233 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Alien Number Six wrote...

knightnblu wrote...
Buddy, you don't want a piece of me. I have an extremely low tolerance for idiots and you are beginning to annoy me. I suggest that you quit while this is still peaceful.

 

I can hear the flexing of internet muscles.

I was thinking e-peen, myself.

[PMC65]

Faerloch wrote...

 I don't think synthesis is a big deal.

Happening in 2013, the idea is appalling. But, a 170 years from now, a substantial amount of humans will already use biotic implants. Synthetic parts rebuilt Shepard. The way I see it, synthesis doesn't turn humans into machines, it optimizes them--oh darn this argument is just stupid. Synthesis was a weak ending. But really I always envisioned synthesis as upgrading the processing speed of the human brain to that of a machine's. Organic needs, social needs, all stay the same, we just think faster now with a RedBull VI brain enhancement that increases reaction time and sexual briefness. 

Thanks machines. 

And that is why the choice of synthesis is bad! Bad, I tell you!

Oh, wait. This is one of those ending threads ... as in, the endings that I have thrown out as crap. All of them.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yep. Hipster elitists like me enjoy the uncomfortable stuff.

Which is a problem for you this time. In the future it will probably be a problem for me.

No offense, but I really hope so

[Maxster_]

knightnblu wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

I hate that, some one writes a huge essay with love and someone comes around saying its "baseless" (which has become the new "subjective" of getting out of the argument) avoiding to talk about it.

You don't know knightnblu.

Any ole foo' can type an essay, doesn't make it good.

Also, I'm not avoiding further discussion. I'm actively seeking it. My needs have not been attended to ITT.

And you do?


I know you though. You are the person that just drives by and takes a dump on whatever you please because it makes you feel better about yourself. You have to do so because it is the only way that you can feel important and relevant. That is why you never address any of my points, that is why you do not argue, and that is why you just vomit up whatever simple minded adjectives you can think of and disappear. It is your way of saying "I matter."
 
Oh yeah, I know you.

He always behaves like that.

[Reorte]

knightnblu wrote...

First, there is no guarantee that Shepard, a mortal, will retain his sanity on a time scale he was never designed to handle (nature/God take your pick). Further, he will have the Catalyst forever whispering in his ear about how order is necessary to preserve peace (the old "Yo Dog! I created synthetics to kill you every 50,000 years so you don't have to worry about being killed by synthetics" shtick). Therefore, there is no guarantee that Shepard will retain his sanity for the limitless time that remains ahead of him. Further, the Reapers escape answering for their innumerable war crimes and crimes against life itself.

I'm not sure that's really a moral part though. Control is risky  (it's highly unlikely that the equipment to create and run an accurate simulation of Shepard just happens to be sitting there, even before you consider the other issues) but does that make it a moral question? Personally I'm not so sure.

I don't buy the justice thing either, it sounds more like revenge to me. Not that I'm at all bothered about revenge on the Reapers but if Control really changes them then they're no longer the same things and you cannot meaningfully complain about justice. If it doesn't change them then it implies that they weren't masters of their own actions anyway (which the whole Catalyst nonsense suggests, in complete contradiction to the rest of the trilogy) and there's no meaningful justice to be had either. If it puts them under control but they are otherwise unchanged then that enslavement could be argued to be justice - but if that's the case then you're constantly forcing them to comply, and that makes the whole thing insanely dangerous.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...

I'm not sure that's really a moral part though. Control is risky  (it's highly unlikely that the equipment to create and run an accurate simulation of Shepard just happens to be sitting there, even before you consider the other issues) but does that make it a moral question? Personally I'm not so sure.

I can see a moral question. If we're morally responsible for the consequences of our actions -- we're not going full Kantian here, that is -- then we're responsible for the risks we run too. So it's certain losses on the one side, versus an unknown probability of a transcription error with unknown but conceivably very bad consequences, and no good way to assign percentages.

I don't have a good way objective standard to resolve that question. I'm not sure anyone does. One answer would be that Shepard shouldn't take any chances. Consistently practice that throughout ME and you'lll be quite the Renegade. Which isn't a bad thing, of course.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juin 2013 - 07:49 .

[Jukaga]

iakus wrote...



We can and we will apply "quaiint 21st century definitions of morality" because we live in the 21st century and this is a 21st century game.  And if the game fails to let the player operate within those definitions, then it has failed.  I, for one do not play games to indulge my inner sociopath.  Nor perform incredible contortions of logic to make my choices feel acceptable:

How? We have never faced (or likely will face) such a problem ever in our history. I posit that the Reaper invasion is such a Big Deal that any option for dealing with them and ending the harvest is on the table, personal morals and ethics be damned.

[Jukaga]

knightnblu wrote...

Then there is Destroy. Unlike the first two choices, Destroy actually delivers the Reapers to justice. Life is freed from the cycles of extinction, but the price is EDI and the Geth. EDI and the Geth entered this conflict knowing that death was a possibility, as did the organics. Shepard asks nothing of them that he does not personally pay himself. The threat of the Reapers is also forever ended and life and evolution are free to continue.
 

I almost always choose destroy, but not for the element of 'justice' you speak of. How do you bring a hurricane or a wildfire to justice? I prefer it because it ends the Reapers on our terms and gives us the future to determine for ourselves and everyone else. But I'll still defend Control and Synthesis on the basis that they both clearly work to end the harvest. What comes next? Who really knows in either case, or even with Destroy. Maybe the Catalyst is correct and our children will develop synthetics that revolt and start the whole mess all over again. I guess my point is none of the endings are 'perfect' but they all accomplish the only immediate goal that matters: ending the harvest. There is just no way to account for all the variables on what may happen afterwards, but to me that is irrelevant at that crisis stage.