You sound like Mordin talking about the genophage before his change of heart. Not much difference between forcing the genophage on the krogan and forcing synthesis on everyone. Mordin argued that the genophage was in the krogan's and the galaxy's best interest too.
Destroy repeats the cycle. This is not a solution; tis ignorance of history and a good old saying.
How's that? The Reapers are destroyed, so the cycle of extinction ends. That's what the Catalyst is referring to when he uses the word cycle when Shepard is talking to him. The Reaper's harvesting cycle that happens every 50,000 years.
See ME1 & Vigil's conversation for a reference.
How's that? The Reapers are destroyed, so the cycle of extinction ends. That's what the Catalyst is referring to when he uses the word cycle when Shepard is talking to him. The Reaper's harvesting cycle that happens every 50,000 years.
See ME1 & Vigil's conversation for a reference.
It has plenty of ramifcation
The entire infrastructure of the galaxy is the ability to move good or materials from point A to point B. A planet with less food growing ability could import food from a more prosperous area.
Not only are large portions of the galaxy in ruin thanks to Reapers but with the relays gone it would prevent aid or needed resources from reaching them. Without Reaper help it would take a long time to rebuild the relays.
Millions would die without aid or food shortages.
you see people don't see the drawbacks of food as far as synthesis is concerned. everything would be altered at a genetic level. everything. including food. synthesis is the final evolution of nothing. Life cannot hit a wall of non-evolution. That is not the end of evolution it is the death of everything. Synthesis has been tried before remember....ahem.....collectors. and look how that ended.
As far as transportation is concerned, we cope pretty well without intergalactic deliveries at the moment, so there is no reason to suspect that this will be a problem.
you see people don't see the drawbacks of food as far as synthesis is concerned. everything would be altered at a genetic level. everything. including food. synthesis is the final evolution of nothing. Life cannot hit a wall of non-evolution. That is not the end of evolution it is the death of everything. Synthesis has been tried before remember....ahem.....collectors. and look how that ended.
As far as transportation is concerned, we cope pretty well without intergalactic deliveries at the moment, so there is no reason to suspect that this will be a problem.
And you take it at it's word that those other 'levers' are properly tagged.
Because I have to, though again, as the player it's clear they are. However that the "levers" are properly labeled or not is a separate question from whether or not the justification for the Reapers or argument against Destroy are valid. We're talking about reasoning now.
Destroy has bad results; even worse with low EMS. Synthesis cannot even be obtained until one has high EMS, as it is a better solution.
Again, the low EMS results are irrelevant when comparing Destroy with Synthesis because they do not exist when the choice is available. Synthesis is not available until high EMS because EMS is just score and you need a high score to get the "good" ending. There's no doubt the writers meant for Synthesis to be the good ending. That doesn't mean it doesn't spit in the face of the rest of the series. We didn't need stupid Synthesis to get peace between Quarians and Geth. We didn't need stupid Synthesis to have EDI care about the Normandy crew and for she and Joker to fall in love. We don't need stupid Synthesis.
The epilogue indicates that Synthesis is a win; no proof to the contrary.
Yeah, the writers' favorite ending works out great. Big surprise. This is an argument after the fact and no justification for making the choice in the moment.
Then synthetics are created again, will become sentient, and then evolve into synthetic life. Conflict will arise, turn into war, etc.
So what? Organics will deal with that when it happens on their own and in their own way. Destroy.
Well, except that we do not have FTL yet. But I imagine all those folks stranded light years from each other are not going to be as patient for the lights to return as we are now.
Currently, folks have conniptions if they lose a signal for phones or devices, lose power, lose their tech. There is no reason to suspect that our future selves would be any less patient for a return of normalcy.
"People might get annoyed" is a terrible argument for changing the DNA in everything that exists.
"People might get annoyed" is a terrible argument for changing the DNA in everything that exists.
They are the survivors of a galactic war, I think they can manage unless they are in an outpost with no own food supply.
They are the survivors of a galactic war, I think they can manage unless they are in an outpost with no own food supply.
you see people don't see the drawbacks of food as far as synthesis is concerned. everything would be altered at a genetic level. everything. including food. synthesis is the final evolution of nothing. Life cannot hit a wall of non-evolution. That is not the end of evolution it is the death of everything. Synthesis has been tried before remember....ahem.....collectors. and look how that ended.
As far as transportation is concerned, we cope pretty well without intergalactic deliveries at the moment, so there is no reason to suspect that this will be a problem.
Collectors were not synthesis collectors were the Reapers creating an army to act in their stead during their 50,000 year wait between harvests. This would ensure no one suspects the Reapers exist. While still allowing them to perform tests to find the suitable species to create a new full Reaper with.
Food changing is a pretty moot point because we change as well. If there was one change without the other then maybe you might have a point.
We also don't have populations of billions with millions and millions of acres of land burn or destroyed. Injured people trying to recover from their wounds and limited medical supplies. Even if you wanted to use current day examples. Modern Continents are not fully self sufficient for certain key things.
You show such an amazing inability to see the devastation brought on by the conflict. Go replay the Palavin mission and look up at the planet when Garrus comments on it. Then stat that a planet in such condition could support a population on it's own without food shortages, fuel shortages and medical shortages.
Yes, Destroy is the best choice and solves all the narrative and ethical problems of the others.
No it doesn't. In the world of head cannon which seems like 8 out of 10 destroy option pickers live in yes.
Must have left out a proper emoticon depicting snark. Being out of power for a night or week is a far call from waiting until FTL and like advanced tech gets repaired. And in the meantime, organics will perish; events on the Citadel throughout the series present examples of this.
Unsurprisingly, I did not leave out such an emoticon, but I'm glad you picked it up on your own.
Was actually speaking of my own post, as folks will be far more than annoyed; some will die from being tossed backwards into technical regression. But am glad that you are finally seeing the harshness of such a poor choice.
Well except the Synthesis preserves all life, as opposed to prioritizing one form or species over another. Don't hate because we're green....
That's just a lie. It destroys all life and replaces it with something else. This is like trying to talk logically about religion with a person of faith. One just cannot do it because it's not based on logic. You find it perfectly acceptable to kill everyone and replace them with something else against their will at the behest of the dictator leader of the most murderous group in the history of the galaxy. If you don't see the problem with that then nothing I write will make you see it.
Then synthetics are created again, will become sentient, and then evolve into synthetic life. Conflict will arise, turn into war, etc.
The conflict isn't organics vs synthetics. It's Reapers vs organics and synthetics.
I think the Catalyst managed to convince people the Reapers weren't the enemy and your synthetic friends were the real threat to organics.
It's not much different than this.
Oh, I'll chalk it up to me not having enough coffee yet, and you're still making the absolute worst in-game choice imaginable.
That's just a lie. It destroys all life and replaces it with something else. This is like trying to talk logically about religion with a person of faith. One just cannot do it because it's not based on logic. You find it perfectly acceptable to kill everyone and replace them with something else against their will at the behest of the dictator leader of the most murderous group in the history of the galaxy. If you don't see the problem with that then nothing I write will make you see it.
Collectors were not synthesis collectors were the Reapers creating an army to act in their stead during their 50,000 year wait between harvests. This would ensure no one suspects the Reapers exist. While still allowing them to perform tests to find the suitable species to create a new full Reaper with.
They were a form of Synthesis, such as discussed by Saren. Having played ME2, we know the plot role of the Collectors, thanks. Of course, ME makes this stupid. (I won't let it be the reverse.)
You show such an amazing inability to see the devastation brought on by the conflict. Go replay the Palavin mission and look up at the planet when Garrus comments on it. Then stat that a planet in such condition could support a population on it's own without food shortages, fuel shortages and medical shortages.
The epilogue says they "can rebuild everything that was destroyed." Now, I acknowledge that this is writer white washing, but so is Synthesis.
So what? Organics will deal with that when it happens on their own and in their own way. Destroy.
That's assuming it even comes to that.
They were a form of Synthesis, such as discussed by Saren. Having played ME2, we know the plot role of the Collectors, thanks. Of course, ME makes this stupid. (I won't let it be the reverse.)
The epilogue says they "can rebuild everything that was destroyed." Now, I acknowledge that this is writer white washing, but so is Synthesis.
They weren't a form of synthesis. They were tailor made to suit the Reaper's purpose. Claiming they represent the synthesis ending is like claiming gay people in Montana cause hurricanes to kill people in Florida. As with the ending the player in question stated that there was no bad thing to the destroy ending. Which is out right ignoring how the galactic community would work. Which is really just a larger version of how our world community works. New York can't grow all the food to support New York so they import it from places like Kansas that is more farm land. The same would apply to the galaxy. So when they claim there isn't any bad after effects of destroy it is ignoring how many people will die after the war is over due to lack of supplies.
That's just a lie. It destroys all life and replaces it with something else. This is like trying to talk logically about religion with a person of faith. One just cannot do it because it's not based on logic. You find it perfectly acceptable to kill everyone and replace them with something else against their will at the behest of the dictator leader of the most murderous group in the history of the galaxy. If you don't see the problem with that then nothing I write will make you see it.
"No, you don't understand! I stopped calling myself Jules when I was fifteen and I'd found out what you'd done to me! I'm Julian!"
"What difference does that make?"
"It's makes every difference! Because I'm different, can't you see? Jules Bashir died in that hospital, because you couldn't live with the shame of having a son who didn't measure up!"
Star Trek: Deeps Space Nine "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?"
This is like trying to talk logically about religion with a person of faith. One just cannot do it because it's not based on logic.
This is partly true. As much as I love logic, there is only so far it can take us and there are things it can not address. Religion and faith do extend into these areas. However, Faith need not be opposed to Reason.
No it doesn't. In the world of head cannon which seems like 8 out of 10 destroy option pickers live in yes.
No, Destroy presents no narrative problems. It's imperfect for other reasons, but that's an entirely different issue.
First, faith is not the Indiana Jones stepping out on an invisible bridge moment that some imagine. It is belief based on past evidence of promises kept.
And Synthesis did not kill anyone; inoculated everyone against famine, overpopulation, low immune diseases, the current war, ignorance, and a bevy of other ailments. Believe it is Destroy that kills; thus the handle.
Well said on Faith, but hopefully the discussion ends here before we all get warnings.
I'm glad you brought up the second point as I'd forgotten about that. How does Sythesis solve overpopulation for the Krogan without fundamentally changing them? The entire problem with the Krogan and the rebellions was that they were overpopulating due to high birthrate and drastically reduced death rate.
Claiming they represent the synthesis ending is like claiming gay people in Montana cause hurricanes to kill people in Florida.
Ok, this is officially the dumbest thing you've said. Congratulations.
They weren't a form of synthesis. They were tailor made to suit the Reaper's purpose.
Yeah, so what? They are a combination of organic and synthetic. So are the Reapers and all of their ground troops. Synthesis could have worked better if the Catalyst had said the Reapers were his first attempt at Synthesis instead of genetic libraries.
As with the ending the player in question stated that there was no bad thing to the destroy ending. Which is out right ignoring how the galactic community would work. Which is really just a larger version of how our world community works. New York can't grow all the food to support New York so they import it from places like Kansas that is more farm land. The same would apply to the galaxy. So when they claim there isn't any bad after effects of destroy it is ignoring how many people will die after the war is over due to lack of supplies.
Yeah and that was a problem with the original ending. The EC whitewashes over that though.
Retour en haut