553 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Stormcutter wrote...
So, uh, the Imperium in name only then? Because the Emperor didn't like aliens much at all. He ceratinly never allied with any sapient ones, not even the Eldar. He had a very clear image of what the universe was going to look like, and it consisted of humanity alone.

Imperium 2.0 basically, it is Shepard after all or some form of Shepard. 

Believe me I know the score with the Imperial history, and honestly I can't think of a way to make that concept work in Mass Effect, not humanity alone anyways.  The other races are too organized and too advanced and aren't as focused on the idea of taking out humanity like the 40K races are. 

note: Leviathan

(not really 'taking out' so much as 'taking IN'.. you know, old habits and Apex race stuff..)

[HiddenInWar]

KaiserShep wrote...

The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

Yep. The only instance where a dark age could be interpreted is the relays and citadel. With no reapers either synergized or under control, both of them being rebuilt is delayed. But that's the key term here, delayed. Not perma-gone. 

[radishson]

dreamgazer wrote...

*squints at thread*

Nah. You kids have fun.

Could an average BSN user justify the evil of beating a dead horse for the thousandth time?

[Clayless]

DarkNova50 wrote...

No, I don't like Husks because they're the worst kind of meat puppet with Reaper tentacles shoved up their asses. You ever wonder why people in the games react badly when they see Dragon's Teeth? The Reapers aren't turning people into Husks because they love them so damn much. Banshees, Brutes, Marauders, Cannibals, Husks, Collectors...they're all horribly mutilated experiments, and there seems to be a common sentiment where people would rather be dead than transformed like that. See Samara's daughter detonating the bomb for one such example.

That's great and all, but I'd rather give them a choice in the matter in whether or not they want to live.

Funny, I don't remember saying that. I remember saying it was better to sacrifice one species so the others had true freedom, rather than preserving them all to take part in some half assed experiment that denies them self determination.

Oh no, they can self-determinate, that's the point. And now so can the husks. Unlike say, the Geth in Destroy.

I'm not hurling abuse at anyone. We're discussing outcomes of a video game, not debating at the UN. I think some people take this stuff too seriously. Feel free to choose whatever ending you like when playing Mass Effect.

If and when this **** goes down for real, though? You and me are gonna have words. *letterbox glare*

I never said you were, and yeah there's always going to be something more important than something else, doesn't mean we can't discuss or debate them.

Don't understand your last sentence.

[MegaSovereign]

mass perfection wrote...

Synthesis literally makes EVERYTHING in the galaxy a Reaper.

Clearly there are some disagreements on what the word "literally" means.

Also, this post is revealing. You see it as evil because your headcanon paints it as evil, while a synthesis "supporter" may have a brighter outlook on the headcanon.

[Aaleel]

HiddenInWar wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

Yep. The only instance where a dark age could be interpreted is the relays and citadel. With no reapers either synergized or under control, both of them being rebuilt is delayed. But that's the key term here, delayed. Not perma-gone. 

Well the Citadel is rebuilt in the ending and most of the slides show people on their home worlds, so obviously everything gets rebuilt after the destroy ending.  I don't know how anyone gets dark-age from the destroy ending.

[Wayning_Star]

radishson wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

*squints at thread*

Nah. You kids have fun.

Could an average BSN user justify the evil of beating a dead horse for the thousandth time?

I personally blame Capture The Flag and it's evil synthesis...

[Astartes Marine]

Wayning_Star wrote...
note: Leviathan

(not really 'taking out' so much as 'taking IN'.. you know, old habits and Apex race stuff..)

Yeah the remnants of the Leviathans would be numero uno on my **** list.  They would be hunted down.

Seriously they're one of the reasons I don't pick Destroy anymore, I consider them that grave of a threat to future galactic stability in the MEU.

[Clayless]

Stormcutter wrote...

I did say IF for a reason.

Also, people are throwing the word 'choice' around a lot and I include myself in this.

Choice is not inherently good. Choosing between being stabbed or shot is not good. Choosing how to react to being tortured is not a choice most people want to encounter. Neither is choosing how to react to a gross violation of the self  very pleasant.

The choices that most people want to encounter are enjoyable ones, like whether to get vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Not 'Should I off myself for being turned into a half-machine monstrosity against my will?'

That's not the kind of choice that is genreally considered morally correct to expose people to. At any rate, I'm out of this thread. It's going downhill rapidly and I want to bail while there's still time.

To everyone else staying here, just remember: Dead Reapers are how we win this.

I disagree. The shot or stabbed analogy doesn't work in this situation, the outcome is always bad, you always get injured and possibly killed.

In this situation the mere fact that the choice is looked upon as being bad doesn't make it bad. They make their choice, rather than other people making it for them and plain executing them. If they want to live and if they want to die it's their choice. It's complex sure, but the person it affects should get to make that decision.

[Wayning_Star]

Aaleel wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

Yep. The only instance where a dark age could be interpreted is the relays and citadel. With no reapers either synergized or under control, both of them being rebuilt is delayed. But that's the key term here, delayed. Not perma-gone. 

Well the Citadel is rebuilt in the ending and most of the slides show people on their home worlds, so obviously everything gets rebuilt after the destroy ending.  I don't know how anyone gets dark-age from the destroy ending.

only because it takes so long and that time isn't explored or the wear of it experienced. Everything gets rebuilt or built in ANY choice, according to the star gazer information. The strange part is that the 'facts' from the them are given a 'disclaimer' as they're not 'all there' and many are lost in time. Even Shepard is a legend, more myth by then...

(opening scene for ME3+ ?!?  )

[Wayning_Star]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...
note: Leviathan

(not really 'taking out' so much as 'taking IN'.. you know, old habits and Apex race stuff..)

Yeah the remnants of the Leviathans would be numero uno on my **** list.  They would be hunted down.

Seriously they're one of the reasons I don't pick Destroy anymore, I consider them that grave of a threat to future galactic stability in the MEU.

Almost as dangerous as claiming that synthesis is "evil"... if you get my drift..

It could be stable what with Levi enthralling the needed. But that pesky rise of competition with their technology is the real threat. It even harvested them, top dog Apex racers.. oop's.

[Stormcutter]

Robosexual wrote...

Stormcutter wrote...

I did say IF for a reason.

Also, people are throwing the word 'choice' around a lot and I include myself in this.

Choice is not inherently good. Choosing between being stabbed or shot is not good. Choosing how to react to being tortured is not a choice most people want to encounter. Neither is choosing how to react to a gross violation of the self  very pleasant.

The choices that most people want to encounter are enjoyable ones, like whether to get vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Not 'Should I off myself for being turned into a half-machine monstrosity against my will?'

That's not the kind of choice that is genreally considered morally correct to expose people to. At any rate, I'm out of this thread. It's going downhill rapidly and I want to bail while there's still time.

To everyone else staying here, just remember: Dead Reapers are how we win this.

I disagree. The shot or stabbed analogy doesn't work in this situation, the outcome is always bad, you always get injured and possibly killed.

In this situation the mere fact that the choice is looked upon as being bad doesn't make it bad. They make their choice, rather than other people making it for them and plain executing them. If they want to live and if they want to die it's their choice. It's complex sure, but the person it affects should get to make that decision.

It just boils down to whether you find stripping 1-2% of the Galaxy of any choice (by instantly killing them) or forcing a choice that a great many will find unpleasant on 100% of the Galaxy to be the more moral option. That's what it comes down to and I find the first choice (Destroy) to be better. We'll just have to agree to disagree if you think otherwise.

Of course, the Geth were gone by the end of Rannoch in my games, so it was a non-issue for me.

Modifié par Stormcutter, 23 mai 2013 - 02:44 .

[Cutlass Jack]

mass perfection wrote...
Synthesis literally makes EVERYTHING in the galaxy a Reaper.

Only if you Literally weren't paying attention to what it does.

What it really does is turn Reapers into cheap laborers. I only see good in making them do all my housework for me.

[Wayning_Star]

Stormcutter wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Stormcutter wrote...

I did say IF for a reason.

Also, people are throwing the word 'choice' around a lot and I include myself in this.

Choice is not inherently good. Choosing between being stabbed or shot is not good. Choosing how to react to being tortured is not a choice most people want to encounter. Neither is choosing how to react to a gross violation of the self  very pleasant.

The choices that most people want to encounter are enjoyable ones, like whether to get vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Not 'Should I off myself for being turned into a half-machine monstrosity against my will?'

That's not the kind of choice that is genreally considered morally correct to expose people to. At any rate, I'm out of this thread. It's going downhill rapidly and I want to bail while there's still time.

To everyone else staying here, just remember: Dead Reapers are how we win this.

I disagree. The shot or stabbed analogy doesn't work in this situation, the outcome is always bad, you always get injured and possibly killed.

In this situation the mere fact that the choice is looked upon as being bad doesn't make it bad. They make their choice, rather than other people making it for them and plain executing them. If they want to live and if they want to die it's their choice. It's complex sure, but the person it affects should get to make that decision.

It just boils down to whether you find stripping 1-2% of the Galaxy of their choice (by instantly killing them) or forcing a choice that a great many will find unpleasant on 100% of the Galaxy to be the moral option. That's what it boils down to and I find the first choice (Destroy) better. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

unfortunately, the technology has a mind of it's own, or soon will have... in ANY event. That is the threat and why the catalyst calls it 'chaos'. Undefined equation.

The crucible engineers apparently found a 'definition'. Shepard has to decide whether to use it or not. Little to no choice really. The star gazers don't elucidate on any given choice as canon, they just say its all over and Shepard, apparently, is a hero of hero's. In the billions of years to the time of the star gazer scene, who knows how many cycles or not were contained in that span? Synthesis could of come and went.. It's just not known for certainty. I suspect that the use of that technology to stop that technology from 'being' that technology. Simply wouldn't work. You have to alter the needs of the organics and the synthetics to obtain the needed understanding. Mainly, a common ground, such as creation. It seems to be what really confuses most sentient/sapient beings of any stripe. Synthesis seems to put the entire MEU on Share.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 23 mai 2013 - 03:06 .

[Wayning_Star]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
Synthesis literally makes EVERYTHING in the galaxy a Reaper.

Only if you Literally weren't paying attention to what it does.

What it really does is turn Reapers into cheap laborers. I only see good in making them do all my housework for me.

actually that's control. Everyone is already cheap labor. Well, the synthetics are..and some space marines..

[Cutlass Jack]

Wayning_Star wrote...

actually that's control. Everyone is already cheap labor. Well, the synthetics are..and some space marines..

Nah its in Synthesis. And even cheaper than Cheap Labor, because they do all your work for free thanks to their 'Guilt Upgrade.'

[dreamgazer]

radishson wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

*squints at thread*

Nah. You kids have fun.

Could an average BSN user justify the evil of beating a dead horse for the thousandth time?

They probably literally could.

(And no, synthesis isn't my bag, baby. But it's all been said before.)

[Saito404]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
Synthesis literally makes EVERYTHING in the galaxy a Reaper.

Only if you Literally weren't paying attention to what it does.

What it really does is turn Reapers into cheap laborers. I only see good in making them do all my housework for me.

ME1: "Reapers are the pinnacle of evolution"
ME3: "Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution"

[Ieldra]

KaiserShep wrote...
The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

I posted about that. My point was that rebuilding the relays should reasonably take a few centuries, if it was at all possible, and that at least for those centuries, the civilizations are limited to non-relay FTL or any new tech they could develop. 

Having the relays gone is most thematically appropriate for Destroy. That means there will be a time period where galactic civilization is somewhat fragmented until new technology is developed. No other technology except the relays will be affected. If you call that a dark age, then yes, I say a dark age is thematically appropriate. The epilogue may suggest otherwise, but it's still a reasonable interpretation. Note that I'm not saying it's the *only* reasonable one.

[Ryzaki]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Sentient husks doesn't sound beautiful to me, rather it sounds like something out of the minds of John Carpenter or Clive Barker. Nightmarish.

Agreed.

Which makes EDI endgame speech even creepier.

She has become one of them.

*shivers*

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

I posted about that. My point was that rebuilding the relays should reasonably take a few centuries, if it was at all possible, and that at least for those centuries, the civilizations are limited to non-relay FTL or any new tech they could develop. 

Having the relays gone is most thematically appropriate for Destroy. That means there will be a time period where galactic civilization is somewhat fragmented until new technology is developed. No other technology except the relays will be affected. If you call that a dark age, then yes, I say a dark age is thematically appropriate. The epilogue may suggest otherwise, but it's still a reasonable interpretation. Note that I'm not saying it's the *only* reasonable one.

It's not the only reasonable interpretation indeed. That's why I believe the relays are repaired very rapidly. The damage to the relays is never really specified, and I believe that minus putting them back together, there's really nothing wrong with them past pressing the restart button.

That said, I sacrifice time for rebuilding of worlds to rebuilding of relays. I think it's going to take decades to rebuild the homeworlds and the colonies of the galaxy. 

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

I posted about that. My point was that rebuilding the relays should reasonably take a few centuries, if it was at all possible, and that at least for those centuries, the civilizations are limited to non-relay FTL or any new tech they could develop. 

Having the relays gone is most thematically appropriate for Destroy. That means there will be a time period where galactic civilization is somewhat fragmented until new technology is developed. No other technology except the relays will be affected. If you call that a dark age, then yes, I say a dark age is thematically appropriate. The epilogue may suggest otherwise, but it's still a reasonable interpretation. Note that I'm not saying it's the *only* reasonable one.

Ieldra2, are we in a dark age right now?

Anyway, I disagree, an age without the relays may turn out to be salutary, as people would now invest in new means to travel, to develop own technology, u know, technology that they could rely on. People will look to science for answers with renewed interests, thus bringing enlightenment into a new scientific age

Modifié par Vigilant111, 23 mai 2013 - 08:05 .

[Ieldra]

Stormcutter wrote...
It just boils down to whether you find stripping 1-2% of the Galaxy of any choice (by instantly killing them) or forcing a choice that a great many will find unpleasant on 100% of the Galaxy to be the more moral option. That's what it comes down to and I find the first choice (Destroy) to be better. We'll just have to agree to disagree if you think otherwise.

That's not the only consideration. There are the remnants of civilizations preserved in the Reapers. If you think they're alive in some way and enslaved by the Catalyst - and the story heavily suggests that they are - then they deserve some consideration.

As for forcing a choice, my stance is this: Taking only Destroy and Synthesis into account, it is justifiable to force such a choice because Destroy does irrepairable damage which can be avoided by choosing Synthesis and the results of Synthesis can reasonably expected to have no bad effects. Being partly synthetic is not bad from any rational point of view, regardless of how people feel about it. In this situation where the future of the galaxy hangs in the balance, I don't feel like sacrificing the best future for the galaxy in order to pander to the irrational prejudices of a few bioconservatives. Yes, I am violating people's autonomy to some degree, but the alternative is to kill a whole species. 

Pitting Synthesis against (Paragon) Control is a much thornier issue. Yet again, from a rational point of view Paragon Control is the ethically least problematic decision. Nobody dies, and the epilogue suggests that the new Control entity acts as a benevolent protector who ensures that everyone has a voice in shaping the future. I would feel compelled to choose Control every single time, where it not for the thematic implication that "we need a god-like authority figure to protect us from ourselves". Those thematic concerns cannot be simply brushed away because this is a story, and we cannot, and should not forget that it is - there is a message in these things, and a suggestion.  

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
The insistence that destroy brings about a new dark age of some kind is flat out wrong. The epilogue confirms this.

I posted about that. My point was that rebuilding the relays should reasonably take a few centuries, if it was at all possible, and that at least for those centuries, the civilizations are limited to non-relay FTL or any new tech they could develop. 

Having the relays gone is most thematically appropriate for Destroy. That means there will be a time period where galactic civilization is somewhat fragmented until new technology is developed. No other technology except the relays will be affected. If you call that a dark age, then yes, I say a dark age is thematically appropriate. The epilogue may suggest otherwise, but it's still a reasonable interpretation. Note that I'm not saying it's the *only* reasonable one.

Ieldra2, are we in a dark age right now?

Anyway, I disagree, an age without the relays may turn out to be salutary, as people would now invest in new means to travel, to develop own technology, u know, technology that they could rely on. People will look to science for answers with renewed interests, thus bringing enlightment into a new scientific age

Absolutely. That's why I said a relay-less post-Destry future is more interesting than one with relays. I think you misunderstand what I was getting at. However, getting results and new technology will take time. In that time, civilizations will be limited to non-relay FTL. This time will be "dark" in the sense that galactic civilization will not be a closely connected whole but fragmented into influence spheres of each species with sparse contact between those spheres. It will be a classic SF scenario, and I can see civilization inspired by a renewed spirit of exploration that the relays suffocated. There will be things like a famous expedition around the galaxy by asari explorers, taking 50-80 years, which isn't all that long for an asari. This is a *good* scenario, not the dark age of the original endings.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2013 - 08:12 .

[Caldari Ghost]

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

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

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

unless there is something major i missed, synthesis seems to be the most resonable and considerate choice. also, least selfish and arrogant. and petty. and short-sighted.