375 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Saren's vision was based on an empty promise from a Reaper

I'll ask again, what's changed in ME3? 

HYR 2.0 wrote...
whereas in ME3, the solution stems from a device Shepard supported the construction and research of (and is only linked to the Reapers in the realm of conspiracy theories).

LOL, no - less of your personal interpretations, and more attention to the game and story please.

Liara finds the plans for the Crucible.  Unknown origin, unknown functionality, ancient in design and massive in scope.  Persuades Shepard (despite his/her initial misgivings) to give it a try in lieu of any better ideas. ("Surely it's worth a shot?").  Hackett is convinced the devices power can be used to Destroy or otherwise permanently stop the Reapers.  The Illusive Man is convinced it's power can be used to Control the Reapers and bend their technology to his will.

At no point within the confines of the game - AT NO POINT - do any of the people involved in the support, research, development or construction of the Crucible consider Synthesis or even anything slightly related to or resembling galaxy-wide genetic modification/rewriting/fusion of organics and synthetics.  The closest they get to that idea is simply not knowing what it will do.

The Synthesis solution is PRESENTED to Shepard by Ventboy Starbrat McCatalyst, and ONLY Ventboy  Starbrat McCatalyst.  The self-admitted creator and controller of the Reapers.

Ergo, Synthesis is a Reaper idea and a Reaper construct.  They have a... similar solution... before.

Ergo, Synthesis  is linked DIRECTLY to the Reapers, and ONLY the Reapers, and initiating Synthesis is nothing more than DIRECTLY enacting the Reapers will.

Do you want the TL;DR version?

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 novembre 2013 - 11:05 .

[AlexMBrennan]

in lieu of any better ideas

Such as? At the start of ME3, the situation is really quite simple - Reapers are attacking, and we have no way of stopping them: Everyone. Will. Die. Then Liara hands Shepard a magical doomsday weapon blueprint. It doesn't matter if it is an incredibly long shot because Everyone. Will. Die. if we don't build it (they may still die if be build it though)

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 19 novembre 2013 - 11:58 .

[dorktainian]

Picking Synthesis is like creating a monument to Sarens ideals.

Good job.

[Daemul]

IceTrey1987 wrote...

If synthesis doesn't seem wrong morally, then why did you bother fighting Saren in ME1?

Saren advocated subjugation not Synthesis. Throughout his entire spiel in the Council Chamber he was trying to pursuade Shepard to submit to the will of the Reapers and he used his new upgrades as an incentive saying, "This is what you can have if you join us".

The Reapers had no intention of ever giving the upgrades to Shepard, or anyone else for that matter, they would have harvested him along with everyone else. 

IceTrey1987 wrote...
Destroy however is an acceptable ending EVEN if you let the geth individualize and EVEN if you encouraged EDI and Jeff. This is after all, war.

No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 @iakus... I think this should answer your question.

ElSuperGecko wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Saren's vision was based on an empty promise from a Reaper

I'll ask again, what's changed in ME3?

Keep readan.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
whereas in ME3, the solution stems from a device Shepard supported the construction and research of (and is only linked to the Reapers in the realm of conspiracy theories).

LOL, no - less of your personal interpretations, and more attention to the game and story please.

Take your own advice, please.

Everything in the narrative says Red, Green, Blue all are Crucible outcomes (and not "Reaper-given" outcomes).

Any interpretation that dictates that any of them are Reaper-given options is purely headcanon.

The Synthesis solution is PRESENTED to Shepard by Ventboy Starbrat McCatalyst, and ONLY Ventboy  Starbrat McCatalyst.  The self-admitted creator and controller of the Reapers.

Ergo, Synthesis is a Reaper idea and a Reaper construct.  They have a... similar solution... before.

Ergo, Synthesis  is linked DIRECTLY to the Reapers, and ONLY the Reapers, and initiating Synthesis is nothing more than DIRECTLY enacting the Reapers will.

Both a leap and an association-fallacy.

Your logic is pretty much, "Ventboy tells us [x], therefore, Ventboy is giving us [x]."

Fanbase, the answer to everything Reaper-related is not "Indoctrination!"

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 19 novembre 2013 - 01:04 .

[ElSuperGecko]

Daemul wrote...
No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

Destroy is the ONLY acceptable scenario full stop.  We were told this countless times by every one of our squad mates and allies.  The only way to permanently end the Reaper threat is to end the Reapers themselves, once and for all.

We've seen first-hand what pursuit of Control does to the Illusive Man.  We have no way of knowing that we'll fare any better than he did, and (knowing what we know about the Reapers) every reason to believe we won't.  That we'll just become another puppet.

Synthesis - as pointed out above, is a Reaper "solution" to a problem which may or may not even exist in the first place, and we know just how horrifying the original Reaper "solution" was.  "We've tried a...similar solution.. before".  Yeah, I know StarBrat, we met the Collectors.  All you're doing by picking Synthesis is giving StarBrat another chance to get things horribly wrong and irrevocably screw over all life in the galaxy in the process.

And Refuse is just simply throwing in the towel.  The cycle continues.

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Both a leap and an association-fallacy.

Your logic is pretty much, "Ventboy tells us [x], therefore, Ventboy is giving us [x]."

Fanbase, the answer to everything Reaper-related is not "Indoctrination!"

LOL, no.  Punchy-one line palmwaving of arguments that don't suit your own personal interpretations aren't going to cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

Association fallacy!  Do you even know what an association fallacy is, or are you simply saying it because it makes you feel smart and it's easier than actually debating the points?

If I'd said "Ventboy is an emotionless AI with fundamentally flawed logic that is directly responsible for murdering billions of innocent lives and exterminating millions of civilisations, therefore ALL AI's cannot be trusted because they are fundamentally flawed and capable of murder", THAT would be an association fallacy, and can disproved within the scope of the game.

But no, what I am saying is "Ventboy is an emotionless AI with fundamentally flawed logic that is directly responsible for murdering billions of innocent lives and exterminating millions and therefore trusted".  That's not an associaton fallacy, that's a FACT.  A FACT backed up by what we witness and learn throughout the game series.  Hell, VentBoy ADMITS full responsibility for causing the Reaper cyclein the first place!

I'm applying what we know for a FACT about the Crucible, the Reapers to Shepard's motivations for the final choice.  And what we know for a FACT is that until we speak to the Catalyst, Synthesis was NEVER on the agenda.  Destroying the Reapers, definitely.  Controlling them?  Maybe if you believed the Illusive Man's wild schemes were any more than an indoctrinated pipe dream.  Synthesis, nope, nothing.  Not a peep.  Synthesis it is the Reaper's method for using the Crucible's technology and power.  It is the Reaper's suggestion, the Reaper's idea, born of the Reaper's fundamentally flawed logic, and as I said earlier, acting on their suggestion is simply acting out their will.

Come back when you have something substantial based on actual in-game evidence to offer by way of a rebuttal.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:09 .

[Xilizhra]

Destroy is the ONLY acceptable scenario full stop. We were told this countless times by every one of our squad mates and allies. The only way to permanently end the Reaper threat is to end the Reapers themselves, once and for all.

You say this, yet the ending proves you wrong with its look into the future.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Destroy is the ONLY acceptable scenario full stop. We were told this countless times by every one of our squad mates and allies. The only way to permanently end the Reaper threat is to end the Reapers themselves, once and for all.

You say this, yet the ending proves you wrong with its look into the future.

Pictures an EDI talking don't really pove anything. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Both a leap and an association-fallacy.

Your logic is pretty much, "Ventboy tells us [x], therefore, Ventboy is giving us [x]."

Fanbase, the answer to everything Reaper-related is not "Indoctrination!"

LOL, no.  Punchy-one line palmwaving of arguments that don't suit your own personal interpretations aren't going to cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

What "palmwaving?" I'm not the one responding with "LOL, no" here.

I'm applying what we know for a FACT about the Crucible, the Reapers to Shepard's motivations for the final choice.  And what we know for a FACT is that until we speak to the Catalyst, Synthesis was NEVER on the agenda.  Destroying the Reapers, definitely.  Controlling them?  Maybe if you believed the Illusive Man's wild schemes were any more than an indoctrinated pipe dream.  Synthesis, nope, nothing.  Not a peep.  Synthesis it is the Reaper's method for using the Crucible's technology and power.  It is the Reaper's suggestion, the Reaper's idea, born of the Reaper's fundamentally flawed logic, and as I said earlier, acting on their suggestion is simply acting out their will.

This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but I'll respond anyway: I do not care.

You're telling me that it's somehow "invalid" to deviate from the original plan here... in a game full of quests where the original plan (going into the quest) can be reneged in favor of a new, unexpected one. If you don't like the new plan and prefer the original, that's one thing; you're entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

Let's take the rachni-queen mission (in ME3). You meet up with the krogan squad, and from the very start, the plan is to go in and burn out whatever is down there. No one raises another alternative solution. It's "Destroy" and only Destroy. Then you get down there and find out that -- if you saved the 'queen from Noveria -- it's the same queen that's down there, breeding children that serve as Reaper minions. And then, finally, an alternative plan arises: free her, at Arlakh's expense.

Now, I don't take it, and I have the original rachni-queen from Noveria in my game. I felt it was in Reaper custody for too long and there's nothing to allay any concerns of indoctrination. However, you don't see me going around and claiming that the game somehow "tricked" those who picked it into releasing an indoctrinated rachni-queen (though, by the looks of it, they could have snared many people into such a trap). Why? Because the facts (post-mission) don't back my opinion.

Case in point.

Come back when you have something substantial based on actual in-game evidence to offer by way of a rebuttal.

I provided a thread full of in-game evidence... which, I notice, you have ignored.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
You say this, yet the ending proves you wrong with its look into the future.

And is the ending the ONLY evidence you have to support your decision?  If so, you have a pretty flimsy argument.

[ElSuperGecko]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
What "palmwaving?" I'm not the one responding with "LOL, no" here.

Hilariously incorrect of association fallacy is effectivelypalmwaving.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
This is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but I'll respond anyway: I do not care.

So...more palm waving, then?

HYR 2.0 wrote...
You're telling me that it's somehow "invalid" to deviate from the original plan here... in a game full of quests where the original plan (going into the quest) can be reneged in favor of a new, unexpected one. If you don't like the new plan and prefer the original, that's one thing; you're entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

It'sperfectly valid to deviate from the original plan...so long as you remain aware of the potentialrsks and consequences, which you've just told meyou do not care about.  AndI'm perfectly entitled to use the FACTS as presented within the confines of the game - and the facts once again are that NO-ONE supports, condones or suggests Synthesis other than the being responsible for the nightmare we're fighting so desperately against in the first place.

Put it this way - if you confronted Ted Bundy with an arrest warrant, he gave up, confessed to his crimes then said "but I'll stop killing if you drink this unidentified green liquid" - would you arrest him, or would you drink the liquid?

HYR 2.0 wrote...
I provided a thread full of in-game evidence... which, I notice, you have ignored.

That's because it's not up to me to go digging around old threads looking for evidence to support YOUR argument (or necro your pitiful headcanon, for that matter).  If YOU have any clear, in-game evidence of people supporting, advocating or suggesting Synthesis OTHER than VentBoy StarBrat McCatalyst, please feel free to post it here!

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:33 .

[Obadiah]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
...
Destroy is the ONLY acceptable scenario full stop.  We were told this countless times by every one of our squad mates and allies.
...

That's only because they don't know of any other solution and aren't speaking to the entity in the Decison Chamber.

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:20 .

[Xilizhra]

And is the ending the ONLY evidence you have to support your decision? If so, you have a pretty flimsy argument.

Well, all you have is headcanon of the ending and various baseless assumptions.

AndI'm perfectly entitled to use the FACTS as presented within the confines of the game - and the facts once again are that NO-ONE supports, condones or suggests Synthesis other than the being responsible for the nightmare we're fighting so desperately against in the first place.

Er, how can they when they don't know it's an option?

Put it this way - if you confronted Ted Bundy with an arrest warrant, he gave up, confessed to his crimes then said "but I'll stop killing if you drink this unidentified green liquid" - would you arrest him, or would you drink the liquid?

Depends on how many others would be guaranteed to die if I didn't.

[Iakus]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Put it this way - if you confronted Ted Bundy with an arrest warrant, he gave up, confessed to his crimes then said "but I'll stop killing if you drink this unidentified green liquid" - would you arrest him, or would you drink the liquid?

More like "I'll stop killing if you pour this unidentified green liquid into the city's water supply, then shoot yourself in the head"

[ElSuperGecko]

Obadiah wrote...
That's only because they don't know of any other solution and aren't speaking to the entity in the Decison Chamber.

False.  They know about the Illusive Man's desire to try and Control the Reapers, and repeatedly warn us it's a pipe dream.  The also repeatedly warn (or should that be remind, for those who aren't paying attention) us that attempting to negotiate or reason with the Reapers will only lead to disaster.

You can ignore the empirical evidence presented throughout the series if you want, I prefer to trust the people I'm fighting for and listen to their opinions.

iakus wrote...
More like "I'll stop killing if you pour this unidentified green liquid into the city's water supply, then shoot yourself in the head"

Let's make it a little fairer on these poor, deluded souls though:

Bundy's holding a gun to your partner and says ""I won't kill them if you pour this unidentified green liquid into the city's water supply, then shoot yourself in the head"

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:38 .

[Br3admax]

iakus wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Put it this way - if you confronted Ted Bundy with an arrest warrant, he gave up, confessed to his crimes then said "but I'll stop killing if you drink this unidentified green liquid" - would you arrest him, or would you drink the liquid?

More like "I'll stop killing if you pour this unidentified green liquid into the city's water supply, then shoot yourself in the head"

I'd do it if he told me that it was the most desirable solution for everyone. 

[KaiserShep]

Daemul wrote...

IceTrey1987 wrote...
Destroy however is an acceptable ending EVEN if you let the geth individualize and EVEN if you encouraged EDI and Jeff. This is after all, war.

No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

To each his own I suppose. Me, I find it perfectly acceptable, ally or not, considering the scale.

Thing is, from the player's perspective, we simply accept all this stuff and keep pressing buttons, but from the PC's perspective, this should all look like insanity. There was never really a good reason for Shepard to accept control, since its only advocate was an indoctrinated jerkwad that we can dispatch. Up until then, just about everything Shepard had to do with the reapers was an active effort to destroy them, since they are pretty much incinerating everyone. Mind you, the reapers are still killing people left and right during this entire conversation. Apparently, the Catalyst controls them, but either can't or won't make them halt while it negotiates. Synthesis is pretty much the voodoo magic from the machine gods. Once it starts blathering on about essence, altering the framework of life, and perfection through understanding, any considerations about synthetic allies flew right out the window. Ain't nobody got time for that.

[Xilizhra]

KaiserShep wrote...

Daemul wrote...

IceTrey1987 wrote...
Destroy however is an acceptable ending EVEN if you let the geth individualize and EVEN if you encouraged EDI and Jeff. This is after all, war.

No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

To each his own I suppose. Me, I find it perfectly acceptable, ally or not, considering the scale.

Thing is, from the player's perspective, we simply accept all this stuff and keep pressing buttons, but from the PC's perspective, this should all look like insanity. There was never really a good reason for Shepard to accept control, since its only advocate was an indoctrinated jerkwad that we can dispatch. Up until then, just about everything Shepard had to do with the reapers was an active effort to destroy them, since they are pretty much incinerating everyone. Mind you, the reapers are still killing people left and right during this entire conversation. Apparently, the Catalyst controls them, but either can't or won't make them halt while it negotiates. Synthesis is pretty much the voodoo magic from the machine gods. Once it starts blathering on about essence, altering the framework of life, and perfection through understanding, any considerations about synthetic allies flew right out the window. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I always have time for saving people. It's my duty as a Spectre to defend the galaxy as a whole. I will not sacrifice anyone if there's another option.

[Iakus]

Daemul wrote...

No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

None of the endings are acceptable.

[KaiserShep]

As I said, to each his own. I would sacrifice plenty and not lose sleep, because it is, to me, the most sensible option. I've stated in the past that my own Shepard is essentially a murderer. She would break many an egg to make reaper omelets, because all that machine guardian stuff is best left as space dust.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Daemul wrote...

No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

None of the endings are acceptable.

Yes they are. They might be scary to perform, but stopping the cycle is better than all alternatives.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Daemul wrote...

IceTrey1987 wrote...
Destroy however is an acceptable ending EVEN if you let the geth individualize and EVEN if you encouraged EDI and Jeff. This is after all, war.

No, it is NOT acceptable in a High-EMS scenario, because there are other ways to win the war without anyone dying excspt for Shepard.  It would only be acceptable in a Low-EMS scenario where Destroy is your only option. There is nothing acceptable about killing an ally to win a war when you didn't have to. 

To each his own I suppose. Me, I find it perfectly acceptable, ally or not, considering the scale.

Thing is, from the player's perspective, we simply accept all this stuff and keep pressing buttons, but from the PC's perspective, this should all look like insanity. There was never really a good reason for Shepard to accept control, since its only advocate was an indoctrinated jerkwad that we can dispatch. Up until then, just about everything Shepard had to do with the reapers was an active effort to destroy them, since they are pretty much incinerating everyone. Mind you, the reapers are still killing people left and right during this entire conversation. Apparently, the Catalyst controls them, but either can't or won't make them halt while it negotiates. Synthesis is pretty much the voodoo magic from the machine gods. Once it starts blathering on about essence, altering the framework of life, and perfection through understanding, any considerations about synthetic allies flew right out the window. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I always have time for saving people. It's my duty as a Spectre to defend the galaxy as a whole. I will not sacrifice anyone if there's another option.

You don't know the outcome of any of the "options" that you are still forcing onto others. Two, that's not a Spectre's job. A Spectre accomplsihes the mission, which is to destroy the Reapers, as it has always been. Finally, as a Spectre, what you want is unimportant. This isn't about the outcome that you find favorable. 

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes they are. They might be scary to perform, but stopping the cycle is better than all alternatives.

See, now we can agree.  Destroying the Reapers is the ONLY guaranteed way to permanently stop the cycle. 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:40 .

[KaiserShep]

Eh, I always considered Spectres to be angels of death with council support.