779 réponses à ce sujet

[Duskfire]

As I posted before, I just dont understand why Synthesis changes anything. Whats to stop people from creating purely artificial lifeforms? And whats to stop them from going to the other side of the spectrum and creating purely organic lifeforms?

People will always fight each other for any number of reasons, and people will always create things, mostly because they can. The synthesis ending changes nothing in the scheme of things. but then again, none of them do really.

[Ieldra]

Duskfire wrote...
As I posted before, I just dont understand why Synthesis changes anything. Whats to stop people from creating purely artificial lifeforms? And whats to stop them from going to the other side of the spectrum and creating purely organic lifeforms?

People will always fight each other for any number of reasons, and people will always create things, mostly because they can. The synthesis ending changes nothing in the scheme of things. but then again, none of them do really.

I agree that the problem posed doesn't appear to be quite real, especially given the events on Rannoch if you broker peace, and also on a fundamental level. It's a badly written plot device that links decisions based on certain philosophical stances to the plot of the ME trilogy.

The important thing about each option is the stance it symbolizes:

(1) Destroy asserts the integrity and freedom of organic life and embraces the human condition as it is. Organic life may continue or die in a million years, but if we die, at least we die free. 

(2) Control asserts that it is justifiable to remove some freedom in order to make the whole (organic life) survive. Obviously, Shepard-as-machine-god will find solutions that don't involve what the Reapers did, but the need for control is nonetheless asserted. Organic life as a whole is too valuable to risk on the whims of individual choice.

(3) Synthesis asserts that changing our physical nature is the way to survive. Significant aspects of the human condition, parts of the very integrity Destroy aims to preserve, are something to be overcome rather than embraced, and where natural evolution can't do it, artificial evolution and melding with machines is an acceptable alternative.

I would say that Control is probably the middle ground, while Destroy and Synthesis are the extreme options. Each choice represents a valid stance about the nature of life, where it should go etc... the plot details just muddle the issue.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mars 2012 - 09:03 .

[Rolling Flame]

Huh, synthesis made me feel like absolute crap, so I went back and destroyed the Reapers.

Didn't help much, but I felt a little better.

[Meltemph]

The idea that you can mutate and alter the molecular genetics of DNA and not alter that species nature... All I can say to that is WAT!? People actually think that is possible? Even by magics standards, unless you believe in the world of fullmetal alchemist, that is not possible.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[SandTrout]

Meltemph wrote...

The idea that you can mutate and alter the molecular genetics of DNA and not alter that species nature... All I can say to that is WAT!? People actually think that is possible? Even by magics standards, unless you believe in the world of fullmetal alchemist, that is not possible.

Even in FMA it's a stretch. I don't think that I've even seen a D&D greater diety pull that one off.

[Aulis Vaara]

Oh yes, synthesis is so wonderful! No more difference between organics and synthetics!

Except, of course, all those Geth on servers and in Quarians' suits. Nonsensical ending makes no sense.

[Mev186]

Ah yes... because nothing bad can come from fusing organic and synthetic life.... I mean, as long as it's for the best. You were just trying to raise the quality of life, for all species.

"Resistance is Futile"

[HolyAvenger]

Not sure why synthesis doesn't mean all organics end up as husks. Those are a mix of organic and synthetic life, right?

[FabricatedWookie]

Megachaz wrote...

I thought the synthesis option was pure evil. You just essentially altered the intrinsic nature of every living being. You took away the free will of every being in the galaxy.

It is transhumanistic. There is nothing that says the synthesis would negate free will.

All endings would be acceptable to me if I was able to know more in an in game epilogue. The thing is, the other two games never left you guessing. ME1 ---> We know about the reapers, and they are coming. ME2 ------> We have stopped the collectors, and know war is immenent and must prepare. ME3 ---> Who the what now? Galaxy screwed reapers dead? Maybe? 

Modifié par FabricatedWookie, 15 mars 2012 - 09:15 .

[Meltemph]

FabricatedWookie wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

I thought the synthesis option was pure evil. You just essentially altered the intrinsic nature of every living being. You took away the free will of every being in the galaxy.

It is transhumanistic. There is nothing that says the synthesis would negate free will. 

No it is not trasnhumanism.  Transhumanism is improving on WITH TECH.  What the God child is talking about is litterally altering the DNA of every species in the galaxy.  This is not replacing someones arm with a synthetic version.  This is changing that organic arm into a organic/synthetic mix, LITERALLY changing the molecular dna of the species to achive this.  One is adpating technology to the body, the other is playing God/controlling evolution/laws of nature.

[Edje Edgar]

Because:

A. It's space magic.

B. Space magic that wouldve solved the problem in ME1, or before. Why not come up with this solution to begin with, mr. godchild? Oh sure, Shephard made the galaxy "earn" it. Nothing says good storytelling like quasi-religious BS. God works in mysterious ways and all.

C. The galaxy as we've come to know and love is still destroyed due to the destruction of the relays.

D. The Normandy and several people aboard couldn't possibly be where they're being shown in the end cinematic.

E. Shephard forced a choice upon every sentient being in the galaxy.

[Cody211282]

I find it evil and that it makes no sense, how the hell do you blend organic and synthetic DNA? That sentience makes science hurt!

[Ieldra]

@all:
The Synthesis aims at a transhumanist ideal. Before making any assertions like "We'll all end up like Husks" or "You let the Reapers win", I would recommend reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Transhumanism

I would like to stress that most variants of transhumanism are highly individualistic and a central concept is the choice "to be what you want to be", made possible by emerging human enhancement technologies. Depictions of transhuman societies feature a wide variety of lifestyles, much wider than we have today. Hive minds may exist, but only for those who want them (believe me, such people exist). On the other extreme - want to make yourself a cool starship as a body and become like EDI? That's also possible.

This "rewriting of DNA" is pure nonsense. If it has DNA, it's organic, not synthetic. It's a metaphor for Sufficiently Advanced Technology doing something we don't understand, that enables organic and synthetic life to seamlessly integrate with each other.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mars 2012 - 09:28 .

[LystAP]

Duskfire wrote...

As I posted before, I just dont understand why Synthesis changes anything. Whats to stop people from creating purely artificial lifeforms? And whats to stop them from going to the other side of the spectrum and creating purely organic lifeforms?

People will always fight each other for any number of reasons, and people will always create things, mostly because they can. The synthesis ending changes nothing in the scheme of things. but then again, none of them do really.

People fight each other because they do not understand each other. People are always making assumptions and judging others through their own limited experiences. It is because of this that the concept of racism, bigotry, inequality, and equality exist. 
Remember the Geth? Before the techno-organic Reapers influenced them, Geth did not fight each other; they understood each other, literally. Every reason and the context behind it is shared instantly between Geth due to their synthetic network, so that it was impossible for them to make assumptions about each other. 

Think about a weird hobo you see on the sidewalk, imagine that you could instantly learn the context of his past and the reasons for him being in the condition he is in just by looking at him. You wouldn't be able to generalize him or his condition as well anymore, nor could you easily agree to doing him harm if you could sympathize with what lead him to that state.

Being human has its perks, but there is no such thing as a perfect or superior human. We're all just a mob of judgmental monkeys in the end. The only way for true peace is to become something more. 

[Deschi]

I like this ending, too. And especially here it is fitting that some questions leave unanswered. But still HOW it happens jsut doesnt feel right. I am OK that the final (?) fate of Shepard is presented in an ambigious way, but the developer should have shown more what happens to the other beloves characters. What happend on the Normandy? How did all those other forces we gathered fight? Do they fight better / worse because we missed some enforcements? Why are there no choices at the end battle in London that we have to make to maybe sacrifice some forces to achieve certain goals? It's not like that I am not OK with the final ending but if they leave so many thinks unanswered they had to show at least in the grand finale that our choices mattered somehow. Just a short chat with all the other main characters via holographic transmission is just not enough. We should see them fight, we should see them die, we should have seen more the Normandy crew fighting in space... it was all there but just not enough for me.

[Lugaidster]

Cool story brah! Now, where's my real ending?

[Wattoes]

The synthesis ending was one of the most awful things ive heard in my entire life. I wanted to cry when godboy started talking about it.

[Duskfire]

LystAP wrote...

Duskfire wrote...

As I posted before, I just dont understand why Synthesis changes anything. Whats to stop people from creating purely artificial lifeforms? And whats to stop them from going to the other side of the spectrum and creating purely organic lifeforms?

People will always fight each other for any number of reasons, and people will always create things, mostly because they can. The synthesis ending changes nothing in the scheme of things. but then again, none of them do really.

People fight each other because they do not understand each other. People are always making assumptions and judging others through their own limited experiences. It is because of this that the concept of racism, bigotry, inequality, and equality exist. 
Remember the Geth? Before the techno-organic Reapers influenced them, Geth did not fight each other; they understood each other, literally. Every reason and the context behind it is shared instantly between Geth due to their synthetic network, so that it was impossible for them to make assumptions about each other. 

Think about a weird hobo you see on the sidewalk, imagine that you could instantly learn the context of his past and the reasons for him being in the condition he is in just by looking at him. You wouldn't be able to generalize him or his condition as well anymore, nor could you easily agree to doing him harm if you could sympathize with what lead him to that state.

Being human has its perks, but there is no such thing as a perfect or superior human. We're all just a mob of judgmental monkeys in the end. The only way for true peace is to become something more. 

Say for argument sake that everyone understands each other 100%, its human nature to still create. And create we would, artificial and organic life. heck we create organic life now, purely because we can. And those lifeforms arent going to have the same understanding that this new synthesised species does. And it'll be just like the quarians and geth all over again.

[Meltemph]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@all:
The Synthesis aims at a transhumanist ideal. Before making any assertions like "We'll all end up like Husks" or "You let the Reapers win", I would recommend reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Transhumanism

I would like to stress that most variants of transhumanism are highly individualistic and a central concept is the choice "to be what you want to be", made possible by emerging human enhancement technologies. Depictions of transhuman societies feature a wide variety of lifestyles, much wider than we have today. Hive minds may exist, but only for those who want them (believe me, such people exist). On the other extreme - want to make yourself a cool starship as a body and become like EDI? That's also possible.

This "rewriting of DNA" is pure nonsense. If it has DNA, it's organic, not synthetic. It's a metaphor for Sufficiently Advanced Technology doing something we don't understand, that enables organic and synthetic life to seamlessly integrate with each other.

I dont think you realize what synthesis means. Oh BTW the KID SAYS A NEW DNA.  Just say'n.

   

19:30ish watch it if you dont believe me.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[Ieldra]

Meltemph wrote...
I dont think you realize what synthesis means. Oh BTW the KID SAYS A NEW DNA.  Just say'n.

   

19:30ish watch it if you dont believe me.

I already addressed this problem in the post you quoted, but apparently didn't read closely enough:

This "rewriting of DNA" is pure nonsense. If it has DNA, it's organic, not synthetic. The phrasing is a metaphor for Sufficiently Advanced Technology doing something we don't understand, that enables organic and synthetic life to seamlessly integrate with each other.

I don't know why they changed the phrasing from the leaked script. There it was "We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us". Perhaps they wanted things to sound more scientific. Well, if so, then it was an epic backfire.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mars 2012 - 09:57 .

[saracen16]

Nefelius wrote...

ye, but why couldn't i just toss dead Anderson in the beam? And what stops new robohumans from creating new AIs which will wage war on their creators?

Let's face it: we weren't given a choice on EVERY SINGLE THING. Why couldn't I shoot Kal'Reegar for being an insubordinating idiot back on Haestrom?

[shurryy]

 You must REALLY like the color Green...

[LystAP]

Duskfire wrote...

LystAP wrote...

Duskfire wrote...

As I posted before, I just dont understand why Synthesis changes anything. Whats to stop people from creating purely artificial lifeforms? And whats to stop them from going to the other side of the spectrum and creating purely organic lifeforms?

People will always fight each other for any number of reasons, and people will always create things, mostly because they can. The synthesis ending changes nothing in the scheme of things. but then again, none of them do really.

People fight each other because they do not understand each other. People are always making assumptions and judging others through their own limited experiences. It is because of this that the concept of racism, bigotry, inequality, and equality exist. 
Remember the Geth? Before the techno-organic Reapers influenced them, Geth did not fight each other; they understood each other, literally. Every reason and the context behind it is shared instantly between Geth due to their synthetic network, so that it was impossible for them to make assumptions about each other. 

Think about a weird hobo you see on the sidewalk, imagine that you could instantly learn the context of his past and the reasons for him being in the condition he is in just by looking at him. You wouldn't be able to generalize him or his condition as well anymore, nor could you easily agree to doing him harm if you could sympathize with what lead him to that state.

Being human has its perks, but there is no such thing as a perfect or superior human. We're all just a mob of judgmental monkeys in the end. The only way for true peace is to become something more. 

Say for argument sake that everyone understands each other 100%, its human nature to still create. And create we would, artificial and organic life. heck we create organic life now, purely because we can. And those lifeforms arent going to have the same understanding that this new synthesised species does. And it'll be just like the quarians and geth all over again.

That's why you keep going, evolution doesn't really have a endpoint other then extinction. If that new life and the old don't have the same understanding, then they just have to make themselves understand each other by transforming each other or themselves.

The ultimate goal would be to become a being of perfect omniscience; and you can't do that by staying still. It ends when one knows all, and all knows one.

Modifié par LystAP, 15 mars 2012 - 10:08 .

[hismastersvoice]

I have serious issues with how the game defines synthetic and organic life and what it considers to be a hybrid of the two. Giving someone a fancy circuitry pattern under the skin or glowing eyes does not make him a synthetic. A DNA modification does not make any sense either. Even if it's a more fundamental modification of the organic framework, it still doesn't change the basic traits of what is or isn't organic life.

[General User]

Ieldra2 wrote...

General User wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Beregar wrote...
Yes well. I find it hard to take black and white approach on things, or follow the "hollywood morality". Even if the species died the Reapers would be most likely a massive collection of knowledge dating back millions of years. More like living memory than undead abomination in my eyes I suppose.

Indeed. I think the problematic aspect of ME's presentation is that the Reapers and their minions aren't just presented as evil, but as abominations, an offense against nature. No one says it explicitly, but the imagery, the body horror, is made to evoke that impression. Which is why most players are completely unable to see beyond this visceral reaction that leads to the desire to destroy.

For me, who has always been suspicious of the notion of abominations, and detached myself from the visceral response in order to embrace a more rational morality, this desire to destroy based on a black and white view of the world is deeply suspicious. That's why I appreciate the final choice in the game as it is. The Synthesis is beautiful because it overcomes fundamental opposites. Invoking evil by association ("This was Saren's solution") is not a rational counterargument, but based on emotional responses to events only accidentally connected with the rationale behind the Synthesis.  

What makes you say that organic and synthetic life are "fundamental opposites"?

I think we're supposed to take the Catalyst's assertion at face value. Yes I know, it contradicts the peaceful quarian/geth scenario but the Catalyst is millions of years old and would have more experience. It's bad writing, but wouldn't you think anything else would be glaringly obvious? Bioware isn't exactly known for subtlety in their games.

Personally, I'm not impressed by the StarKid's age, the fact the it is so old and yet failed to come up with a "solution" to the "problem" that did not involve that horrific cycle is really a fairly severe mark against it in my book. 

And the peaceful resolution to the quarian/geth is only the lmost prominent example.  Shepard also has his personal experience to draw on, ie his relationship with EDI and Legion.  The Prothean Empire's experience's with synthetics also do not fit the Catalyst's mold. 

And that's the thing, there's a flawed assumption at the base of the StarKid's philosophy: ie the "problem" the Reapers were meant to "solve" never existed in the first place.  Organic and synthetic life are not fundamentally opposite forms of life, merely different forms of life, and any conflict between the two is only as inherent and/or necessary as the particular people involved choose to make it.

Modifié par General User, 15 mars 2012 - 11:15 .