233 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

Note:This thread is not for Synthesis hate,but just questioning BW on the ending.


 I feel like BW didn't notice how unethical Synthesis while they were writing it or If they did notice,then why would they present it as the "best" ending?

If the former,then how did you miss that unless it's some coincidence that makes our parallel universe special.

If the latter,how do you guys justify being unethical,anti-freedom meanies?

[Cainhurst Crow]

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 juin 2013 - 07:49 .

[mass perfection]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Ifthey want to die,let them die.What is this natural disaster you're talking about?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

mass perfection wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Ifthey want to die,let them die.What is this natural disaster you're talking about?

The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.

But then, I also think Bioware did a bad job of making Synthesis seem monstrous.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 juin 2013 - 07:55 .

[Iakus]

I'd ask that question about all the endings

[mass perfection]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Ifthey want to die,let them die.What is this natural disaster you're talking about?

The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.

But then, I also think Bioware did a bad job of making Synthesis seem monstrous.

Synthesis=Reaper victory.The other things you said seems to imply that you need to learn more about the Reapers and the Bratalyst.

[mass perfection]

iakus wrote...

I'd ask that question about all the endings

Synthesis is just so horrible,people seem to forget about the other endings.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

mass perfection wrote...

Synthesis=Reaper victory.

Hey, if you're so spiteful that you'd rather condemn everyone to death, go for it. The Reaper solution means everyone dies. No one is given the choice whether they want death or not. The goal of this war was to survive the cycle. At least in Synthesis scenarios, everyone can make their own choice between living and dying, so I'd say there's elements of victory in that. That's one more options than the Reapers give you.

The other things you said seems to imply that you need to learn more about the Reapers and the Bratalyst.

Try me.

[CronoDragoon]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.
 

This presupposes a binary choice of Synthesis or Refuse.

In any case, I take it the question deals with the fact that Synthesis is presented as the best choice, from being introduced last, being front and center and all shiny, and (Shepard surviving in Destroy aside) the one that is the hardest to get. I think BW - or certain writer(s) - believed that many players would see Synthesis as the best solution for everybody.

[mass perfection]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Synthesis=Reaper victory.

Hey, if you're so spiteful that you'd rather condemn everyone to death, go for it. The Reaper solution means everyone dies. No one is given the choice whether they want death or not. The goal of this war was to survive the cycle. At least in Synthesis scenarios, everyone can make their own choice between living and dying, so I'd say there's elements of victory in that. That's one more options than the Reapers give you.

The other things you said seems to imply that you need to learn more about the Reapers and the Bratalyst.

Try me.

You're not worth my time.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.
 

This presupposes a binary choice of Synthesis or Refuse.

In any case, I take it the question deals with the fact that Synthesis is presented as the best choice, from being introduced last, being front and center and all shiny, and (Shepard surviving in Destroy aside) the one that is the hardest to get. I think BW - or certain writer(s) - believed that many players would see Synthesis as the best solution for everybody.

True, but I did outline that in my first post: "compared to an empty galaxy". If people are comparing it to other options, then that's another question. But then the OP does talk about being anti-freedom, which could also be used to describe a player who chooses to exterminate the Geth/EDI. The endings really are choose your galactic atrocity.

[mass perfection]

CronoDragoon wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.
 

This presupposes a binary choice of Synthesis or Refuse.

In any case, I take it the question deals with the fact that Synthesis is presented as the best choice, from being introduced last, being front and center and all shiny, and (Shepard surviving in Destroy aside) the one that is the hardest to get. I think BW - or certain writer(s) - believed that many players would see Synthesis as the best solution for everybody.

That's exactly what I think.BW must have assumed everyone would love Synthesis,but that backfired on them.

[Cainhurst Crow]

mass perfection wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Synthesis=Reaper victory.

Hey, if you're so spiteful that you'd rather condemn everyone to death, go for it. The Reaper solution means everyone dies. No one is given the choice whether they want death or not. The goal of this war was to survive the cycle. At least in Synthesis scenarios, everyone can make their own choice between living and dying, so I'd say there's elements of victory in that. That's one more options than the Reapers give you.

The other things you said seems to imply that you need to learn more about the Reapers and the Bratalyst.

Try me.

You're not worth my time.

Big words on the internet, nothing ever changes.

[Ticonderoga117]

Did they think about anything dealing with the ending? Hell no.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

mass perfection wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Synthesis=Reaper victory.

Hey, if you're so spiteful that you'd rather condemn everyone to death, go for it. The Reaper solution means everyone dies. No one is given the choice whether they want death or not. The goal of this war was to survive the cycle. At least in Synthesis scenarios, everyone can make their own choice between living and dying, so I'd say there's elements of victory in that. That's one more options than the Reapers give you.

The other things you said seems to imply that you need to learn more about the Reapers and the Bratalyst.

Try me.

You're not worth my time.

A damn shame. I thought we could have some fun together.

[KaiserShep]

It's been said before that the narrative doesn't gel with this option, but I guess it bears repeating that a huge problem with it is that we built up to this moment under the idea that the galaxy can unite and put aside its differences, only to have a detestable character waltz up to us out of left field and tell us we were just kidding ourselves. Each and every option is essentially a dismantling of the character that brought everyone to fight alongside you to save the galaxy.

I'm sure they thought about this. After all, if you pick a certain dialogue option, Shepard criticizes and ultimately refuses this option, though without any real elaboration on this objection. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juin 2013 - 08:10 .

[Enhanced]

mass perfection wrote...

Note:This thread is not for Synthesis hate,but just questioning BW on the ending.


 I feel like BW didn't notice how unethical Synthesis while they were writing it or If they did notice,then why would they present it as the "best" ending?

If the former,then how did you miss that unless it's some coincidence that makes our parallel universe special.

If the latter,how do you guys justify being unethical,anti-freedom meanies?

"unethical, anti-freedom?"
 
What part shows or implies that?

Modifié par Enhanced, 18 juin 2013 - 08:09 .

[dreamgazer]

They knew the ending was going to be controversial, so I'd say yes, they did.

[thehomeworld]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Katrina isn't even remotely comparable sythisis isn't even a disastor. There is no warning it's not an elemental event  to 99% of everybody the only one who knows its going to happen is shep but even still this doesn't occur till after their death anyway. There is no warning it's galaxy wide and it changes people not just on a mental level but physically down to their atoms their base building blocks Humans, aliens, plants, and animals are all now cyborgs as well. Sythesis is just the worst writting I've even seen worse then the modern the day the world stood still.

It's not just forcing cyborgnization on everybody reguardless of weather they're those biotic bugs or an Asari its also the fact that now everyone is not only canibles when they consum food but they're also slave holders towards their omnitools and kiosks. Really nothing good is done by making this choice the only race I can say that was headed towards sythisis anyhow is the Deus Ex HR and the cylons from BSG both which aren't in the ME world but if your species was actively doing what either of those species was doing and making themselves into cyborgs anyhow the next step would be like Syndicate or Remember Me which is close but not even to the hard core level sythesist actualy is.

[CronoDragoon]

dreamgazer wrote...

They knew the ending was going to be controversial, so I'd say yes, they did.

But I'm pretty sure they said that after the test groups for the endings? I don't think they believed Synthesis was controversial when they were brainstorming it.

[Maxster_]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Ifthey want to die,let them die.What is this natural disaster you're talking about?

The Reapers?

Personally, I don't see the problem with Synthesis, at least compared to an empty galaxy, which is what the Reapers want. Anyone so disgusted with their body in the post-Reaper universe still has the option to kill themselves. If the Reapers win, no one has the option of choosing Synthesis.

But then, I also think Bioware did a bad job of making Synthesis seem monstrous.

Is submission is preferable to extinction? There once was some turian named Saren, who answered like you did.
Anyway, you just said reapers already won, because they are setting the terms of surrender. Shepard is forced to unconditional surrender to a whim of an insane entity, under the threat of death.
Really, it is not a heroic adventure type of story anymore. And a badly written one, also.

[Cainhurst Crow]

mass perfection wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

Ifthey want to die,let them die.What is this natural disaster you're talking about?

In the real world? Hurricanes, volcanos, tornados, floods, all that kind of stuff. And these people arne't choosing death, they're choosing to stay. Their mentality, as it is presented, is simply "you people are overreacting, nothings going to happen to me if I stay here". And than when bad things happen, they're the first to say that the goverment or society or whatever higher power they want to blame is responsible for the bad things happening to them.

How does it relate to the endings? Well, "We can fight the reapers toe to toe, nothing bad will happen to us as long as we fight on our own terms." mentality seems highly prevelant in many people who denounce synthesis. Destroy is saying "**** the people, victory matters more" and preforming genocidal mathematics, which is unfortunate but neccisary in picking the choice. Control has it's own problems, though not so pronounced. It is saying that we need someone of higher power to help us, which is the case in rapidly speeding up rebuilding the galaxy, but also results in one person having a lot of power. This isn't inherantly bad, but it does have the potential to be bad, same with the other 2 options. And refuse is pretty bad all on it's own.

This is a war though, and wars are rarely won where any side can say "We didn't act unethically and we came out alright". I mean, just look at what it took to end WWII, the allies needed to let a power hungry dictator who we hated take over almost half a continent, and allowed the creation of mass production of the most powerful and destructive weapon known to man as of yet and to be used against japan's civilians in order to finally win. Even the current state of peace is because both sides were given massively destructive weapons which if any side delpoyed, would result in the destruction and death of every living thing on the planet.

[Seival]

mass perfection wrote...

Did BW even think about how unethical Synthesis would be when they were writing it?

There are no universal ethical rules.
Personally, I find Synthesis ethical, and there are a lot of people who have the same opinion.

[dreamgazer]

CronoDragoon wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

They knew the ending was going to be controversial, so I'd say yes, they did.

But I'm pretty sure they said that after the test groups for the endings? I don't think they believed Synthesis was controversial when they were brainstorming it.

Why not? They've addressed gray-area decisions about genocide (the rachni), morally questionable tech research (the Collector Base), and broad genetic modification (the altered genophage) before.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 18 juin 2013 - 08:17 .