Could someone walk me through the suicide argument? You're suddenly synthesized and life isn't worth living because....
Because you are a mutated genderless husk, a monstrous turian krogan hybrid, or a fat batarian with an arm that keeps talking to you begging to die.
I can only think that the masses of Reaper troops aren't going to be too pleased about what they've become.
This may make me sound like an idiot, but I can't actually see much of a difference.
It doesn't actually, it is hard to make comparisons in pictures.
The difference is huge though, going from ME1 low res blurry everything/ bland rubber armors to this, is just a huge step forward. You'll have to play it to see for yourself.
Because you are a mutated genderless husk, a monstrous turian krogan hybrid, or a fat batarian with an arm that keeps talking to you begging to die.
I can only think that the masses of Reaper troops aren't going to be too pleased about what they've become.
That is assuming that the husks suddenly regain their own concious again....
As I see it they still are controled by their implants or under "direct control" of their respective Reaper in the synthesis ending....
Because you are a mutated genderless husk, a monstrous turian krogan hybrid, or a fat batarian with an arm that keeps talking to you begging to die.
As I see it they still are controled by their implants or under "direct control" of their respective Reaper in the synthesis ending....
... because you didn't ask for this.
A sarcastic, but nevertheless accurate assessment.
Synthesis is being forced to give up your old identity and assume a new one. Because organics are not worthy of existing.
Sure some people might find transhumanism totally awesome. But not everyone. There are people who would find it horrific, who wouldn't stand for it. Yet "The Shepard" gets to decide their fate for them.
Discussing Synthesis just isn't the same without Bill Casey here.
Synthesis is being forced to give up your old identity and assume a new one. Because organics are not worthy of existing.
The bolded is an unnecessary and provocative exaggeration, but the front end is generally correct on a fundamental basis. However, studies show that our genetic framework changes over the course of our lifetime anyway, effectively changing our identity by that base definition, too. Our physical composition isn't the bottom line in who we are, and I'd argue that the people seen doing the same things in destroy and synthesis universes---as presented by BioWare---retained their "identity". And yeah, there are going to be tons of people who would eat the benefits of synthesis, in the positive interpretation of it, up with a spoon.
Just a few musings from an avid destroyer playing devil's advocate.
Anyhoo ...
I think "amazingly high" is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do think the replay value is at least on the same level as ME2, since there's some actual consequences that play out based on decisions in the game.
Kill the Rachni Queen? Not a problem.
Erase the difference between organics and synthetics? OH MY LORD, UNETHICAL.
The bolded is an unnecessary and provocative exaggeration, but the front end is generally correct on a fundamental basis. However, studies show that our genetic framework changes over the course of our lifetime anyway, effectively changing our identity by that base definition, too. Our physical composition isn't the bottom line in who we are, and I'd argue that the people seen doing the same things in destroy and synthesis universes---as presented by BioWare---retained their "identity". And yeah, there are going to be tons of people who would eat the benefits of synthesis, in the positive interpretation of it, up with a spoon.
WRT the italed, I think the big failure of EC Synthesis is that they did the ending from the wrong perspective. Presumably because EDI becoming more like us is easiest to write. As opposed to, for instance, what Joker felt like after Synthesis, which would have been harder to write but far more interesting.
As for identity, aren't we all just Ships of Theseus?
Synthesis is being forced to give up your old identity and assume a new one.
Only for the current generation. For the next generation, it will simply be what they always were. And if they grow up with parents telling them how awful their identity is, then maybe those parents should just kill themselves and let someone else do a proper job.
Oh, we're talking about the former Reaper troops? OK, I can see that. Still, better to have the option to die rather than be forced to die. (There's a hanging curve for iakus, if he wants it)
I can only assume that's what was meant. Then again, you know what they say about assuming.
If the Reaper troops got back any sense of former self, then could they really live with what they became or what they had done.
Only for the current generation. For the next generation, it will simply be what they always were. And if they grow up with parents telling them how awful their identity is, then maybe those parents should just kill themselves and let someone else do a proper job.
Then I guess the genophage only really affects the first generation of krogan... 
Then I guess the genophage only really affects the first generation of krogan...
The difference there, of course, being that the genophage had absolutely no physical benefits.
Kill the Rachni Queen? Not a problem.
Erase the difference between organics and synthetics? OH MY LORD, UNETHICAL.
Both are unethical and bad decisions, IMO.
Only for the current generation. For the next generation, it will simply be what they always were. And if they grow up with parents telling them how awful their identity is, then maybe those parents should just kill themselves and let someone else do a proper job.
That doesn't change the fact that it's an unethical and immoral decision to make. If one wants to become an organic-synthetic hybrid, then I'd say go ahead and have fun. But to make this decision for trillions of sapient beings in the entire galaxy goes way too far. Nobody has the right to decide that for others.
Unless Shepard really believes that it's Synthesis or eventual extinction. Meaning that she believes Control to be a non-starter for whatever reason, and that the Catalyst is right about everything. In this case Synthesis can be the ethical choice, depending on your ethical framework.
There's also an interesting version where Shepard doesn't believe that Destroy leads to extinction for anyone but the geth. Which option is the ethical choice then?
Unless Shepard really believes that it's Synthesis or eventual extinction. Meaning that she believes Control to be a non-starter for whatever reason, and that the Catalyst is right about everything. In this case Synthesis can be the ethical choice, depending on your ethical framework.
There's also an interesting version where Shepard doesn't believe that Destroy leads to extinction for anyone but the geth. Which option is the ethical choice then?
None of the above
Are you saying that Refuse is the ethical choice in that situation? That works for some ethical systems.
But if no choice evaluates as being the ethical one, there's something wrong with your system. The point of ethics is to give you guidance, not to fall to pieces when a sufficiently hard situation arises.
Are you saying that Refuse is the ethical choice in that situation? That works for some ethical systems.
But if no choice evaluates as being the ethical one, there's something wrong with your system. The point of ethics is to give you guidance, not to fall to pieces when a sufficiently hard situation arises.
It's quite simply a preposterous situation that has no answer. It's simply a question of what atrocity you are least uncomfortable with making. You may want to call that "ethical" but I call it a kick in the quad. Four kicks, really.
Saying that it's a preposterous situation doesn't get us anywhere. There's no natural law saying that preposterous situations can't arise ITRW.
There's also no opposition between something being ethical and being a kick in the quad. The universe is not obligated to give you decisions that you like.
Are you saying that Refuse is the ethical choice in that situation? That works for some ethical systems.
But if no choice evaluates as being the ethical one, there's something wrong with your system. The point of ethics is to give you guidance, not to fall to pieces when a sufficiently hard situation arises.
Not so fast. Some virtue ethicists (especially Rosalind Hursthouse) explicitly acknowledge the possibility of what they call "tragic moral dilemmas," or situations in which no matter what you do, you act badly. Some examples of this involve situations that you get yourself into because of your own past bad actions (i.e. getting engaged to two different people, each of whom is ignorant of your engagement to the other). Another example might be something like Sophie's Choice, in which the titular character (spoilers, but I assume the statute of limitations here has passed) is asked by the Gestapo which of her two children is to be killed; if she fails to choose, both will be killed. According to Hursthouse, no choice you make in this situation constitutes acting well; you can disagree with her about this, but it would be a bit quick to conclude that her whole system is a failure because of how she approaches these dilemmas.
Saying that it's a preposterous situation doesn't get us anywhere. There's no natural law saying that preposterous situations can't arise ITRW.
There's also no opposition between something being ethical and being a kick in the quad. The universe is not obligated to give you decisions that you like.
Preposterous situations with limited options popped up frequently in the first two games, including choices without an "out" option.
This one was just a bit too gray and outlandish for some, especially bleeding-heart paragons.
Retour en haut