuff out EDI, you snuff out Jeff's will to live. Destroy is a dark place, a very dark place. The Mass Effect Universe would be a bleak and depressing place without him, and if you take EDI away from him, then he surely won't be long for this world. This is, indeed, Joker's punchline.

Discuss.

Who are you trying to convince?  First off, so what that people made a decision in a game that you wouldn't.  There are no right or wrong answers here.  Second, I hope you are NEVER in a position where you have to make a choice between saving many at the cost of a few.   You do what is best for the most people; you don't make them suffer for the few just because you're friends with one of them.

The evils of killing so many?  Evil deals with motivation, not action.  Killing isn't evil, the REASON why you kill might be.  If you tracked me down and put a bullet through my head because we disagreed on a forum, THAT could be considered evil.  If you kill me to prevent me from setting off a backpack bomb in a crowded theater, that's most definately NOT evil.  If you kill me knowing that as I die I'm going to detonate a backpack bomb in that crowded theater, but also knowing if you don't kill me I'll make my escape to my hidden lair where I'll detonate a nuke, that also is not evil.  In fact, I'd say inaction is not only weakness, but evil.

So, let's see.  Choices.
1) Synthesis: combine people with machines, linking them together and forever stealing their identity and individuality.
2) Destroy: Kill the reapers, and have a bunch of collatoral damage BUT free the galaxy from a cruel cycle of harvest.  People maintain their individuality and identity.
3) Status quo: do nothing, cycle continues.
4) Control:  Become the Lord High Controller of the Universe, the cycle continues but on your terms.

Which choice is right?  That's up to each of us.  There is no right or wrong answer. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Even if she had, she couldn't very well support her broken leg and fight off husks at the same time. They both would have died.

I got the impression they only needed to hide for a bit 'til the threat had passed, wait it out.

Argolas wrote...

No it's not. It takes an exceptional person to conquer your own fear. If the source of your fear is worth fighting, and that the Reapers are, it's better to do that. And a hell of a lot easier.

We'll have to disagree on that one, then. I don't think people should get what's easiest for them to deal with.

Humans have to learn to overcome their nature, that's how we get better as people.

Same with quarians dealing with geth, who've killed many of their ancestors over a few hundreds of years.

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Argolas wrote...

The point is that we fight.

All the endings "fight." You take down the current, cycle-driven status quo. (Well, except Refuse, but I consider that to be more of a flashy game over screen myself.)

You misunderstand. This is about psychology, not ideology. We don't have to fight "the current, cycle-driven status quo". We have to fight the Reapers.

"The Reapers must be defeated. Not because they threaten death, but because the threat of death makes us die inside."

-Edi

[PsyrenY]

Wolfva2 wrote...

1) Synthesis: combine people with machines, linking them together and forever stealing their identity and individuality.

Wrong.

Wolfva2 wrote...

4) Control:  Become the Lord High Controller of the Universe, the cycle continues but on your terms.

Wrong.

I agree that there is no "best choice," but you should at least understand what they all do before attempting to rank them.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I got the impression they only needed to hide for a bit 'til the threat had passed, wait it out.

But then what? Hillary's leg would still be broken, and evac didn't arrive the next day.

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...

You misunderstand. This is about psychology, not ideology. We don't have to fight "the current, cycle-driven status quo". We have to fight the Reapers.

"The Reapers must be defeated. Not because they threaten death, but because the threat of death makes us die inside."

-Edi

All the endings defeat the Reapers too.

[dreamgazer]

Optimystic_X wrote...

S.A.K wrote...

I am sorry, but Hackett was right. "Dead Reapers are how we win this war"

There is actually a little-seen sequence with Hackett if you talk to him right before storming Cronos Station. You get to ask him "What if the Illusive Man is right, and the Reapers can be controlled?"

His answer there is very interesting. He says "The Illusive Man is the last person alive to give that kind of power to. Kill him, that's an order." This says to me that Hackett is more against Control because of who is at the reins, than on its own merits.

Make sure to include the whole quote when talking about that.

Shepard: What are your thoughts on Cerberus?
Hackett: I think it's obvious by now the Illusive Man is insane. Not that he wasn't always a special form of crazy, but this is getting downright dangerous. And I don't care what he thinks he's proven. There's only one way we defeat the Reapers: no more Reapers.
Shepard: But what if the Reapers really can be controlled?
Hackett: That's like trying to tame a shark: somebody's going to end up dead. In this case, it would be the whole galaxy. He's the worst possible person to give that kind of power to. Kill him. That's an order.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dreamgazer wrote...

Make sure to include the whole quote when talking about that.

Shepard: What are your thoughts on Cerberus?
Hackett: I think it's obvious by now the Illusive Man is insane. Not that he wasn't always a special form of crazy, but this is getting downright dangerous. And I don't care what he thinks he's proven. There's only one way we defeat the Reapers: no more Reapers.
Shepard: But what if the Reapers really can be controlled?
Hackett: That's like trying to tame a shark: somebody's going to end up dead. In this case, it would be the whole galaxy. He's the worst possible person to give that kind of power to. Kill him. That's an order.

Awesome. I've been looking for that (exact dialogue) for some time.

[S.A.K]

dreamgazer wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

S.A.K wrote...

I am sorry, but Hackett was right. "Dead Reapers are how we win this war"

There is actually a little-seen sequence with Hackett if you talk to him right before storming Cronos Station. You get to ask him "What if the Illusive Man is right, and the Reapers can be controlled?"

His answer there is very interesting. He says "The Illusive Man is the last person alive to give that kind of power to. Kill him, that's an order." This says to me that Hackett is more against Control because of who is at the reins, than on its own merits.

Make sure to include the whole quote when talking about that.

Shepard: What are your thoughts on Cerberus?
Hackett: I think it's obvious by now the Illusive Man is insane. Not that he wasn't always a special form of crazy, but this is getting downright dangerous. And I don't care what he thinks he's proven. There's only one way we defeat the Reapers: no more Reapers.
Shepard: But what if the Reapers really can be controlled?
Hackett: That's like trying to tame a shark: somebody's going to end up dead. In this case, it would be the whole galaxy. He's the worst possible person to give that kind of power to. Kill him. That's an order.

Yep and don't forget the rest of what I said.

S.A.K wrote...

I am really sorry about EDI as well as joker. This was the only thing that made me think twice about choosing Destroy.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/crying.png[/smilie]

But
in the end, how many people lost loved once because of the Reapers? How
many trillions of lives? How many civilizations were viped out? How
many of those were people just like EDI and Joker?

I am sorry, but Hackett was right. "Dead Reapers are how we win this war"

It's the only way to make sure Reaper threat is completely gone and I am sure EDI and Joker would approve.

Some
hope : Cerberus was able to bring Shepard back after he died and fell
onto a planet from orbit. With all those smart engineers like Tali out
there, who says EDI can't be saved?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

[PsyrenY]

Right, that part slipped my mind. However, there are shark petting zoos.

More importantly is that Hackett approached the issue the right way - taking umbrage at the person who would be given the Control more than the concept itself.

[Avaraen]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Avaraen wrote...
Synthesis takes away choice and homogensises everyone.

Do you know what homogenize even means? Because that clearly doesn't happen.

homogenise - cause to become equal or homogeneous as by mixing

It pretty clearly happens based on my interpretation of what is displayed
to us, by making everyone into an organic-synthetic being joined in some
unexplained metaphysical way. If you want to argue that point, well,
the synthesis ending is left open to interpretation, and that's how *I*
interpret the "everyone has green circuitry" reality. What do you think
it means?

ETA: quote fail, I think I fixed it... maybe
ETA2: quote fixed for real?

Modifié par Avaraen, 09 mai 2013 - 04:45 .

[AresKeith]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Right, that part slipped my mind. However, there are shark petting zoos.

More importantly is that Hackett approached the issue the right way - taking umbrage at the person who would be given the Control more than the concept itself.

Which is actually the main reason why I wouldn't pick control

[PsyrenY]

Avaraen wrote...

Yes, I know what it means, do you?

Clearly you don't. Does everyone look the same on the slides to you? 

Avaraen wrote...

It pretty clearly happens based on my interpretation of what is displayed to us, by making everyone into an organic-synthetic being joined in some unexplained metaphysical way. If you want to argue that point, well, the synthesis ending is left open to interpretation, and that's how *I* interpret the "everyone has green circuitry" reality. What do you think it means?

I think it means exactly what the Catalyst says it means - we all become a mixture of organic and synthetic components. But even if the synthetic parts we get are all the same, the organic parts already vary from person to person - thus, no homogenization.

In mathematical terms: if you have two numbers, A and B, such that A =/= B, then you add the same number © to both, then A + C =/= B + C. Similarly, if you have two organics who are different from each other, and add the same synthetic components to both, the resulting hybrids will still be different from one another. Just as synth-Jacob still has black skin and synth-Traynor is still female.

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

No it's not. It takes an exceptional person to conquer your own fear. If the source of your fear is worth fighting, and that the Reapers are, it's better to do that. And a hell of a lot easier.

We'll have to disagree on that one, then. I don't think people should get what's easiest for them to deal with.

Humans have to learn to overcome their nature, that's how we get better as people.

Same with quarians dealing with geth, who've killed many of their ancestors over a few hundreds of years.

Let me tell you about one of the most enlightening experiences of my life.

I was in school, reading a section in the history book. The others around me were rather bored, but when I read one particular section, it suddenly got me thinking.

I was already pretty familiar with the topic: Germany in the 1930s, and it was a mere statistics, but it bugged me. After the lesson, I kept thinking about it, and back at home when I lied in my bed I ran out of excuses. I had wondered by myself: What if I, 17 years old, had lived in Germany back in the 1930s? I first liked to think I had been one of those who resisted, but I kept thinking back at how I behaved in certain situations before, in situations where I should at least have said something, but looked away or even went along because it was normal. Sure, I was a few years older now, but that was a weak excuse. I made myself clear what I did and didn't even feel bad about it because the group I hang out with did the same- and that didn't even contain any 'terror' other than becoming a misfit. I realized that it wasn't just a statistic, I realized that if I had lived in Germany in the 1930s, I would have most likely been a N.azi. It scared the s.hit out of me and threw me in the first serious personal crisis I ever had. I just ended up lucky being born in a democracy and being able to read history books. I'm no racist and I can claim to treat everyone around me fair regardless of what they look like and where they are from, but that's not because I'm a good person despite I thought that earlier. There's a monster inside me and I am just lucky that circumstances didn't let it out. I'm not a better person than most of those N.azis back then, and when I look around I think that most others aren't either. 
It would be great if we could change that, but we can't. Most of us aren't heroes and we don't become heroes just by wanting it. I doubt most people are even trying, and I doubt most people could do it.

And that's why I think that as great as it sounds and as much as it is worth trying, fighting the fear in ourself isn't the solution because it won't work for the masses.When what is terrorizing us is worth fighting, that's what we have to do.

Modifié par Argolas, 09 mai 2013 - 05:44 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Avaraen wrote...

Yes, I know what it means, do you?

homogenise - cause to become equal or homogeneous as by mixing

It pretty clearly happens based on my interpretation of what is displayed
to us,

If they've "pretty clearly" become equal, then can you identify which pic below is from Sync and which is not?

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Argolas wrote...

You misunderstand. This is about psychology, not ideology. We don't have to fight "the current, cycle-driven status quo". We have to fight the Reapers.

"The Reapers must be defeated. Not because they threaten death, but because the threat of death makes us die inside."

-Edi

All the endings defeat the Reapers too.

In Synthesis and Control, the Reapers remain the most powerful force in the galaxy.

[PsyrenY]

You are strawmanning. Nobody is saying "don't fight the Reapers." And you are the only one here equating Destroy with "fight the Reapers." Again, all the Crucible endings fight the Reapers. Control and Synthesis simply do so in unconventional ways.

TIM's analogy with EDI and EVA is spot-on; EDI fought her, and defeated her, without destroying her body completely. That didn't mean EVA wasn't defeated.

Argolas wrote...
In Synthesis and Control, the Reapers remain the most powerful force in the galaxy.

They aren't really "Reapers" if they're not reaping anything.


EDIT: Thank you HYR 2.0

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 09 mai 2013 - 04:53 .

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

You are strawmanning. Nobody is saying "don't fight the Reapers." And you are the only one here equating Destroy with "fight the Reapers." Again, all the Crucible endings fight the Reapers. Control and Synthesis simply do so in unconventional ways.

TIM's analogy with EDI and EVA is spot-on; EDI fought her, and defeated her, without destroying her body completely. That didn't mean EVA wasn't defeated.

Control doesn't fight the Reapers, they just switch leaders. Synthesis is appeasement.

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...

Control doesn't fight the Reapers, they just switch leaders. Synthesis is appeasement.

Wrong on both counts.

[Argolas]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Control doesn't fight the Reapers, they just switch leaders. Synthesis is appeasement.

Wrong on both counts.

How so? All I heard about Control was that an AI based on Shepard will command the Reapers now instead of the Catalyst. Synthesis changes life in the way that Reapers consider it tolerable, that's appeasement.

[S.A.K]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Right, that part slipped my mind. However, there are shark petting zoos.

More importantly is that Hackett approached the issue the right way - taking umbrage at the person who would be given the Control more than the concept itself.

Heh! Try taming a shark yourself. Then come back and tell the results. Take pictures...

[PsyrenY]

Argolas wrote...


How so? All I heard about Control was that an AI based on Shepard will command the Reapers now instead of the Catalyst. Synthesis changes life in the way that Reapers consider it tolerable, that's appeasement.

If you take down an army by removing its leader from power, you have defeated that army.

Synthesis is for the galaxy's benefit, not the Reapers. That the Catalyst happens to agree with it is incidental. TIM agreed with taking down the Collectors, did you do it for him?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

EDI being deleted was a tragedy. How many other tragedies did the reapers cause? How many billions of tragedies did they cause in this cycle alone, Wulfie? How many billions of tragedies did the Starbrat cause with its "final solution"?

How many did they cause in all the previous cycles? Rough estimate is around 20 quadrillion. Thats 20,000,000,000,000,000. That's 20 million billion.

Defeating the reapers isn't enough. Destroying them is necessary. Destroying Starbrat is necessary.

[Avaraen]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Avaraen wrote...

Yes, I know what it means, do you?

Clearly you don't. Does everyone look the same on the slides to you? 

You assume that appearance has anything to do with underlying reality. If the Citadel is part of the Catalyst and the Catalyst controls the Reapers, which thinks that the "created will always rebel against their creators" and lumps all organic civilisations into the same category... "Synthetics will destroy all organics" as if there is never any difference between organics.

The Catalyst assumes that all organics are the same. If you give it what it wants by making all organics the same (hybrid synthetic-organic), everything you are is absorbed and sent out, combining all organic and synthetic life into a new DNA... to me, that implies that synthesis homogensises and creates a collective consciousness similar to Geth because it's the only way to avoid the conflict that the Reapers were created to resolve.

The Catalyst doesn't give any indication that individuality is retained, and my interpretation of the ending slides is that it is not. The love interest entity is shown as expressing grief at Shepard's death, but is that an individual grief, or a collective grief? We don't really know. What makes you think the synthesis conveys any individuality?

Also, text is limited, and arguing on the internet... well... I will say this for Bioware - they've done a great job of engaging their audience, considering that over a year later we're still arguing what their mythology means.

ETA: I have a day job and I have to sleep. I might not respond immediately. That doesn't mean you (collective forum "you") win the discussion.

Modifié par Avaraen, 09 mai 2013 - 05:03 .

[PsyrenY]

S.A.K wrote...

Heh! Try taming a shark yourself. Then come back and tell the results. Take pictures...

Mind = blown

[PsyrenY]

Avaraen wrote...

You assume that appearance has anything to do with underlying reality.

It does actually, it's called "phenotype."