779 réponses à ce sujet

[Fjordgnu]

"Forgetting all the plotholes" could make anything seem good. It's not an option.

[Tallestra]

Even if you accept that kid as a universal force and truth, none of his solutions works anyway. Once you start thinking about them logically, they all fall apart. As it has been pointed by many, nothing will stop hybrids from creating synthetic new life and starting the circle anew.

[General User]

jerms510 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sonashi wrote...
Let's forget about hallucination theory for a moment.

Control ending (in my opinion the worst)- you became new catalyst. You can control Reapers and you decide when new cycle should start (if it's needed). You sacrificed your own life but Geth and EDI lives. Now whole point of stopping TIM in ME 3 is lost.

Synthesis (second)- you sacrificed own life to preserve all races. Reapers still exsists and old Catalyst still has control. So you became sort of slave. For example you don't like something Reapers can make you opposite. Your own will is illusion.

Destroy (the best) - the whole point of ME is about stopping Reapers. Once you destroy them you are safe. Of course you sacrificed all synthetic life. But this is a war you have to do that if you want win. Catalyst is gone. New start without Reaper nanny

Synthesis: you give up everything to defuse the conflict between organics and synthetics, combining them on a higher level so that they no longer need a guardian to watch over them. The Citadel is destroyed (thus: so is the Catalyst) and the mass relays are gone, but the cycle is ended and the problem which it was created to,solve will not arise again.  Another valid choice, its only downside is that the mass relays are gone. The consequences for the species of the galaxy are necessarily vague, but it is heavily suggested by the ending sequence that we're supposed to see them as good. I can go along with that.

No. Despite the fact that THERE WAS NEVER SUCH A DIRE CONFLICT TO BEGIN WITH, making the whole motivation for this foolish AI completely flawed, the whole prospect of the creation rebelling againt their creators is still there. Eventually, these half synthetic people will create AI either by accident or to fulfill certain ends. Why would these AI not attack their creators this time? Because they have a few flashy parts? Was that ever their problem with organics in the first place? Or was it because they were the creators? Or was it because they had different thought processes to AI?

No. This ending shouldn't even stop the Reapers from returning, because one day man-synthetic made AI will SUPPOSEDLY attack their creators again, regardless of how many nuts and bolts they have.

This ending is flawed in it's very premise.

um...what? Javik states that in his cycle there was an identical issue with synthetics overthrowing organic masters and going to war. You have no proof or reference to disprove the assertion that, without the Reaper cycle, synthetic life would ultimately extinguish organic life.

Here's the thing: there will always be conflict.  Always.  It will never go away no matter what anyone does.  Ever.  There will be conflict between organics and synthetics, there will be conflict between organics and organics, there will be conflict between synthetics and synthetics. 

Someone will always be trying to extinguish someone else.  And, as Javik and the Protheans showed, the winner need not always be the synthetics.

So when the StarKid tells me that synthetic life will eventually go to war with organic life, my response is a big fat "So what?" 

Besides, I know something he apparently doesn't: that organics and synthetics are perfectly capable of living together peaceably without some ridiculous "fusion."  And, like another poster (I apologize for not remembering the username) wrote:  Maybe the peace Shepard put together will hold up, maybe it won't.  But who the hell is this shiny little runt to deny us the right to try?

[nitefyre410]

General User wrote...

*Snip* 
Besides, I know something he apparently doesn't: that organics and synthetics are perfectly capable of living together peaceably without some ridiculous "fusion."  And, like another poster (I apologize for not remembering the username) wrote:  Maybe the peace Shepard put together will hold up, maybe it won't.  But who the hell is this shiny little runt to deny us the right to try?

 

Alot of us have said that but 

it is so true... who is the little brat to us not try. Who is he to  play  god with cycle that is even bigger and grander than  itself and its something that even  The Catalyst can't even  grasp.  

these endings are not philosophical... they are complete nonsense. 

[Ieldra]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
All we needed was the ability to question this child's logic. This would effectively establish him as flawed. We get no chance to question his logic. When this is done in a story, it usually means a universal truth is present. Something that cannot be argued against.

I personally think the game did a very good job of establishing this thing as a universal force. He has no background or origin that we know of, he has been alive longer than anything we can comprehend, and he provides logic that cannot be argued against. That, to me, is establishing some kind of omniscient god.

Indeed. That's why I had no problem going along with it. I wonder if you choose Control and take its place, will you inherit all that knowledge? In Synthesis, I find it plausible that the post-Synthesis civilizations will eventually have access to the full knowledge of the Old Machines.

[YNation913]

The synthesis ending suggests that the only way for two fundamentally different forms of life to co-exist is if they changed to be fundamentally similar to each other. Personally, I believe true co-existence needs to facilitate some measure of independence and individuality within each party. Acknowledging and understanding the value of differences between individuals is what prevents conflict in this world, not the pursuit of making everyone similar. And, ultimately, if synthesis is the final evolution of life, it should be achieved on society's own terms, not through a solution presented by a third party. As mentioned throughout the games, using another's solution to a problem blinds you to alternatives.

[General User]

YNation913 wrote...

The synthesis ending suggests that the only way for two fundamentally different forms of life to co-exist is if they changed to be fundamentally similar to each other. Personally, I believe true co-existence needs to facilitate some measure of independence and individuality within each party. Acknowledging and understanding the value of differences between individuals is what prevents conflict in this world, not the pursuit of making everyone similar. And, ultimately, if synthesis is the final evolution of life, it should be achieved on society's own terms, not through a solution presented by a third party. As mentioned throughout the games, using another's solution to a problem blinds you to alternatives.

Aye.  Well said.  Shepard would have done well do say something along these lines whilst telling off the StarKid. 

I especially like the bolded bits.

Modifié par General User, 13 mars 2012 - 02:27 .

[Master Shiori]

jerms510 wrote...


...I wish people would stop using the Geth and EDI as "proof" that the godchild is wrong about synthetic life.

So.. I should ignore the evidence in front of me and accept a claim from some being who created this cicle of destruction in the first place. Because "it's needed"? 

Seriously now.. 

The only synthetics who ever managed to wipe out organic civilization are the ones created by Catalyst itself. How's that for irony? 

"I want to stop synthetics from wiping out organics, so I'll create uber poweful synthetics to wipe out all advanced organic life every 50K years."

Brilliant solution Sherlock..

jerms510 wrote...


a) don't know anything about previous cycles, aside from Javik's info about his prothean cycle (which he states there was another synthetic rebellion)

No, we don't and it doesn't matter either way.

Why? 

Because we had a similar (or same, depending on your view) problem in our cycle and can resolve it peacefully. At the very least it proves that not all conflict between synthetics and organics need to lead to the destruction of one side or another.

jerms510 wrote...


have no idea what will happen without Reaper intervention, so cannot say for sure that synthetic and organic life can coexist indefinitely.

I cannot say for sure that one organic race would never attempt to wipe out another, yet I don't see anyone calling for destruction of all organics as a result. As for synthetics and organics coexisting peacefully, well, I guess we all deserve to find out once and for all. Don't we?

jerms510 wrote...


Using a single AI as your sample size is incredibly irresponsible and incredulous. NOT TO MENTION that EDI started out as the rogue VI on Luna that was trying to pull a Bender and kill all humans. You can't seriously suggest that a single program that has been self-aware for less than two years can prove or disprove, well, anything across the board.

EDI herself will tell you it's been confused back on Luna and lashed out of fear. Did she try that again on the Normandy? No, she didn't. That, in itself, is proof that even an initialy hostile AI can evolve and change it's initial outlook. 

Would every AI do the same? Maybe not, but if we never give them the chance to try, how can we know?


And Legion explain tha the Geth could have easily wiped out the Quarians during their rebellion, yet didn't. Why? Because they didn't know what the result of such an action would be and couldn't commit to it without proper data.


From what I've seen, AI are no different than organics when they encounter something new and unknown. There's fear of the unknown, there's the instict for self preservation, but also a chance to grow and understand others and come to accept them, regardless of how different they may be.

[Tecumseh420]

Synthesis.......as in Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The Hegelian Dialectic. Being given the illusion of choice. A sucker born every minute. You have bought a transhumanist agenda. Lemme guess, you also thought the Genophage ( eugenics ) was a good thing.

[EvilPettingZookeeper]

My quick 2 cents. I am going to give a "perhaps" but I don't know.

Perhaps the synthesis option grants organic life the same advantages as synthetics, the processing power, the extended lifespans even, ability to upgrade their processing ability... whatever. Therefore there is less reason for these new hybrids to create synthetics since the hybrids can process just as fast etc. The reason for VI's is because they are able to multi-task / process information, calculations at speeds that no organic brain can. Well if synthesis causes the organics to do that themselves, then why create an AI then.

And perhaps forcing some Organic aspects to the existing synthetics adds some of the organic disadvantages to the synthetic life forms. So perhaps these new hybrids will still have some dependencies on other forms of organic life.

So it is the best chance of negating the threat of a synthetic life form rising up and wiping out ALL organic life in the universe, permanently. Trees, kittens, baby seals, grasshoppers... the works.

I don't think synthesis necessarily means utopia. I think it just means that the threat of a synthetic life form being created that may wipe out every piece of organic life that exists all the way down to bacteria and cockroaches is lessened / negated. Remember the Reapers weren't doing that, they were only wiping out the advanced civilizations.

Even as I type it, it feels pretty weak... but its the best I can come up with, which isn't much...

Modifié par EvilPettingZookeeper, 13 mars 2012 - 02:42 .

[Ions]

lasertank wrote...

Take a loot what Saren said in ME1 
www.youtube.com/watch


What changed you????

Wow, thanks for that. Forgot about that stuff. Interesting.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

I found the synthesis ending to be a ridiculous idea. Rewrite everyone's DNA so that we're all exactly the same; yeah, that's a positive. Not to mention it makes absolutely no sense.

[El_Draque]

 CLEANSE THE INDOCTRINATED

[RVallant]

I think it's touched upon in an earlier conversation. The unanswered question of 'what is the meaning of life' and 'purpose' leads to a logic error that results in war regardless of how unlikely it is to happen. Combined with AI and synthetic creation possibilities they would always have infinite resources to wipe out organics if they were in a position to gain suitable power (which, the geth would be since we'd be at peace...)

The way I see it, synergy is basically a combination of logic and AI benefits such as memory storage and fast learning tempered with organic emotions and capabilities to love et al in a natural way. A synthetic (in theory) won't see the need to kill another synthetic (I assume because they're identifiable whereas organic life is not) and a synergy between the two defeats the need to ever create AI or synthetics because its entwined within their dna.

It doesn't close of all possibilities, but it does merge the concepts and ideas to in theory - present clearer understanding and synergy between two polar opposites. The thing to keep in mind is that in the ME universe this 'pattern' of synthetic uprising and wiping out organics repeat every single time for over 40 million years.

The trilogy's cycle implies that it's the first time thus far that the opposite has happened and even then, speak to the Prothean and you'll see what the Geth do to the Quarians is particularly similar to what synthetics did to an organic race (just, it got worse eventually.)

Whether it's workable or not doesn't really matter if you take that into account. History is very much on this 'child's' side. I like to think (ideally) that the Geth would be fine and everyone's happy and equally I'd like to think of synergy ending as close to as perfect an ideal as possible (I suppose control/synergy both work to that goal then.)

[Avissel]

 My question is this, what exactly do synthetics GAIN by becoming part organic?

[Zhijn]

If you go by the indoctrinated mind theory, the "synthesis" way is you pulling a gun to your head. Control is you being fully indoctrinated by the reapers and last destroy is you breaking free of indoctrinated and waking up.

So synthesis would actually be you blowing your own head off. Either way there is no ending. o_O

[scrapmetals]

And let's not forget how beautiful it is that the mass relays are destroyed! The aliens who got stuck on other planets, the humans that got stuck on other planets? You guys are effectively dead.

I'm pretty sure Synthesis, in it's own way, kills more people than the Reapers do.

You never see the results of this Synthesis, there is no new life in that ending that you can see. Knowing the relays are gone means that the aliens (including humans) on other planets will a) never get to see their home planets, friends, or families again and will likely starve.

Truly beautiful...

I destroyed them all. It's what Anderson wanted. EDI? **** is still in the ship, we'll make her a new body (that hopefully doesn't spout the obvious quite so much and get in the way of my sniper shots) if Joker wants to break his legs that bad.

[mpgeist]

Like others have said there will always be conflict. In Mass Effect 2, Legion even tells you that the Geth were unable to reach consensus on whether to accept the Reapers technology.

[Ieldra]

Tecumseh420 wrote...
Synthesis.......as in Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The Hegelian Dialectic. Being given the illusion of choice. A sucker born every minute. You have bought a transhumanist agenda. Lemme guess, you also thought the Genophage ( eugenics ) was a good thing.

Wow. I suggest you read up on your philosophy and science. Hegelian dialectic may have inspired the term, and there are hints of transhumanism in the Synthesis, but they're not neccesarily connected. And I am not "buying" a transhumanist agenda, if I had the choice to do so in-game, I would very consciously promote one.

About the genophage, it has nothing at all to do with eugenics. It is a necessary evil, a tool to prevent overpopulation.  Eugenics aim to improve the gene pool of a population, and nothing about that is inherently bad except that the idea tends to get hijacked by racist agendas. As opposed to what these people believe, from a genetic point of view "mixed" genes have the best chance of being healthy.

[Ieldra]

RVallant wrote...
I think it's touched upon in an earlier conversation. The unanswered question of 'what is the meaning of life' and 'purpose' leads to a logic error that results in war regardless of how unlikely it is to happen. Combined with AI and synthetic creation possibilities they would always have infinite resources to wipe out organics if they were in a position to gain suitable power (which, the geth would be since we'd be at peace...)

The way I see it, synergy is basically a combination of logic and AI benefits such as memory storage and fast learning tempered with organic emotions and capabilities to love et al in a natural way. A synthetic (in theory) won't see the need to kill another synthetic (I assume because they're identifiable whereas organic life is not) and a synergy between the two defeats the need to ever create AI or synthetics because its entwined within their dna.

It doesn't close of all possibilities, but it does merge the concepts and ideas to in theory - present clearer understanding and synergy between two polar opposites. The thing to keep in mind is that in the ME universe this 'pattern' of synthetic uprising and wiping out organics repeat every single time for over 40 million years.

The trilogy's cycle implies that it's the first time thus far that the opposite has happened and even then, speak to the Prothean and you'll see what the Geth do to the Quarians is particularly similar to what synthetics did to an organic race (just, it got worse eventually.)

Whether it's workable or not doesn't really matter if you take that into account. History is very much on this 'child's' side. I like to think (ideally) that the Geth would be fine and everyone's happy and equally I'd like to think of synergy ending as close to as perfect an ideal as possible (I suppose control/synergy both work to that goal then.)

A very nice elaboration. I'll save this for futher reference. Thanks.

[Joel_O]

Interesting discussion. I'm one of those who really liked the synthesis ending (and the others as counterweight to it). Wrote about it in another thread, here.

Modifié par Joel_O, 13 mars 2012 - 03:02 .

[RVallant]

Avissel wrote...

 My question is this, what exactly do synthetics GAIN by becoming part organic?

Emotion and capability to evolve?

Seems to be the big two things they struggle with, EDI relies heavily on Shepard on deciding on those specific 'evolution' paths she takes. Introducing organic material negates the reliance of synthetics on organics and vice versa (In theory).

[Avissel]

RVallant wrote...
Emotion and capability to evolve?

Seems to be the big two things they struggle with, EDI relies heavily on Shepard on deciding on those specific 'evolution' paths she takes. Introducing organic material negates the reliance of synthetics on organics and vice versa (In theory).

Edi displays the ability to do both. She shows affection for The Normandy crew back in ME2, she can evolve (she doe so be self altering her programing) but she askes Shepards opinion because she values his input.

Hell the Geth evolved with the introduction of the Reaper upgrades, turning each single program into a fully aware A.I. unit.

[TudorWolf]

Wow, people are so fast to say the Catalyst is lying and/or controlling you in order to rationalize the possibility of not picking Destroy.

Why the hell would the Catalyst lie? If it wanted things to go on as they were it could have completely ignored Shep, letting him/her bleed out next to Anderson. It's the Catalyst that gives you the bloody option to destroy everything. And yes, of course it downplays this option! Because it doesn't solve anything except in the short term.

While I don't agree with the design choice, Bioware clearly want it known that AI in some form will eventually rise up and try and exterminate organic life in their universe. Javik tells us about the Jah'til taking control of the Zha, and Vendetta goes on about the cyclical nature of the universe (which I take as including the onnicidal AI).
And by choosing destroy what does Shepard do? You destroy all synthetic life as a consequence. When some AI is inevitably created down the line, gains sentience and discovers this, how is it going to react? The organic, given the chance, chose to exterminate everything like it. Potentially after getting other synthetics to work with the organics before unceremoniously killing them all. Not conductive to peaceful relations if you ask me. It's natural to be more sympathetic to the familiar. Just look at how EDI reacts to your treatment of the Geth choice.

Synthesis at least actually gives some possibility of lasting understanding. Yes, it's pretty damn damn morally ambiguous that you're making this choice for all life without their consent, but the payoff seems worth it. Synthetic and Organic life become part of each other, so they can understand one another, but seemingly retain what makes them unique at the same time (see the end cutscene: aliens are still aliens, and EDI-bot hasn't become a real human either. From what we see, they seem to be the same people too, no discernible change to behaviour. That "same DNA" claptrap is just stupid writing, if that were the case, everyone would look and act identical, no?).



Of course, without an epilogue to actually explain how things go leaves an awful lot to interpretation

[Pedro Costa]

YNation913 wrote...

The synthesis ending suggests that the only way for two fundamentally different forms of life to co-exist is if they changed to be fundamentally similar to each other. Personally, I believe true co-existence needs to facilitate some measure of independence and individuality within each party. Acknowledging and understanding the value of differences between individuals is what prevents conflict in this world, not the pursuit of making everyone similar. And, ultimately, if synthesis is the final evolution of life, it should be achieved on society's own terms, not through a solution presented by a third party. As mentioned throughout the games, using another's solution to a problem blinds you to alternatives.

Agreed,