553 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.

That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.

When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

I happen to agree with your argument, but perhaps it will strengthen your point if you gave an example (real world or mass effect)

I am geniunely curious where such an interesting debate can go

[ghost9191]

@FlamingBoy

well you can always look at what cerberus was doing to colonist and their troops . sanctuary and such

the genophage.

the morning war .

the battle of the citadel lol

curing the genophage.

choosing geth or qurians

gonna stay away from real world examples.

note: those are the examples. not the reasons why . but all are matter of perspective. cerberus' action more so

Modifié par ghost9191, 24 mai 2013 - 12:44 .

[Redbelle]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't get is why they keep pushing the Synthesis-as-evil thing when it's their problem that they don't get it. Clearly it can be perceived in another way, because many other people do, and there's a mountain of information regarding that in the Synthesis compendium. As I've said before, to see anything evil in Synthesis reflects upon the person, not upon the story.

I think to see evil you have to want to see evil, in which case you tend to see evil with abortion clinics, or smartphones, or computers, or the Internet, or any other technology which has uplifted us above base animals. I mean, the very infrastructure we've created as a society has uplifted us beyond what an animal is capable of -- as I've pointed out, we can phone for medics to come and save a life, we are far above animals because of what we can create.

One day we'll be able to create Synthesis. As I've said, I just see Synthesis as a positive, optimistic, poetic look at what humanity can be if we just stop all the fighting and killing long enough to create a strong infrastructure of understanding. For some people, that's unimaginable, because they might revel in the conflict, and the evils, and the horrors, but I don't. I actually like where our advancements are taking us. I want to think we have the capacity to become something better.

Synthesis is showing us the 'something better,' but some people see Synthesis as a horror because people aren't running around and killing each other. Personally, I see that as kind of screwed up.

where is that " yeeeaahhhhhh" soundclip when you need it?

Technology? Let's back up and get the tech out of the equation...... it is not 'technology' that makes us awesome. Technology is a symptom of a larger afflication........ oppoable thumbs being part of that, but ultimately what humans do that makes us outcompete other species is that we have the ability to think our way around problems. It's the brain that is the root cause of our invention of technology that began the minute a caveman picked up two sticks and rubbed them really hard to make fire.

But it's more than the brain, it's the ambition to keep building. The human race eventually outcompeted just about everything on the planet, (on the condition that a human refuses to compete on the terms of the competitor. Naked Human vs naked  lion? Lion wins. Naked human, up a tree, with a rifle while lion prowls around thinking, 'oooooh, breakfast!' Human wins.) So now that humans can compete on levels above what the natural world has to offer, what is left to compete with?

Each other.

Synthesis, being a great leveler, is not a reason to stop warfare. If anything, it will increase competition. If all life is now synthesised life then it has a commonality that mean's pests and diseases that were once confined to one speices can now cross travel to other species. A disease that hit's a crop now has the potential to travel across to a similar crop, say Dextrose based, that is no longer dextrose based, find similar attachment points to infect that crop and suddenly, due to a reduction in diversity, you lose two crops instead of one.

Medical research would have to be stepped up to find a way to tackle how to stop a potential wave of increased susceptability to diseases that aliens never had to adapt to, being immune thanks to significant differences to their physiology. Meanwhile, while R&D struggles to play catach up, we have the potential for a galaxy wide famine if quarantine fails and a synthesised disease makes it through that was previously, not compatible, but now is as all life has the same DNA.

The short of it, life had adpated and found a balance without synthesis. Synthesis is throwing all that up in the air and trying to sort out the mess that comes after.

I mean..... come on! Synththesis is the solution to Org's and Synth's getting along ONLY!!! The Cat had one problem to solve, how to stop both sides killing each other. It was not tasked to stop both sides from killing each other and....<insert secondary objective here>. Which in this case is to maintain diversity of life so that if a species fails for what ever reason, that reason does not take out all species as diveristy of life will have allowed some species greater resistance to whatever comes along.

The exception to this is the Reaper. A reaper is a military force, not a natural disaster. It exists to hunt.

only if we refuse to change...........lol

But we are always changing. That's the point of who we are as a species. We just cannot sit still and be satisfied with how things are.

The Reapers on the other hand are stagnant. They do their thing and then sit quietly in dark space for 50k years.

If there is a solution to be found with the Org/Synth problem. It will not be the Reapers or the Catalyst who find it as they are stagnant in imagination. Also, the Catalyst has attempted to wipe out the concept of the crucible. Only be grudgingly admit that org's are more resourceful than he gave them credit for in keeping it alive and adding to it more and more.

It's the Reaper's who refuse to change. They only provided the event neccessary to consider change. At the end of ME3 their continued presence in not required as the galaxy has undergone an change of attitude to topics and species when the threat of annialtion became oh so real.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.

That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.

When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

So if everything is objective, is genocide only good or only bad?

And what about letting the Reapers continue unchecked?

[Caldari Ghost]

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't get is why they keep pushing the Synthesis-as-evil thing when it's their problem that they don't get it. Clearly it can be perceived in another way, because many other people do, and there's a mountain of information regarding that in the Synthesis compendium. As I've said before, to see anything evil in Synthesis reflects upon the person, not upon the story.

I think to see evil you have to want to see evil, in which case you tend to see evil with abortion clinics, or smartphones, or computers, or the Internet, or any other technology which has uplifted us above base animals. I mean, the very infrastructure we've created as a society has uplifted us beyond what an animal is capable of -- as I've pointed out, we can phone for medics to come and save a life, we are far above animals because of what we can create.

One day we'll be able to create Synthesis. As I've said, I just see Synthesis as a positive, optimistic, poetic look at what humanity can be if we just stop all the fighting and killing long enough to create a strong infrastructure of understanding. For some people, that's unimaginable, because they might revel in the conflict, and the evils, and the horrors, but I don't. I actually like where our advancements are taking us. I want to think we have the capacity to become something better.

Synthesis is showing us the 'something better,' but some people see Synthesis as a horror because people aren't running around and killing each other. Personally, I see that as kind of screwed up.

where is that " yeeeaahhhhhh" soundclip when you need it?

Technology? Let's back up and get the tech out of the equation...... it is not 'technology' that makes us awesome. Technology is a symptom of a larger afflication........ oppoable thumbs being part of that, but ultimately what humans do that makes us outcompete other species is that we have the ability to think our way around problems. It's the brain that is the root cause of our invention of technology that began the minute a caveman picked up two sticks and rubbed them really hard to make fire.

But it's more than the brain, it's the ambition to keep building. The human race eventually outcompeted just about everything on the planet, (on the condition that a human refuses to compete on the terms of the competitor. Naked Human vs naked  lion? Lion wins. Naked human, up a tree, with a rifle while lion prowls around thinking, 'oooooh, breakfast!' Human wins.) So now that humans can compete on levels above what the natural world has to offer, what is left to compete with?

Each other.

Synthesis, being a great leveler, is not a reason to stop warfare. If anything, it will increase competition. If all life is now synthesised life then it has a commonality that mean's pests and diseases that were once confined to one speices can now cross travel to other species. A disease that hit's a crop now has the potential to travel across to a similar crop, say Dextrose based, that is no longer dextrose based, find similar attachment points to infect that crop and suddenly, due to a reduction in diversity, you lose two crops instead of one.

Medical research would have to be stepped up to find a way to tackle how to stop a potential wave of increased susceptability to diseases that aliens never had to adapt to, being immune thanks to significant differences to their physiology. Meanwhile, while R&D struggles to play catach up, we have the potential for a galaxy wide famine if quarantine fails and a synthesised disease makes it through that was previously, not compatible, but now is as all life has the same DNA.

The short of it, life had adpated and found a balance without synthesis. Synthesis is throwing all that up in the air and trying to sort out the mess that comes after.

I mean..... come on! Synththesis is the solution to Org's and Synth's getting along ONLY!!! The Cat had one problem to solve, how to stop both sides killing each other. It was not tasked to stop both sides from killing each other and....<insert secondary objective here>. Which in this case is to maintain diversity of life so that if a species fails for what ever reason, that reason does not take out all species as diveristy of life will have allowed some species greater resistance to whatever comes along.

The exception to this is the Reaper. A reaper is a military force, not a natural disaster. It exists to hunt.

only if we refuse to change...........lol

But we are always changing. That's the point of who we are as a species. We just cannot sit still and be satisfied with how things are.

The Reapers on the other hand are stagnant. They do their thing and then sit quietly in dark space for 50k years.

If there is a solution to be found with the Org/Synth problem. It will not be the Reapers or the Catalyst who find it as they are stagnant in imagination. Also, the Catalyst has attempted to wipe out the concept of the crucible. Only be grudgingly admit that org's are more resourceful than he gave them credit for in keeping it alive and adding to it more and more.

It's the Reaper's who refuse to change. They only provided the event neccessary to consider change. At the end of ME3 their continued presence in not required as the galaxy has undergone an change of attitude to topics and species when the threat of annialtion became oh so real.

which is why refuse is such a bad option?

[Caldari Ghost]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.

That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.

When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

So if everything is objective, is genocide only good or only bad?

And what about letting the Reapers continue unchecked?

[Redbelle]

Caldari Ghost wrote...




which is why refuse is such a bad option?

Not to belabour the point...... but you just avoided the point I was making, in conjunction with Synthesis.

We are not talking about refuse as the 4th ending. We are talking about the Reapers refusing to advance beyond a point where their own presence is unneccessary. On account that it takes an organic to do a Catalyst's job in building a device, capable of delivering the Catalsyt's dream solution that the Catalyst was resolved to destroy. And the organics and synthetics, working together built it in less than 50k years. Catalsyt.......buuuuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

Clearly, whatever advantages the Catalyst arranged for itself to enjoy are being outcompeted by the natural order of life. And yet it will not change itself or the Reaper operating protocol, despite recognising that it's own defeat is likely unless it alter's it's operating protocol. Yet it does not. This is not the sign of a sentient intelligence, but one trapped within predetermined confines. It knows what is coming. Yet is powerless to do anything about it.

Sooooo, in conjunction with synthesis. The Reapers and the Catlayst are fast becoming an outmodded idea. Yet the Catalyst seem to think it's idea is still a good one, despite it's recognition of it's own falacies. And it's growing need for the orgs it keeps killing off every 50k to get it out of the ever closing spiral of demise....... Shepard on the other hand........ is a tool. For allowing the Cat to walk all over him.

Aaaaaand, in the spirit of Peter Falk. Just one more thing.

Near the start, Liara mention's a missing component. Refered to as the Catalst to make the crucible work.........

The Starbrat walks in and says "I am the Catalyst".

The 'Catalyst' cannot make the crucible work without Shepard.......

So who is really the Catalyst? And who is the credit stealing glory hound who want's to be looked upon as something more than he really is?

Modifié par Redbelle, 24 mai 2013 - 03:56 .

[TheProtheans]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.

That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.

When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

So if everything is objective, is genocide only good or only bad?

And what about letting the Reapers continue unchecked?

We're talking about Synthesis.
You should raise this question in the destroy/refuse thread though.

[Auld Wulf]

What I don't understand is how this is anything more than a bunch of people piddling on someone else's ending choice. Look over the last few pages -- it isn't attacking Synthesis, it's attacking the people who chose Synthesis. Apparently we're all some stereotypical, moustache-twirling definition of evil.

Now, a thread attacking Destroy was locked for doing much less. As such, I'm actually calling the mods out, here, as I know they read this. They can ban me if they like for calling them out, but I must know: Why, exactly, hasn't this thread been locked yet when it's about people attacking Synthesis fans, rather than valid criticisms of Synthesis?

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 24 mai 2013 - 05:40 .

[Wynterdust]

The irony is almost delicious. You can hardly say much when you actively call out half of BSN as murderous luddites.
Most pro-greens openly discuss which is refreshing. Even though I personally disagree with them I find their viewpoints very interesting. You just insult people and claim you are better than everyone....

[Redbelle]

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't understand is how this is anything more than a bunch of people piddling on someone else's ending choice. Look over the last few pages -- it isn't attacking Synthesis, it's attacking the people who chose Synthesis. Apparently we're all some stereotypical, moustache-twirling definition of evil.

OMG! OMG! OMG! Those are the BEST KIND!!!!

Auld Wulf wrote...

Now, a thread attacking Destroy was locked for doing much less. As such, I'm actually calling the mods out, here, as I know they read this. They can ban me if they like for calling them out, but I must know: Why, exactly, hasn't this thread been locked yet when it's about people attacking Synthesis fans, rather than valid criticisms of Synthesis?

  ?


Thus far, asking who was actually the Catalyst...... and pointing out the ineptitude of the Catalyst (or was he/it really? hmmmmmm....)  response to an evolving pattern of life in the galaxy, growing to be better able to combat the threat of the Reapers seems pretty reasonable.

After all. If 50k years is to long, why not drop it down to 49 and a half thousand?

Because..... the Catalyst is like a more genocidal version of GLADOS. It like's a bit of science in it's extinction. Pity it cannot actually use any of what it has learned.

That..... and in the next cycle, can you imagine a group of people saying. "There is a race of murderous machine's waiting in dark space for the right time to strike us"

"When will they descend on us? Perhaps in 50 thousand years?"

"NO!!! 49 and a half, actually".

Modifié par Redbelle, 24 mai 2013 - 06:24 .

[Draguno]

How does synthesis work again? I'm not trying to hate on somebody's ending-choice, but I'm curious since I've never really understood it.

[Redbelle]

tickle267 wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't understand is how this is anything more than a bunch of people piddling on someone else's ending choice. Look over the last few pages -- it isn't attacking Synthesis, it's attacking the people who chose Synthesis. Apparently we're all some stereotypical, moustache-twirling definition of evil.

that's the best kind! (except for evil brits)

Well the British empire was built on the principle of genetic piracy. That's how we discovered the good stuff like tea grown in other parts of the world.

And we did all this piracy with a stiff upper lip! A fancy wig! And Impecable tailoring! All served with an English Accent.

[Iakus]

Draguno wrote...

How does synthesis work again? I'm not trying to hate on somebody's ending-choice, but I'm curious since I've never really understood it.

Organic energy

Shepard's essence

Complete understanding

Final evolution of life

[SpamBot2000]

iakus wrote...


Organic energy

Shepard's essence

Complete understanding

Final evolution of life

In other words: Science! 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 mai 2013 - 06:45 .

[Draguno]

iakus wrote...

Draguno wrote...

How does synthesis work again? I'm not trying to hate on somebody's ending-choice, but I'm curious since I've never really understood it.

Organic energy

Shepard's essence

Complete understanding

Final evolution of life

Oh yeah....organic energy....I remember why I forgot how the Starchild explained it.

[KaiserShep]

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't understand is how this is anything more than a bunch of people piddling on someone else's ending choice. Look over the last few pages -- it isn't attacking Synthesis, it's attacking the people who chose Synthesis. Apparently we're all some stereotypical, moustache-twirling definition of evil.

Now, a thread attacking Destroy was locked for doing much less. As such, I'm actually calling the mods out, here, as I know they read this. They can ban me if they like for calling them out, but I must know: Why, exactly, hasn't this thread been locked yet when it's about people attacking Synthesis fans, rather than valid criticisms of Synthesis?

How ironic. 

If you believe that there's no valid criticisms of synthesis, I'd say that this is the result of selective reading. Plenty of people on various threads have gone on about this and explained their side, and it seems that you've ignored just about all of it. Sure, not everyone is going to be reasonable about it, but don't pretend that everyone is unreasonable. The OP certainly did not attack those in the synthesis crowd. 

But on the flip side, I've seen plenty of references summing up destroyers to be brash, simple-minded people who simply lack understanding of science and the big picture. Much of this is what I've gathered from your own input. You may not say this outright, but you've, on plenty of occasions, called these people stupid and uneducated. 

[PsyrenY]

The key is not to stoop to the level of personal attacks. And yes, Wulf, that includes calling everyone who dislikes Synthesis a luddite, because you know they're not.

But at the same time, it can be a bit tiring to, simply because you're the minority somewhere (and Synthesis is absolutely a minority on BSN) be dogpiled on and have your threads image-spammed into oblivion with no moderator action. I can definitely understand the desire to lash out, to defend oneself from constant attack.

I would just ask all sides here to take a step back and remember that we're all people, and one thing we have in common is our passion for the game. We wouldn't still be here a year later if we didn't have that. Surely that's something to be admired?

Anyway, as I said near the beginning of this thread - there is evil present in all of the endings. How much evil is going to vary from person to person, and ultimately guide our ending choice. None of them is wrong, and Bioware had the grace to go out of their way to show that none of them was wrong, by guaranteeing the Reapers' defeat regardless. Even Refuse has a somewhat happy ending. So let's all drain some of the heat and emotion from our posts when we talk about this stuff.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TheProtheans wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

So if everything is objective, is genocide only good or only bad?

And what about letting the Reapers continue unchecked?

We're talking about Synthesis.
You should raise this question in the destroy/refuse thread though.

Forum rules say I can talk about anything Mass Effect related, regardless the topic at hand.

Destroy/Refuse are plenty relevant AND related to Sync, for that matter, and you know it. Both were talked about ITT.

So, what's it gonna be? Are they good or bad?

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 mai 2013 - 07:18 .

[Redbelle]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The key is not to stoop to the level of personal attacks. And yes, Wulf, that includes calling everyone who dislikes Synthesis a luddite, because you know they're not.

But at the same time, it can be a bit tiring to, simply because you're the minority somewhere (and Synthesis is absolutely a minority on BSN) be dogpiled on and have your threads image-spammed into oblivion with no moderator action. I can definitely understand the desire to lash out, to defend oneself from constant attack.

I would just ask all sides here to take a step back and remember that we're all people, and one thing we have in common is our passion for the game. We wouldn't still be here a year later if we didn't have that. Surely that's something to be admired?

Anyway, as I said near the beginning of this thread - there is evil present in all of the endings. How much evil is going to vary from person to person, and ultimately guide our ending choice. None of them is wrong, and Bioware had the grace to go out of their way to show that none of them was wrong, by guaranteeing the Reapers' defeat regardless. Even Refuse has a somewhat happy ending. So let's all drain some of the heat and emotion from our posts when we talk about this stuff.

Bingo on their being.... if not evil in all endings...... then undesirable outcomes.

And this is where ME3 falls down. Because effort's to influence the ending to remove undesirable outcomes proves impossible.

In ME2 it was possible to remove undesirable outcomes by investing time and effort in the gameplay. ME3's level of investment does not have this type of payoff as ME2's. Leading to the question. How can I invest as much of myself in the game when the resolution pays no heed to my decision making efforts.

Me3 may technically have more war assets than ME2 had loyality missions........ but I'd take a thank you from Miranda for helping save her sister over all those assets any day. It's more personal to the player.

[Draguno]

I have to agree with Optimystic_X. But is there really "evil" in each one of the endings? Don't the ends justify the means in this situation? If you want to wipe out the Reapers, just shoot the tube. If you want to control the Reapers or synthesis everything you just do that. And if you want to refuse just shoot the damn kid.

I certainly don't think people are evil for wanting to make the galaxy a safer place by controlling the most powerful being in the universe or to make everything equal, nor do I think people are genocidal maniacs for killing machines. (Again excuses for my bad english.)

[Nole]

Draguno wrote...

I have to agree with Optimystic_X. But is there really "evil" in each one of the endings? Don't the ends justify the means in this situation? If you want to wipe out the Reapers, just shoot the tube. If you want to control the Reapers or synthesis everything you just do that. And if you want to refuse just shoot the damn kid.

I certainly don't think people are evil for wanting to make the galaxy a safer place by controlling the most powerful being in the universe or to make everything equal, nor do I think people are genocidal maniacs for killing machines. (Again excuses for my bad english.)

I think it is obvious that the idea of the endings is that every option is morally "gray".

[Redbelle]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Draguno wrote...

I have to agree with Optimystic_X. But is there really "evil" in each one of the endings? Don't the ends justify the means in this situation? If you want to wipe out the Reapers, just shoot the tube. If you want to control the Reapers or synthesis everything you just do that. And if you want to refuse just shoot the damn kid.

I certainly don't think people are evil for wanting to make the galaxy a safer place by controlling the most powerful being in the universe or to make everything equal, nor do I think people are genocidal maniacs for killing machines. (Again excuses for my bad english.)

I think it is obvious that the idea of the endings is that every option is morally "gray".

Speaking of gray.... did anyone else notice that the Paragon/Renegade mechanic didn't make as much of an impact in this game?

And can anyone tell me the difference between paragon/renegade, and reputation increases. Cause I keep getting more 'Reputation' and unlike para/rene, I have no idea what reputation 'gets' me.

[Clayless]

FlamingBoy wrote...

Just because morality is subjective, that is not the "be all and end all" excuse to get out of the argument. Its nothing more than a cop-out to get out of the work of actually having to defend your argument with logic and your own personal take (aka subjectiveness) on the issue at hand.

Discussion is the whole point of Mass Effect, Mass Effect was created to explore complex issues, most notably "how to define a life" . The game exists to make you question your self, your morality, and how you define others. If you played Mass Effect and all you can muster from the experience is that its "subjective", then the experience has been a waste of time.

This whole subjective argument... Its a roadblock to intelligent discussion. The word "idiot" comes from the classical Greek "idoites" which essentially means a person who could not part of the public society (they considered this to be very important), the Ancient Greeks (the origins of most of Western Civilization thought) saw debate and arguing in their government as the highest form of intelligence hence if you were an idoites , it essentially means you have no opinion and you are not worth knowing.

If a question is put to you and the only think you can put forth is that "my opinion is subjective" with out finding the root reason of yours or my "subjectiveness" in the first place, From what cultural, political, personal reasons it comes from..... Well... It is better not to post.

How can you say that after reading this thread? You can't dismiss morality being subjective after reading the points made by both sides in this thread, it's as clear as day, and it shows intelligent thought.

Saying it's a dismissal to defend oneself from logic is just pure nonsense.