381 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Hmm... OK. But if a player's willing to commit genocide to prevent a hypothetical catastrophe, why isn't he picking Destroy in the first place? 

(Yeah, I know ... genocide of people you don't like is cool)

Well, if we go down the "it's genocide" route, then there's still a utilitarian answer, as the Reapers are only one form of synthetics, as opposed to all of them.

I'd say that genocide is genocide but it's always colored by POV and circumstances of course.  Whether it is wrong isn't so much about whether you like the people or don't like them, it's about the threat they pose and have posed to you, and whether you're certain they do not still pose that threat.  You take opportunities when you can because you perhaps won't have them again, but you have to consider the cost of what you're doing at the time and if it's a bridge too far.

Any choice or post-choice decision as to the reapers' fate must always take into account what they did, what was said about why they were doing it (including the kid, leviathan, sovereign, and harbinger), and what they now are given our best information.  We don't have a lot of it as to what they are now to say they're any different from what they were or that says they could not be the same threat they've always been. 

We have the word of the kid as to them just doing what they were told to do.  We have their word that they enjoyed doing it and more.  We have the knowledge of what they've done to people and no indication that the individual minds within them are anything more than mere data-if so, they why would Harbinger as the creation of Leviathans into a reaper express joy at hurting people?  Why then would Sovereign made of some other organic races seem to revel in the idea of us existing because they allow it and ceasing to exist because they demand it?  Fundamentally, they are huge seemingly invincible killing machines that when in a mob cannot be stopped.  Individually, they can be and they do have vulnerabilities that they might fear people will find ways to exploit.

Genocide doesn't even have to mean the killing of everyone within a group and even the genophage is a form of genocide.  The killing of reapers can be seen as retribution, revenge, or it can be seen as the removal of a threat.  There are those that consider all murders as killings but not all killings as murders.  But the reapers alive are always and will always be this big unknown possible threat, no matter what.

[Obadiah]

@3D
Therein lies the biggest failure in your position. Every question you just raised on what Reaper Shep would do, is faced by any leader with power and a vested interest in peace that has to watch a war break out between 2 other factions. It is not a moral position to simply abdicate power because you don't want to deal with major issues that arise, or because you think potential solutions might be too icky.

Control is where Shepards stops being another moral commentator on society hoping to exert influence to get leadership to do the right thing, and instead just does the right thing.

Even with elected leadership and buy-in by the plurality or majority, there are always large sections of the population forced into positions they think of as intolerable - see the Krogan, Batarians, or any non-violent civilian living on Omega.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Attack the Reapers?

How about do anything the Reapers think is "bad for the many" including researching tech that could allow the races to surpass the Reapers?

Then it's Zombie Apocalypse time.
Or Indoctrination time
Or maybe just "Need Another Reaper" time

Or maybe something more subtle.  Like an Omega plague or a Heretic virus...

If that's how your Sheplyst rolls, then sure.

Uh no, he was talking about you saying that anyone foolish enough to try and attack the reapers really isn't part of some good evolution (Darwin award).  The point being that no one knows what the reapers even under Shepard might consider worthy of them confronting as a threat to the many which Shreaper has vowed to protect.  Again, POV.  If both of us have our own kids who go to school together and get into a fight-my kid says your kid was in the wrong and your kid says my kid was, we both may look at it from our POV.  Just as with a shark, warranted to kill for food-it is what it is.  But if you're the one being eaten, from your POV the shark needs to die.

If the reapers see something as threatening the many but not meant to do that in reality, there's no telling what might happen.

[Wulfram]

I don't think Synthesis is coherent enough to make a real moral judgement. Any debate about it ends up being an argument between headcanons, because there's no real information about what it actually does.

It's not even wrong, and that's the problem with it.

[wright1978]

Yep i find the idea of violating every entity in the galaxy & forcing them down an evolutionary cul-de-sac of an insane AI disgusting. That's before all the other bad potential repercussions start to jump into my head.

I've come to the conclusion that in design they just didn't see any of this coming. I think i'm supposed to view synthesis as the supposed perfect ending where shep becomes space jesus bringing peace and tranquility to the galaxy but i don't.

[3DandBeyond]

Obadiah wrote...

@3D
Therein lies the biggest failure in your position. Every question you just raised on what Reaper Shep would do, is faced by any leader with power and a vested interest in peace that has to watch a war break out between 2 other factions. It is not a moral position to simply abdicate power because you don't want to deal with major issues that arise, or because you think potential solutions might be too icky.

Control is where Shepards stops being another moral commentator on society hoping to exert influence to get leadership to do the right thing, and instead just does the right thing.

Even with elected leadership and buy-in by the plurality or majority, there are always large sections of the population forced into positions they think of as intolerable - see the Krogan, Batarians, or any non-violent civilian living on Omega.

Nope, Shepard has an arsenal of opinion and knowledge that leaders often don't take into account.  And Shepard is in essence more a freedom fighter than some political leader playing a number's game.  It's not about abdicating power-it's about deciding whether the power is real in the face of odds that seem hellbent against it, and deciding if survival is all life is about.  It isn't because I think it's too icky-it's because I can see problems in the road ahead and a life that many would not want to live. 

It's also because everything I've done to this point has been toward granting autonomy and even forcing it upon people, wanting them to have the full free will and responsibility for their lives and choices to come.  In one instant, I'd be making all of that a lie, forcing them to live less than a fully autonomous existence with no foreseeable end in sight, a life not worth living.  Leaders don't decide that kind of stuff except that yes they have-leaders in groups of people who rebel and say this life isn't worth it, they'd die for better, and in the face of a blitz that almost destroyed a country that refused to surrender.

Leaders, real ones don't just throw up their hands and say "here's what my enemy wants me to do.  Sounds good and they get to be in charge.  I have no idea how or why this has to happen but so what.  Cool. Stop fighting." 

[Xilizhra]

Navasha wrote...

I have a question though for those who seem to like Synthesis.

Do you at all see any parallels between Synthesis and the Genophage?

The reason I ask is quite simple. My Shepard thought that the use of the Genophage was wrong not just for the horrific outcome, but because it was one side (Turian/Salarians) deciding to change an entire race of people to better be able to control them. It was the concept that they decided to impose this "solution" on an entire species, most of whom were innocent from ever participating in the Krogan Rebellions that was at the heart of what made it a wrong decision.

How is Synthesis any different?

I don't see the genophage as abhorrent, especially since it was that or genocide... so, yes, maybe there are parallels here. Just not in a negative way.

[Obadiah]

@3D
Leadership and autonomy are not mutually exclusive unless one is just afraid of power and responsibility. Go back and read your own posts. Pretty much everything is some worst case scanario of what could happen with Reaper Shep as if that is a rational argument for some decision. It is not. It is only fear.

Leaders, wise leaders, are not blinded by hate if the enemy happens to speak the truth.

[cerberus1701]

Xilizhra wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I have a question though for those who seem to like Synthesis.

Do you at all see any parallels between Synthesis and the Genophage?

The reason I ask is quite simple. My Shepard thought that the use of the Genophage was wrong not just for the horrific outcome, but because it was one side (Turian/Salarians) deciding to change an entire race of people to better be able to control them. It was the concept that they decided to impose this "solution" on an entire species, most of whom were innocent from ever participating in the Krogan Rebellions that was at the heart of what made it a wrong decision.

How is Synthesis any different?

I don't see the genophage as abhorrent, especially since it was that or genocide... so, yes, maybe there are parallels here. Just not in a negative way.

Thre genophage was selected for expediency, not because it was "that or genocide."

[Xilizhra]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I have a question though for those who seem to like Synthesis.

Do you at all see any parallels between Synthesis and the Genophage?

The reason I ask is quite simple. My Shepard thought that the use of the Genophage was wrong not just for the horrific outcome, but because it was one side (Turian/Salarians) deciding to change an entire race of people to better be able to control them. It was the concept that they decided to impose this "solution" on an entire species, most of whom were innocent from ever participating in the Krogan Rebellions that was at the heart of what made it a wrong decision.

How is Synthesis any different?

I don't see the genophage as abhorrent, especially since it was that or genocide... so, yes, maybe there are parallels here. Just not in a negative way.

Thre genophage was selected for expediency, not because it was "that or genocide."

Actually, Mordin brings up that it was that or genocide multiple times in ME2.

[Deverz]

StreetMagic wrote...

The end of the game was made in mind for every type of player it seems (barring a few fringe outcomes)..

If that was their goal then they most certainly failed. Most discussions seems to come to "which ending sucks the least" instead of "how do I want it to end".

Basically what they did was just throw three concepts at you, copped out and said "insert headcanon here", like that would somehow satisfy people.

StreetMagic wrote...

You're the master of your own little fanmade universe now. There's nothing to debate about it. It's all subjective and pointless.

Yep. The ending made the series into an endless sea of pointless speculation. Thanks Bioware.

[cerberus1701]

Xilizhra wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I have a question though for those who seem to like Synthesis.

Do you at all see any parallels between Synthesis and the Genophage?

The reason I ask is quite simple. My Shepard thought that the use of the Genophage was wrong not just for the horrific outcome, but because it was one side (Turian/Salarians) deciding to change an entire race of people to better be able to control them. It was the concept that they decided to impose this "solution" on an entire species, most of whom were innocent from ever participating in the Krogan Rebellions that was at the heart of what made it a wrong decision.

How is Synthesis any different?

I don't see the genophage as abhorrent, especially since it was that or genocide... so, yes, maybe there are parallels here. Just not in a negative way.

Thre genophage was selected for expediency, not because it was "that or genocide."

Actually, Mordin brings up that it was that or genocide multiple times in ME2.

Thre guy who, until pretty much two weeks before he dies believing it was the only option telling you it's the only option doesn't mean it's the only option.


It'd be like Oppenheimer telling you the nuking of Japan was inevitable.

[Sir DeLoria]

Xilizhra wrote...

And yes, even in this game we do get to decide who lives and dies based on vengeance. A lot of people side with the quarians and say they had a right to try and get rid of the geth, after they'd attacked the geth and the geth fought back, because it was all about their existence.

Those people are wrong too.

Oh ho ho, behold the righteous word of mighty, unquestionable Xilizhra! 

I'm sorry Xil, please continue to educate us with your superior morals:lol:

[Sir DeLoria]

Steelcan wrote...

Xil is only going to dig a deeper hole of hir own delusion and headcanon.

Indeed, it's quite interesting to watch though.

[Barquiel]

I wouldn't call it disgusting, but the Catalyst left it way too vague. You (your Shepard) can't possibly know what Synthesis does...without using your own headcanon.

"The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework, a new DNA." At this point in the
story, we have no more information. Will the krogan still be krogan? What do post-synthesis asari look like (banshees?)...and does their culture remain intact? What about diversity of life (all throughout this series we are been made to understand one thing, that diversity is a good thing)?

Sure, the epilogue is nice...but the catalyst didn't a very good job in explaining synthesis and my Shepard won't gamble with the existence of every life being in the galaxy.

Modifié par Barquiel, 29 octobre 2013 - 06:10 .

[MEuniverse]

SwobyJ wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

All of the endings are beautiful.

I almost envy you, in a way. It must be nice..

High-EMS Destroy is the most beautiful


EDIT: BTW 'beautiful' does not = 'satisfying'

The ME3 ending is VERY UNSATISFYING, and leaves me, personally (hehe), on a cliffhanger, not a conclusion.

I feel you. 

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Attack the Reapers?

How about do anything the Reapers think is "bad for the many" including researching tech that could allow the races to surpass the Reapers?

Then it's Zombie Apocalypse time.
Or Indoctrination time
Or maybe just "Need Another Reaper" time

Or maybe something more subtle.  Like an Omega plague or a Heretic virus...

If that's how your Sheplyst rolls, then sure.

Uh no, he was talking about you saying that anyone foolish enough to try and attack the reapers really isn't part of some good evolution (Darwin award).  The point being that no one knows what the reapers even under Shepard might consider worthy of them confronting as a threat to the many which Shreaper has vowed to protect.  Again, POV.  If both of us have our own kids who go to school together and get into a fight-my kid says your kid was in the wrong and your kid says my kid was, we both may look at it from our POV.  Just as with a shark, warranted to kill for food-it is what it is.  But if you're the one being eaten, from your POV the shark needs to die.

If the reapers see something as threatening the many but not meant to do that in reality, there's no telling what might happen.

Yup.

We're already seen Catalyst software go squirrelly and develop in an unexpected, catastrophic direction once.  And that's when it wasn't ruling the galaxy.  It simply doesn't think with the same priorities.

[Eryri]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

The reapers are living beings-you keep saying it.  And one of the prime needs of living beings are to reproduce and continue the species.  For the reapers, the implication is that they too have a finite existence though Harbinger still lived as the oldest.  Anything could happen to them-their numbers could be affected.  We have no idea what they might do or need to do if they were faced with a threat to their survival.

The Reapers don't seem to have been particularly devoted to their own needs while under the Catalyst's control.The cycles don't do anything for Reapers qua Reapers, unless they only want to be conscious 1% of the time for some reason. (If harvesting organics was an actual goal they're going about it in a ludicrously inefficient fashion, which is the core problem with ME1)snip

This is true. Unfortunately, however, their methods are just as inefficient for their new stated purpose of preserving organic life. If your goal is to cull and preserve species before they create a runaway synthetic singularity as quickly and efficiently as possible, then why would you wait until they can put up a fight? Why would you wait until they have space flight, nuclear weapons, and are either on the cusp of creating A.I.s or have already done so?

Cutting it a bit fine aren't we Mr Catalyst?

Would it not have been better to harvest the Quarians during their equivalent of the steam age, before they got around to inventing the Geth? OK, the cycle was delayed, so perhaps the reapers can be forgiven for letting that one slip by. However they have no excuse for letting the Zha-Til be created in the previous cycle. Fortunately the Protheans were around to do the Reaper's job for them while they were having a nice nap. The Reaper's way of doing things is a bit of a joke. At least prior to ME3, I could head-cannon that the Reapers let civilisations evolve so far in order to incorporate any novel technology that they happened to invent, ala the Borg. Now even that is no longer possible.

Every example we have of A.I.s in the ME universe have either been fairly docile and open to reason (EDI and the orthodox Geth) or easily defeated by organics (the heretic Geth, the Citadel A.I., the Zha-Til). Synthesis is an excessively radical solution to a problem that may not even exist. TBH, I rather resent having to indulge this obviously broken, idiot AI by choosing any one of his terrible, unnecessary options.

Modifié par Eryri, 29 octobre 2013 - 06:53 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I knew this was going to get good.

Bioware's description of synthesis was absolutely childish. The wave showing the sudden circuit boards on every living organism and glowing green eyes on everyone in the galaxy was reducing a very complicated process to the lowest common denominator and it failed miserably. It was stupid. Their description of "adding essence" got all mystical, and they made it sound like evolution suddenly stopped which, like so many other canons in the trilogy, I found asinine -- reaper tech being able to indoctrinate being one of them (ME2) -- thank you Drew K -- it is why we got this s*** f*** of an ending in the first place.

But they showed synthesis in green, and apparently in high visibility optical green, and because the average IQ is 100 they needed to make sure you knew something took place. They couldn't have the process nearly invisible, like perhaps in the control ending with a "greenish hue", so you got to see circuit boards and green glowing eyes so that you knew something happened.

Now, the other problem is the husks. What happened to the husks? The only ending the husks crumble is in Destroy. They stay around in Control and Synthesis, but somehow conveniently vanish in the slides. Apparently someone at Bioware decided that leaving them in epilogue slides would be an "oops." This leaves one with any intelligence to think that Bioware really didn't think these endings very well, or really didn't care because they just wanted the game to end because of the fact that the only other choice was to put a big giant "Reaper Off Button" on the Citadel to blow up the reapers and permanently disable reaper indoctrination because reaper tech indoctrinates; and they promised us there wouldn't be a "Reaper Off Button".

Oh, in the Destroy ending that Race of Virtual Aliens die, too, along with the Geth.

So the fate of the husks? They just vanish, because they're nowhere to be found in the slides. Don't worry, your property values won't drop. Bioware's creation of the reaper zombies to me was for the purpose of scaring 12 year olds in the first place. It was the Zombie Apocalypse Trope. The problem at the end was what do we do with all these zombies? I guess they do like all zombies do and crumble into dust in the end like magic because Bioware didn't think about the monsters. No one ever does. They're just there for the revulsion and to give you mooks to kill during the game.

So what does synthesis do? Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same. It doesn't make everyone half machine and half organic. Apparently it adds nanoclusters to the biosystem that integrate themselves into organic life over time, and add an organic component to synthetics (apparently this is symbolized by the green glowy circuit you see on the Geth). Granted this is an oversimplification of the process. Our starboy figured out how this all works. It's better explained here.

In the end, you don't lose your tech like you do in Destroy, so you don't have to rediscover much of what your civilization depended upon. It's not surrendering. Evolution does not stop, but continues. There is something that people need to understand is that when life spans start lengthening, if education increases, population tends to drop. EDI is talking about using technology to extend life. I don't think we have to worry about immortal cockroaches since they won't have access to life lengthening technology.

The Krogan birth rates? You mean you cured the genophage?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Navasha wrote...

I have a question though for those who seem to like Synthesis.

Do you at all see any parallels between Synthesis and the Genophage?

The reason I ask is quite simple. My Shepard thought that the use of the Genophage was wrong not just for the horrific outcome, but because it was one side (Turian/Salarians) deciding to change an entire race of people to better be able to control them. It was the concept that they decided to impose this "solution" on an entire species, most of whom were innocent from ever participating in the Krogan Rebellions that was at the heart of what made it a wrong decision.

How is Synthesis any different?

I choose Sync. In my opinion, the genophage is immoral, but justifiable.

The rachni were threatening to overtake the galaxy before them, and the krogan are an even stronger than the rachni were. The galaxy couldn't stop the krogan in a conventional fight: the krogan were both too numerous and powerful. Without the genophage, there would be nothing stopping the krogan from becoming the next Protheans if they so wanted, conquering the galaxy as an empire. The genophage ended the war by taking the numbers advantage away.

However, a few very good things came from the genophage: it lead Wrex to find Shepard, and then rise to power. It lead Eve to become a voice for her people. Those developments make the genophage worth all the pain and suffering it caused; their leadership is the only thing that have given their people a chance to get their act together, and thus, allow the genophage to be cured and the krogan to thrive again without everyone in the galaxy regretting it.

Javik has an interesting talk with Garrus about the Tuchanka bomb after you complete the mission, arguing that the turians should have used the bomb (note that the bomb, coupled with the effects of the genophage, probably would have spelled the end for the krogan species). Garrus explains that the bomb probably wasn't planted there with the intent of killing off the krogan, but more as a precaution, to "keep the peace." Javik calls peace "A static mode of existence. Nothing is challenged. Nothing struggles. Nothing grows." Garrus replies by saying, "And we all get to live another day. Nice chatting with you."


I think the parallels to this are obvious. If Sync is the genophage, Destroy is the genophage and the bomb, IMO.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 29 octobre 2013 - 06:41 .

[cerberus1701]

Quote: Destroy is the genophage and the bomb, IMO.

Only if you believe the upcoded Geth are sentient. Many don't.

I do. Even so, it's the best of the bad choices. Sacrifice one race so all the rest can determine their own future? valid, even if the sacrifice had to be Humans.

Control? Eventually, if Shep retains his humanity initially, he's going to simply stop having any real attachment with, and concern for the ants at his feet. And if he's altered during her upload? Same result: new catalyst, new threat.

Synthesis? Galactic genocide.

Refuse? Makes all your efforts meaningless. Why bother fighting at all?