233 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

I also cure the genophage because Wrex and Eve demonstrate that not all krogan are interested in war and conquest, they are capable of growing and changing.  The Reapers, in addition to being a lot tougher than the krogan to stop, show no such ability.  Leading me to question if they are even sentient.

But the Reapers are irrelevant in Control, because Shepard now controls them. So really the debate should be centered around the morality of becoming the new Catalyst, with the new Catalyst's directives being entirely translated from Shepard's memories.

Correct.  Memories without emotional context.  Without any connection to who Shepard-the-Organic was.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Free will, huh?

Anyone have the freedom to opt out of Synthesis?  Like, say, Javik?

Javik was going to kill himself anyway. Synthesis just gives him another reason.

[KaiserShep]

But Javik ends up helping Liara write a book in my ending, and then gets a job as a forensics specialist.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Correct.  Memories without emotional context.  Without any connection to who Shepard-the-Organic was.

How would emotions benefit Shepard-AI as a protector of the galaxy? And why would they not be encoded as well?

The entire question depends on the degree to which organic chemical interactions can be translated into code, or whatever the synthetic equivalent is that the Catalyst structure uses. Since we really have no idea (the failure of the Catalyst was a failure of the Leviathans in programming him; there is no indication such failure will occur again with Shepard) it's sort of just whether or not the player likes the idea of Control that will determine the likelihood of bad decisions.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 juin 2013 - 07:23 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Free will, huh?

Anyone have the freedom to opt out of Synthesis?  Like, say, Javik?

Javik was going to kill himself anyway. Synthesis just gives him another reason.

Javik can also write a book with Liara, or retire to Kaje and live like a king, depending on how you deal with him.

[Wayning_Star]

It's funny about 'ethics' when considering what is 'staked' in the MEU. Besides, free will to "decide" for the MEU is exactly what Shepard is confounded with.

The 'science' for afterlife isn't explained in the codex entries..lol

[CronoDragoon]

The individual could have as much free will in Control as he did before the Reaper war. Shepard isn't going to stop you from putting ranch on your french fries. The only exception to this is, again, if something goes wrong with the programming.

[spirosz]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The individual could have as much free will in Control as he did before the Reaper war. Shepard isn't going to stop you from putting ranch on your french fries. The only exception to this is, again, if something goes wrong with the programming.

I think he meant free will in relation towards the Reapers and their so called "free will" before and after your ending choice.  

[CronoDragoon]

Ah my bad. Your post seemed to be speaking to the larger consequences of each ending. Yeah I agree with you concerning the Reapers.

[KaiserShep]

I was thinking more along the lines of how it would use these things to police conflicts of varying scale, like, say if some skirmish breaks out somewhere, or a full on war happens, do the reapers interfere, or do they let it happen? What would be the consequences of trying to stop the fighting? How would each side respond to this intervention?

[Wayning_Star]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I was thinking more along the lines of the Reapers not having free will. 'd by spirosz

the reaps have limited free will to do stuff like harvest, other than that they are indeed the catalyst, as it is them, by a kind of proxy, or accepted control. It's made evident by the 'independent nations' statement, but when is come down to actually "freedom", we all know how that and permission works..lol

[CronoDragoon]

KaiserShep wrote...

I was thinking more along the lines of how it would use these things to police conflicts of varying scale, like, say if some skirmish breaks out somewhere, or a full on war happens, do the reapers interfere, or do they let it happen? What would be the consequences of trying to stop the fighting? How would each side respond to this intervention?

Isn't this the role the Council and by extension the Council races play pre-war?

[SpiritMuse]

Synthesis it not the same as being huskified. Husks are mindless zombies entirely controlled by the reapers. Synthesized organics are physically enhanced but keep their own minds. Synthesized synthetics gain true understanding of life, and also keep their own minds. It's not an entirely unrealistic assumption that, being part synthetic, everyone is now also wifi-capable and/or connected, making true understanding of others' points of view, and therefore true empathy, possible. Hence Wreave's not starting a war, as likely his mind has been opened to accepting new understanding and possibilities.
Presumably the Leviathans, as well as the Reapers, undergo the same process, and through their newfound connection and understanding of the "lesser lifeforms" they learn that these are as important and worthy of respect as they themselves.

Synthesis is not Reaper-controlled. Reapers were made to harvest civilizations, preserving their knowledge and culture before they could be wiped out by the organic-synthetic conflict. But now that there are no more true synthetics or organics, this has become a moot point, and their original purpose is lost. But through their new understanding and connection with the former organics, they find a new purpose in helping them rebuild, and sharing their collected knowledge to help them evolve even further.

Is it mind control to force someone to understand and accept new points of view and new possibilities? Maybe sometimes people need to be shocked into opening their eyes.

Also, is it really worth rejecting a plan just because you hate the person who came up with it? Many people seem to have a problem with choosing any of the Catalyst's options simply because it's the Catalyst who gives them to you, and choosing any of them means the Catalyst will "win". Even though through these options the galaxy will be at peace and the Catalyst will either be destroyed, supplanted, or simply become utterly useless. The Catalyst is not evil, he is just synthetic, unfeeling, and unable to understand that for organics "being preserved forever in Reaper form" is not preferable to actually living life. With these choices he hands you the means to his own demise. I'd say the refusal option is the one that lets the Catalyst win, because then he gets to use his own solution at least one more time. 

[Maxster_]

SpiritMuse wrote...

Synthesis it not the same as being huskified. Husks are mindless zombies entirely controlled by the reapers. Synthesized organics are physically enhanced but keep their own minds. Synthesized synthetics gain true understanding of life, and also keep their own minds. It's not an entirely unrealistic assumption that, being part synthetic, everyone is now also wifi-capable and/or connected, making true understanding of others' points of view, and therefore true empathy, possible. Hence Wreave's not starting a war, as likely his mind has been opened to accepting new understanding and possibilities.
Presumably the Leviathans, as well as the Reapers, undergo the same process, and through their newfound connection and understanding of the "lesser lifeforms" they learn that these are as important and worthy of respect as they themselves.

Synthesis is not Reaper-controlled. Reapers were made to harvest civilizations, preserving their knowledge and culture before they could be wiped out by the organic-synthetic conflict. But now that there are no more true synthetics or organics, this has become a moot point, and their original purpose is lost. But through their new understanding and connection with the former organics, they find a new purpose in helping them rebuild, and sharing their collected knowledge to help them evolve even further.

Is it mind control to force someone to understand and accept new points of view and new possibilities? Maybe sometimes people need to be shocked into opening their eyes.

Also, is it really worth rejecting a plan just because you hate the person who came up with it? Many people seem to have a problem with choosing any of the Catalyst's options simply because it's the Catalyst who gives them to you, and choosing any of them means the Catalyst will "win". Even though through these options the galaxy will be at peace and the Catalyst will either be destroyed, supplanted, or simply become utterly useless. The Catalyst is not evil, he is just synthetic, unfeeling, and unable to understand that for organics "being preserved forever in Reaper form" is not preferable to actually living life. With these choices he hands you the means to his own demise. I'd say the refusal option is the one that lets the Catalyst win, because then he gets to use his own solution at least one more time. 

Sure, sure.
Synthesis is not a brainwashing, because remains of population of devastated planets, will just suddenly forgive reapers and start to cooperate with them.
Because they are now enlightened. Being manipulated and reformed at molecular level.
Synthesis is not forced, because Catalyst says that Shepard is ready. And those who were forcibly mutilated - their opinion is irrelevant, because now they are enlightened(i.e. brainwashed).

As for Catalyst, you can apply such thought pattern to some horrible deeds of humanity. It will be the same lame excuse and morally disgusting justification.

[knightnblu]

Back when the boards were FTL second to nerd rage, BioWare admitted that they never saw the inherent moral flaws in synthesis. They said that criticism of that ending in particular only opened their eyes after the fact, but by then it was far too late. They prettied it up in the EC DLC, but the moral issues still remain.

[Iakus]

knightnblu wrote...

Back when the boards were FTL second to nerd rage, BioWare admitted that they never saw the inherent moral flaws in synthesis. They said that criticism of that ending in particular only opened their eyes after the fact, but by then it was far too late. They prettied it up in the EC DLC, but the moral issues still remain.

 There may be a coat of whitewash on it, but the wood is still rotten.

[David7204]

As I said, this is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. This is exactly what plenty of people on this board have asked for. All outcomes must be equal. Everything must be grey.

Modifié par David7204, 19 juin 2013 - 11:27 .

[Maxster_]

David7204 wrote...

As I said, this is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. This is exactly what plenty of people on this board have asked for. All outcomes must be equal. Everything must be grey.

Exactly?
So, people here were asking for a possibility to choose from 3 warcrimes, under a threat of death from an insane entity?
I doubt that.

Modifié par Maxster_, 19 juin 2013 - 11:28 .

[David7204]

Yes. Exactly. This is exactly what you're asking for when you demand 'moral ambiguity.' You're asking for Synthesis to be portrayed as a utopia and for Shepard to die in the rubble. Because all choices must be equal. All choices must be grey.

Of course, when players get exactly what they've been asking for, they'll shriek "But I didn't mean this!"

Modifié par David7204, 19 juin 2013 - 11:32 .

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

As I said, this is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. This is exactly what plenty of people on this board have asked for. All outcomes must be equal. Everything must be grey.

All options must also be valid.   This is not moral ambiguity, that suggests a dilemma in deciding which choice is "best"  From here it looks like all options are equally invalid.  What's ambiguous about choosing between atrocities?

[Maxster_]

iakus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

As I said, this is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. This is exactly what plenty of people on this board have asked for. All outcomes must be equal. Everything must be grey.

All options must also be valid.   This is not moral ambiguity, that suggests a dilemma in deciding which choice is "best"  From here it looks like all options are equally invalid.  What's ambiguous about choosing between atrocities?

More funny that choice is forced by threat of death. By an enemy to whom you lost.

[Iakus]

Maxster_ wrote...

iakus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

As I said, this is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like. This is exactly what plenty of people on this board have asked for. All outcomes must be equal. Everything must be grey.

All options must also be valid.   This is not moral ambiguity, that suggests a dilemma in deciding which choice is "best"  From here it looks like all options are equally invalid.  What's ambiguous about choosing between atrocities?

More funny that choice is forced by threat of death. By an enemy to whom you lost.

THe true face of the Catalyst: