233 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Seival wrote...

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.

I find none of the options ethical, and I'm okay with that.

So I guess the options are all more or less equally ethical in my opinion.

[KaiserShep]

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.

This is not a valid comparison in the least. For starters, you're comparing the projection of an event that can be determined to occur within a very short period of time based on data given, to the prediction of behavior of entire worlds of people over an undetermined span of time. How do you predict how they will behave? How do you prove that a disaster is imminent? Because it happened thousands of years ago? This is grossly insufficient. 

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

[commander root657]

KaiserShep wrote...

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. 

This, not to mention said detestable character's nature creates a plothole with mass effect 1...

[AresKeith]

I was wondering when Seival showed up

[CronoDragoon]

dreamgazer wrote...

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.

Because then why bother to present a "best option?" Why not have stronger objections to it - either in the OEs OR in the EC?

If this were similar to the Collector Base decision, for example, then they should have had all 3 choices spread equidistant around the elevator on which Shepard arrives, or something. Although it's difficult to compare this choice to others since it abandons the P/R system.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 18 juin 2013 - 08:21 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Maxster_ wrote...

Is submission is preferable to extinction? There once was some turian named Saren, who answered like you did.  

And he was right, I would say, if given a single choice between those two alternatives.

Anyway, you just said reapers already won, because they are setting the terms of surrender.

Well, if you want to prevent the Reapers from winning, choose Destroy, which throws a complete wrench into everything the Catalyst wants. Synthesis (or even Control) provides a method that both the Reapers and organics get something of their goals. We wanted to survive the Cycle, they wanted to address the B.S. Organic-Synthetic conflict. Both are technically done via Synthesis, no matter how insane.

Shepard is forced to unconditional surrender to a whim of an insane entity, under the threat of death.

Well, I wouldn't call it unconditional. That would be if the Catalyst could dictate all the terms. He does not have the ability to say "Synthesis or die", for example. I was just illustrating that Synthesis is still a better option than Refuse.

Really, it is not a heroic adventure type of story anymore. And a badly written one, also.

Very much so.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 juin 2013 - 08:23 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Seival wrote...

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.

Forcing people to change thier bodies and minds is NOT ethical. The fact that people think this is ok disturbs me.

[jacob taylor416]

Ethics are a bad way to base something off of, I've been called unethical and immoral many times because I'm an outspoken atheist and trans-humanist, but I personally despise synthesis because of how little we know about it, how much it could do and that we have no control over the matter.

Modifié par jacob taylor416, 18 juin 2013 - 08:24 .

[Steelcan]

Its dark and edgy which is what Im sure they were going for.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

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

I think what they were expecting versus what they got as a reaction were two very different things.

Later "clarifying" statements about some issues, not to mention the fact that a lot of these important issues needed to be addressed at all (many of which weren't) tells me that they really didn't know that there were problems with their idea of the concept. 

I think they got too focused on their own idea of what synthesis was and how it should be to them and how it was to be carried out.

I believe they expected controversy, but I think they were expecting a different kind of controversy. I don't think they were expecting the massive, near outright universal rejection of their original concept. Especially considering how little they actually define anything or show any difference between the endings.

In the original ending, isn't it only something like 4 minutes long, showing nothing of what happened and what happened where or what happened to who. I don't get how BW can think the Original Ending would have been good or even adequate. 

They literally raised more questions than answers, without answering any of the key issues that people wanted to see addressed in the game.

All for "speculation". As it is given in the game, I think speculation = laziness + arrogance of the writers.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Seival wrote...

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.

Forcing people to change thier bodies and minds is NOT ethical. The fact that people think this is ok disturbs me.

Can you prove it changed their minds? I mean forcibly changed them, and not just made them aware of new information they hadn't been aware of before.

This has always been why people who criticize or denounce synthesis bothered me so much. There's a lot of assumptions that negative things are going on to people, but theres little actual evidence of this. It's like saying that because someone who didn't belive in global warming before learned of new information that convinced him it was real, that he had his mind forcibly altered and that it was unethical to show him that new information.

I'm not going to defend synthesis by much at all, it's not the option I particularly like, but this kind of talk still rubs me the wrong way and seems kinda disingenuous.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 juin 2013 - 08:27 .

[KaiserShep]

The only option that has the least questionable ethics, technically, would be control. The problem with it is that you basically do a complete turnaround on Shepard's insistence that it's not worth risking everyone's lives for it. Realistically (ironic, I know), control would be rejected by any normal person, because the one and only advocate for it was a crazy indoctrinated bastard that tries to kill you, not to mention the little annoying factoid that the genocidal thingamabobs are still active, and all it requires is your zapping suicide.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juin 2013 - 08:29 .

[Arcian]

Seival wrote...

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.

So if someone finds it ethical to wipe out all africans with a selective virus to "free up" the world's resources and thus save the other races, they should just go ahead and do it? Because to them, it's ethical?

That's a pretty flimsy way to think, Seival.

[Steelcan]

I tire of ending debates over Such trivial things like morality. Some people like Synthesis, others MEHEM, I like Destroy and Control. CAM we move on to discussion the implications of this choice? That is a much more interesting topic

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Seival wrote...

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.

Forcing people to change thier bodies and minds is NOT ethical. The fact that people think this is ok disturbs me.

Well, I think where the debate arises is when given choices between multiple atrocities, which is the most ethical? But no, on its own, I don't think changing everything about a person willy nilly is a nice thing to do. See Adam Jensen.

[Cainhurst Crow]

KaiserShep 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.

This is not a valid comparison in the least. For starters, you're comparing the projection of an event that can be determined to occur within a very short period of time based on data given, to the prediction of behavior of entire worlds of people over an undetermined span of time. How do you predict how they will behave? How do you prove that a disaster is imminent? Because it happened thousands of years ago? This is grossly insufficient. 

Here's a disaster based on data, the reapers have a success rate of 100% for every cycle they have harvested until now. Unless something is done to make them no longer capable or willing to harvest us, than the likelihood of us failing to stop them from killing and harvesting us is astronomical.

I would rather take advantage of the catalyst stupidity in handing me a means of ending the war, than turn my nose up to it because he gave it to me. Better to take his gift and turn it against him than let a perfect oppurtunity to stop the war pass.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 juin 2013 - 08:30 .

[Steelcan]

@Darth Brotanian,

Wreav is forcibly altered it seems.

[wright1978]

I really don't think they considered the possibility that many people would consider it to be galactic genetic rape. But then the whole ending is a shoddy trainwreck imo.

[Maxster_]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Is submission is preferable to extinction? There once was some turian named Saren, who answered like you did.  

And he was right, I would say, if given a single choice between those two alternatives.

Things, Shepard has become something he fought against in ME1, by the whim of writers. And that is one of the reasons why ME3's ending is hated.

Anyway, you just said reapers already won, because they are setting the terms of surrender.

Well, if you want to prevent the Reapers from winning, choose Destroy, which throws a complete wrench into everything the Catalyst wants. Synthesis (or even Control) provides a method that both the Reapers and organics get something of their goals. We wanted to survive the Cycle, they wanted to address the B.S. Organic-Synthetic conflict. Both are technically done via Synthesis, no matter how insane.

No, my friend.
Catalyst already won, and he sets all terms. But he, as is his creators, obviously insane, and have no sense of self-preservation.
That is the only reason why destroy option exists.
Things is - there is no "problem" at all, reapers are the problem they pretend they fixes.

Shepard is forced to unconditional surrender to a whim of an insane entity, under the threat of death.

Well, I wouldn't call it unconditional. That would be if the Catalyst could dictate all the terms. He does not have the ability to say "Synthesis or die", for example. I was just illustrating that Synthesis is still a better option than Refuse.

Simple - he is insane.

[Arcian]

J. Reezy wrote...

Who cares if they were thinking about ethics when they implemented the Synthesis ending? It's not like someone's going to have trouble sleeping at night if they pick it...right?

It's the people who pick it who give everyone else trouble sleeping at night.

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I think they were probably high on shrooms when the Synthesis ending was written.

I take it shrooms is another word for Deus Ex: HR?

Modifié par Arcian, 18 juin 2013 - 08:34 .

[Steelcan]

The Catalyst thinks he has won. He seems to believe that Shepard will jump into the beam like a cartoon lemming. He thinks that his logic is undeniable and self evident, he acquieses that Destroy is possible, but does not consider it a solution.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Arcian wrote...

Seival wrote...

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.

So if someone finds it ethical to wipe out all africans with a selective virus to "free up" the world's resources and thus save the other races, they should just go ahead and do it? Because to them, it's ethical?

That's a pretty flimsy way to think, Seival.

But seival is right in at least this point, ethics aren't universal, same with laws. We come up with concepts of ethics, and laws, and morals, in the current system and present them as universal and ever lasting, but this isn't the case.

Now please bear with me now, because I know it does sound crazy, but ethics don't really exist. If someone violates ethics, and no one is around to object to it, what exactly happens to the person who violated that ethical code? Nothing. If ethics were universal, something would happen to that person upon violating those ethical rules, but it doesn't.

If you look back on all the things that were considered ethical in the past, discrimination, slavery, witch burnings, torture, religious killings, all of these things, you would see how little ethics actually mean when others don't agree with you.

[His Name was HYR!!]

 It is somewhat immoral, but I also believe that general concern is overblown.

Then again, my understand of what it is/what it does is different than what others think.

What I understand of it is that organics gain certain capabilities from the outcome. There is no choice in accepting or rejecting it, which one can raise issue with. However, if you do not desire it, all you're left with is funny tattoos and contact lens.

Small price to pay for ending the cycle, IMO.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 18 juin 2013 - 08:36 .