485 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Then I guess the genophage only really affects the first generation of krogan...

 

Are you saying that Synthesis severely screws up reproduction such that mothers will often give birth to stillborn green glowly babies?

 

If that were true, you'd be on to something. But no such manifest downside exists with Synthesis. In Synthesis, the damage is purely psychological, and in a way that doesn't transfer to the next generation except if bitter parents want it to. With the genophage, those stillborns are going to happen regardless, and the despair will perpetuate itself.

[SwobyJ]

What breaks EDI's speech for me...

 

Compare this to this.

 

Hopefully, the timestamps are set correctly. If not, 27 seconds in the first video, 38 minutes, 42 seconds in the second.

 

That breaks it? Heck, that made the speech for me.

 

So chilling.

[SwobyJ]

Was it ridiculous in the first two games?

 

ME1 - You gotta lose the Destiny Ascension + Council, or several significant Alliance ships. Can't just pwn Sovereign without a cost.

 

ME2 - You gotta, at minimum, lose the colonists that you've pursued since at least Horizon. While you can Hold the Line for your henchmen and crew, the colonists are the ones you Lost, that you must Fight for.

 

So no, Shepard has never had a 'clear win'.

No matter what, the story forces:

-a few major character deaths

-a few very morally (at least) ambiguous actions

-the feeling that you haven't fully won*

 

*In ME1 it was that you only stalled the Reapers by an unknown amount of time, having lost people and assets in the process.

In ME2 it was that you only put on a struggle against the Reapers without achieving must substantial against them (which Harbinger gloats over), and even the Arrival events stall things by just several months

 

Did ME1 still have a victory? Yes, you destroy Sovereign and push back the Reapers' advance.

Did ME2 still have a victory? Yes, you destroyed the Human Reaper (meaning another one starts at square one), and you/others may push back the Reapers' advance.

Did ME3 still have a victory? *Yes*. You destroy all Reapers. You can do that. It's there.

 

All these victories came at costs. It's just that ME1's mandatory costs were done at a distance (Shepard just suggesting something on comms), while ME2's mandatory costs were personal but external (being unable to reach the colonists in time).. but ME3's mandatory costs were personal and internal (Shepard making a clear choice to do something like destroy all Geth and EDI and maybe himself).

 

ME3 was a leap forward in some things, where ME2 was a more relatively measured step forward. Shepard was always on this road imo, but the Crucible stuff seemed set like it was in a sort of ME4+, instead of what most of ME3 felt like.

[vallore]

Are you saying that Synthesis severely screws up reproduction such that mothers will often give birth to stillborn green glowly babies?

 

If that were true, you'd be on to something. But no such manifest downside exists with Synthesis. In Synthesis, the damage is purely psychological, and in a way that doesn't transfer to the next generation except if bitter parents want it to. With the genophage, those stillborns are going to happen regardless, and the despair will perpetuate itself.

 

That is because we don’t know what synthesis does, exactly. So how can you know that the imposed change will be regarded as positive by those changed? Or even necessary?

 

Synthesis is a change from the natural state of things, with the purpose to “correct” a dubious problem that is external to the individual. It is not necessarily something that a person affected may have desired in the first place. Or even find desirable. That such a liberty is taken with their very self would, imo,  likely generate a no small amount of anger and resentment in a broad part of the affected population.

[jtav]

We don't know the mechanism, but the results are very positive. Probably not universally so, but generally speaking. I imagine there will be a variety of reactions among the first generation, but Synthesis will eventually be taken for granted.

[Kel Riever]

Going back to the OP:  Raight.....

 

/trollthread

[Iakus]

Are you saying that Synthesis severely screws up reproduction such that mothers will often give birth to stillborn green glowly babies?

 

If that were true, you'd be on to something. But no such manifest downside exists with Synthesis. In Synthesis, the damage is purely psychological, and in a way that doesn't transfer to the next generation except if bitter parents want it to. With the genophage, those stillborns are going to happen regardless, and the despair will perpetuate itself.

No.  I'm saying the salarians thought they knew best for the krogan, who disagreed.

 

The manifest downside (that we know of, anyway) is that it is forced.  And in the end, it doesn't matter what "advantages" Synthesis, may grant.  It's still forcing it on people.  And their children. Those green eyes are going to happen regardless.

 

The problem with Synthesis is you don't get to opt out.  That's an absolute violation of everyone who would refuse it.   With really unpleasant implications. 

[jtav]

The salarians didn't give a darn about the krogan. Forced sterilization is generally considered a very bad thing. If what Synthesis does can be considered beneficial by any reasonable definition, I have no issue forcing people.

[Farangbaa]

The salarians didn't give a darn about the krogan. Forced sterilization is generally considered a very bad thing. If what Synthesis does can be considered beneficial by any reasonable definition, I have no issue forcing people.

 

In before someone yells Hitler.

[Ryriena]

No. I'm saying the salarians thought they knew best for the krogan, who disagreed.

The manifest downside (that we know of, anyway) is that it is forced. And in the end, it doesn't matter what "advantages" Synthesis, may grant. It's still forcing it on people. And their children. Those green eyes are going to happen regardless.

The problem with Synthesis is you don't get to opt out. That's an absolute violation of everyone who would refuse it. With really unpleasant implications.

Exactly, would someone like Javki be really ok with this forced change? He even said he hates AI's and doesn't view them as he would a organic. So him looking all happy about this change is a little to much like brain washing to my liking.

[CronoDragoon]

The manifest downside (that we know of, anyway) is that it is forced.  And in the end, it doesn't matter what "advantages" Synthesis, may grant.  It's still forcing it on people.  And their children. Those green eyes are going to happen regardless.

 

The problem with Synthesis is you don't get to opt out.  That's an absolute violation of everyone who would refuse it.   With really unpleasant implications. 

 

That's not a manifest downside, at least not in the way I meant it. If we had more information about possible downsides that Synthesis causes aside from the traumatized initial generation, then this would be a discussion I take seriously. But it's simply not going to matter for the next generation. However, you are correct that it's a violation on anyone who would rather you pick Destroy, Control, or Refuse. But those who would pick Destroy simply because it doesn't affect them and rather the synthetic other instead are not those whose reasoning I will take seriously. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that the % of people who'd rather Control or Refuse over Synthesis is anything higher than *instert arbitrary low-percentage guess here*.

 

In a vacuum, Synthesis is wrong, and no one has the right to force that change. In the context of the Crucible choice, I have already been given implicit permission to stop the Reapers with what I consider minimal damage done.

 

That is because we don’t know what synthesis does, exactly. So how can you know that the imposed change will be regarded as positive by those changed? Or even necessary?

 

Synthesis is a change from the natural state of things, with the purpose to “correct” a dubious problem that is external to the individual. It is not necessarily something that a person affected may have desired in the first place. Or even find desirable. That such a liberty is taken with their very self would, imo,  likely generate a no small amount of anger and resentment in a broad part of the affected population.

 

Yes, we don't know much about Synthesis. But we don't see any downsides in the slides, so I have to work with the information I'm given rather than concocting or supposing unsupported hypothetical downsides in the appearance of an argument against.

 

The "natural state" argument is without much weight. By the time the ME universe takes place "natural progression" has long since collapsed under the weight of technological advancement. It's also unclear to me that this constitutes unnatural progression in the first place, given the arbitrary differentiation such claims tend to institute.

 

The "correction" of organic flaws may well be irrelevant to the Shepard deciding. The decision that Synthesis is the best choice need not include the decision that organic/synthetic relations are doomed, but rather that this is the best way to stop the Reapers. Now, the fact that the Reapers are still alive and well is likely to cause a great amount of confusion and turmoil in the years to follow. But the game implies through the slides that eventually peaceful coexistence prevails, at least to the same degree that such prevails among any of the galaxy's inhabitants (which is to say, intermittently).

 

Exactly, would someone like Javki be really ok with this forced change? He even said he hates AI's and doesn't view them as he would a organic. So him looking all happy about this change is a little to much like brain washing to my liking.

 

First, he doesn't look happy. Second, this is missing the point. Javik is the first generation, those who were changed. The second generation is a different beast, and the situation isn't comparable to the genophage in the key way I've described. I've made no argument about the first generation, except that I tend to think people overvalue the degree to which despair will prevail in the post-war era due to Synthesis.

[Iakus]

The salarians didn't give a darn about the krogan. Forced sterilization is generally considered a very bad thing. If what Synthesis does can be considered beneficial by any reasonable definition, I have no issue forcing people.

 

Given what the Catalyst has done to organic life for millions of years, I'd have to say I question their priorities in this matter

[Iakus]

That's not a manifest downside, at least not in the way I meant it. If we had more information about possible downsides that Synthesis causes aside from the traumatized initial generation, then this would be a discussion I take seriously. But it's simply not going to matter for the next generation. However, you are correct that it's a violation on anyone who would rather you pick Destroy, Control, or Refuse. But those who would pick Destroy simply because it doesn't affect them and rather the synthetic other instead are not those whose reasoning I will take seriously. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that the % of people who'd rather Control or Refuse over Synthesis is anything higher than *instert arbitrary low-percentage guess here*.

 

In a vacuum, Synthesis is wrong, and no one has the right to force that change. In the context of the Crucible choice, I have already been given implicit permission to stop the Reapers with what I consider minimal damage done.

 

 

You're defining manifest downside as a purely physical detriment. That's far from the potential extent of it.  And it can absolutely pass on to further generations.  Just as any resentment can.

 

If something  " is wrong, but..." then it's wrong.  And anything further is making excuses.

[CronoDragoon]

You're defining manifest downside as a purely physical detriment. That's far from the potential extent of it.  And it can absolutely pass on to further generations.  Just as any resentment can.

 

How? What reason would the second generation have to be resentful of how they are?

 

 

If something  " is wrong, but..." then it's wrong.  And anything further is making excuses.

 

That's certainly one way of looking at ethical action, but it's one that virtually no one believes in practice. After all, Paragons just spent three games practicing, "Killing is wrong, except in self-defense or when they are bad guys." Renegades simply see killing as another tool to achieve their ethical goal of maximizing "the good" however a consequentialist may define such.

 

In other words, there is no such thing as a Kantian Shepard. Such an ethical system wouldn't support the military in the first place.

[Iakus]

How? What reason would the second generation have to be resentful of how they are?

 

 

Why do quarians want Rannoch back, despite no one being alive who's even seen it?

 

Even if Synthesis granted everything but capes, there will be people resentful of what was forced on them.  And I don't for a second believe that Synthesis is as perfect as Bioware tried to make it out to be.

 

 

That's certainly one way of looking at ethical action, but it's one that virtually no one believes in practice. After all, Paragons just spent three games practicing, "Killing is wrong, except in self-defense or when they are bad guys." Renegades simply see killing as another tool to achieve their ethical goal of maximizing "the good" however a consequentialist may define such.

 

In other words, there is no such thing as a Kantian Shepard. Such an ethical system wouldn't support the military in the first place.

 

 

But there are Shepards who are not proud of their actions.  This is not the tone to end a trilogy on.

[Ryriena]

Yup for me, I wasn't proud of my actions with Undina and told Kaiden, I did what any solider should have done in my place. I was doing my job as a Specter, which is to protect them. It's doesn't mean, I'm proud of what I've done. It just means that I thought it was the right call at the time.


I wouldn't say someone like the paragon Shepard wouldn't join the military. In fact, I think killing people is wrong only in self defense is the acceptable option. But I would join the military in a heartbeat in fact I wanted to be a Navy officer. I was declared not fit for service due to my disability. They could become medics and chaplains even if they had those views so I wouldn't say that their wouldn't be someone with those views in the military.

[CronoDragoon]

Why do quarians want Rannoch back, despite no one being alive who's even seen it?

 

Because it provides an objective improvement over their current situation, and because the sentiment has been passed from parent to child. Compare this with Synthesis, in which no objective downside has shown itself, and for which, as I said, the feeling of tragic loss will only be passed down if parents instill within their children a hatred for their own identity. In which case, as I said, they should just kill themselves.

 

Even if Synthesis granted everything but capes, there will be people resentful of what was forced on them.  And I don't for a second believe that Synthesis is as perfect as Bioware tried to make it out to be.

 

Well, if you'd like to propose some objective downside to Synthesis, then in theory I'd probably agree. I can only go on what we're given, though.

 

But there are Shepards who are not proud of their actions.  This is not the tone to end a trilogy on.

 

Pride and necessity aren't the same. The argument isn't that Shepard is proud of choosing Synthesis, but that he feels it's the best choice and would do it again without regret.

 

If we're switching gears to talk about player pride, then that's a separate argument we can make, and actually probably the one more relevant to the thread. But it's not connected to the justification for choosing Synthesis at the Crucible.

 

Either way, I don't see how this is a counterpoint to my point that Shepard justifies killing as the right call during the series using context as "an excuse."

 

 

 I'm proud of what I've done. It just means that I thought it was the right call at the time.

 

Exactly. Just as a Shepard can say Synthesis was the right call.

 

For the record I choose Destroy.

[Ryriena]

Because it provides an objective improvement over their current situation, and because the sentiment has been passed from parent to child. Compare this with Synthesis, in which no objective downside has shown itself, and for which, as I said, the feeling of tragic loss will only be passed down if parents instill within their children a hatred for their own identity. In which case, as I said, they should just kill themselves.


Well, if you'd like to propose some objective downside to Synthesis, then in theory I'd probably agree. I can only go on what we're given, though.


Pride and necessity aren't the same. The argument isn't that Shepard is proud of choosing Synthesis, but that he feels it's the best choice and would do it again without regret.

If we're switching gears to talk about player pride, then that's a separate argument we can make, and actually probably the one more relevant to the thread. But it's not connected to the justification for choosing Synthesis at the Crucible.



Exactly. Just as a Shepard can say Synthesis was the right call.

For the record I choose Destroy.

I said it doesn't mean I'm proud of what I'm done. You cut that out to make you sound right.

[CronoDragoon]

I said it doesn't mean I'm proud of what I'm done. You cut that out to make you sound right.

 

I cut that out by accident; I was supporting your point that a Shepard can choose an action he feels necessary without being proud of it.

[Ryriena]

Oh ok I was wondering why half my post was gone xd.

[CronoDragoon]

Oh ok I was wondering why half my post was gone xd.

 

Because I suck at this new quoting system.

 

Seriously every time I try to edit quotes by deleting some lines the entire frakin quote box disappears and I have to start over. It's so annoying.

[Farangbaa]

Because I suck at this new quoting system.
 
Seriously every time I try to edit quotes by deleting some lines the entire frakin quote box disappears and I have to start over. It's so annoying.

When you're typing your post, click the top left button. It removes the formatting and gives you standard BB code.

Just recently discovered this and it's made my life easier

[KaiserShep]

And I don't for a second believe that Synthesis is as perfect as Bioware tried to make it out to be.

 

If Synthesis were perfect, Shepard would be able to survive it.   Wait...forget I said anything. No. Stop. Don't!

[AlanC9]

ME1 - You gotta lose the Destiny Ascension + Council, or several significant Alliance ships. Can't just pwn Sovereign without a cost.
 

Plus Virmire, of course.

[CronoDragoon]

If Synthesis were perfect, Shepard would be able to survive it.   Wait...forget I said anything. No. Stop. Don't!

 

Anders, what have you done?