233 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Steelcan wrote...

@Darth Brotanian,

Wreav is forcibly altered it seems.

Do we know that?

Like from twitter or something or word from the writers?

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 juin 2013 - 08:39 .

[dreamgazer]

Arcian wrote...

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?

Or Foundation's Edge.

[His Name was HYR!!]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 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.

page'd (sorry, I hate bottom 'o page!)

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

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

Depends on how you do the morality trade.

I find killing all synthetic life, life that I worked hard to build up, sustain, befriend, and advocate for, more acceptable than sacrificing myself to enact a permanent change on the molecular level of all living beings with consequences and unknown changes to the galaxy.

[Steelcan]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Darth Brotanian,

Wreav is forcibly altered it seems.

Do we know that?

.  In two ofthe endings with the genophage cured he starts a war,in a third he does not.  ill let you guess which.

[KaiserShep]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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.

That doesn't really answer my question though. How do you predict the behavioral patterns of entire worlds worth of people over any given span of time? The reapers' prior history establishes only that the reapers themselves are the most consistent threat to the entire galaxy. This is not sufficient data to determine that history will repeat itself exactly as the catalyst supposes. 

Technically, all 3 options end the war immediately anyway. In that respect, none of them are different. But the Catalyst is not really the one that hands this to you, but rather the past designers that conjured up the Crucible's incorporation into the Citadel. In this sense, no matter what you pick, you are turning their gift against them, that gift being the Citadel and the relays. The only option in which you really turn your nose up at what it's presenting to you is refuse. 

My argument was never about which option gets results, or which option I feel promises the most, but rather the questionable logic behind this concept of inevitability. I have serious issues with things involving providence, because predestination is a fairy tale concept that can either work exceptionally well in fiction, or be a burdensome farce that destroys it. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juin 2013 - 08:43 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 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.

page'd (sorry, I hate bottom 'o page!)

And to be honest, I find that change to be unacceptable.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

Sure, and that's a great argument against why the endings blow (and they do). It's not a good argument on ethics, which are irrelevant to the Mass Effect storyline. The OP's question is asking about the writers recognizing how unethical Synthesis is, not whether it has Shepard doing a completel 180 on his previous stance.  

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.

Well, semantics aside, the end result is that Shepard has the ability to choose a solution which goes against everything the Catalyst believes to be true, which he outlines by telling you "the peace won't last". So at the least, he believes he has lost. My point is: who gives a crap about whether the Reapers think they've won or lost?

Is the goal really to stick it to the Reapers, or do what's in the best interests of the galaxy, regardless of whether it falls within their desires.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

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

Depends on how you do the morality trade.

I find killing all synthetic life, life that I worked hard to build up, sustain, befriend, and advocate for, more acceptable than sacrificing myself to enact a permanent change on the molecular level of all living beings with consequences and unknown changes to the galaxy.

.  I found it perfectly acceptable to kill off EDI and damaging the relays forr ridding the galaxy of the Reapers.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Steelcan wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Darth Brotanian,

Wreav is forcibly altered it seems.

Do we know that?

.  In two ofthe endings with the genophage cured he starts a war,in a third he does not.  ill let you guess which.

Well it seems more likely that he was simply killed by the other krogan, rather than brain washed.

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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.

See, why would this intended best-case scenario concept be so incredibly vague and open to interpretation if it's their treasured outcome?

[Cainhurst Crow]

KaiserShep wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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.

That doesn't really answer my question though. How do you predict the behavioral patterns of entire worlds worth of people over any given span of time? The reapers' prior history establishes only that the reapers themselves are the most consistent threat to the entire galaxy. This is not sufficient data to determine that history will repeat itself exactly as the catalyst supposes. 

Technically, all 3 options end the war immediately anyway. In that respect, none of them are different. But the Catalyst is not really the one that hands this to you, but rather the past designers that conjured up the Crucible's incorporation into the Citadel. In this sense, no matter what you pick, you are turning their gift against them, that gift being the Citadel and the relays. The only option in which you really turn your nose up at what it's presenting to you is refuse. 

Considering I was basing my assertion on reaper victory and the practicality of the upgrade, rather than weather their cycle was right or not, I'd say it's a valid reponse.

[Steelcan]

@Darth Brotanian, no he is clearly still alive

[KaiserShep]

Wreav appeals to the most violent of Krogan, of which we know are plenty. Wrex goes against the grain of what's normally considered Krogan tradition, whereas Wreav embraces the worst of their nature. With that, and his taking the credit for the cure of the genophage (especially if Eve dies), the coming empire will be trouble. Either synthesis brainwashes his propensity for violence and warfare, or the Krogan remain just as violent, cause more warfare, and all this technological betterment was for nothing. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 juin 2013 - 08:50 .

[Arcian]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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.

Things deemed unethical today were always unethical. Education was merely slow.

All injustices and cruelties boil down to ignorance. Something which the majority of Synthesis supporters are showing a profoundly large amount of.

[dreamgazer]

Arcian wrote...

All injustices and cruelties boil down to ignorance. Something which the majority of Synthesis supporters are showing a profoundly large amount of.

I wouldn't say ignorance.  I would, however, say they're blinded by naivete and idealism.

[Steelcan]

No, you think they are unethical. There is no one morality that all man is subject to, there is no one code of ethics that binds all humanity.

[Maxster_]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

Sure, and that's a great argument against why the endings blow (and they do). It's not a good argument on ethics, which are irrelevant to the Mass Effect storyline. The OP's question is asking about the writers recognizing how unethical Synthesis is, not whether it has Shepard doing a completel 180 on his previous stance.  

Well, you are right on that. <_<

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.

Well, semantics aside, the end result is that Shepard has the ability to choose a solution which goes against everything the Catalyst believes to be true, which he outlines by telling you "the peace won't last". So at the least, he believes he has lost. My point is: who gives a crap about whether the Reapers think they've won or lost?

Is the goal really to stick it to the Reapers, or do what's in the best interests of the galaxy, regardless of whether it falls within their desires.

Well, they actually won the war, which is obvious from when EAWare rectonned ME1 to nonsense(reapers arrival).
Catalyst commiting suicide and killing all reapers is unrelated to a fact, that they achieved military victory.
Anyway, what i meant - that synthesis is forced, and therefore is unethical by default. At least with modern human ethics and MEU's one.
And i also, personally, don't like that sudden change from heroic adventure to hopeless, grim cyberpunk.

[His Name was HYR!!]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


And to be honest, I find that change to be unacceptable.

'Could be worse.

I could end the war with more death/destruction and no further gain.

Or let everyone get harvested/huskified. Comparatively, those shiny tatts/lens are no big deal.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Arcian wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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.

Things deemed unethical today were always unethical. Education was merely slow.

All injustices and cruelties boil down to ignorance. Something which the majority of Synthesis supporters are showing a profoundly large amount of.

What the hell are you talking about? Do you mean to tell me that you belive that somehow, ethics are being discovered by us like some sort of secret of the universe? That ethics are something that comes before people think them up and we are simply discovering them one by one? What kind of logic is that? Where is the reason in beliving something so crazy?

EDIT: That may have been a bit too harsh, it still seems like a radical claim to me however.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 juin 2013 - 09:16 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
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.

Well considering that everyone seems hunky dorey with the Reapers now, and that I doubt everyone will be ok with that.. I'd say it's a fair chance. However, like dealing with most of Synthesis and the other endings... there's not much to work with.

I still don't think everyone will be all along with the idea to jump on the "Reapers are your friends" bandwagon as some others.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Steelcan wrote...

No, you think they are unethical. There is no one morality that all man is subject to, there is no one code of ethics that binds all humanity.

It's like the conundrum about murder.

No society says that murder is ethical, but every society has their own definition as to what murder actually is and what it is not, and all of them can clash one way or another, thus makig them effectively have some societies where murder is ethical, if you take it from one cultures view or another.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 juin 2013 - 09:13 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
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.

Well considering that everyone seems hunky dorey with the Reapers now, and that I doubt everyone will be ok with that.. I'd say it's a fair chance. However, like dealing with most of Synthesis and the other endings... there's not much to work with.

I still don't think everyone will be all along with the idea to jump on the "Reapers are your friends" bandwagon as some others.

Everyone seemed hunky dorey with working with geth, krogan, batarians, quarians, and humans by the end of mass effect 3 as well, despite the many instances of bad blood and differences present.

People can put past grudges aside if something more important arises, such as rebuilding wrecked planets back to normal.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Well considering that everyone seems hunky dorey with the Reapers now, and that I doubt everyone will be ok with that.. I'd say it's a fair chance. However, like dealing with most of Synthesis and the other endings... there's not much to work with.

I still don't think everyone will be all along with the idea to jump on the "Reapers are your friends" bandwagon as some others.

Well, we expect the same out of the quarians, to make friends with the robots that have slaughtered billions of their ancestors over a period of centuries. Why stop there? Reapers haven't even been around as long and likely even killed less!