779 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

When it comes to Synthesis I find I am put off by both the uber-haters and the uber-fans. I have always found it difficult to see Synthesis as the devil, but at the same time I do not consider it, or any of the endings, to be praiseworthy.

[jtav]

What can I say? Synthesis makes me happy. Shep follows in the footsteps of his friends Mordin and Legion, his death bringing forth the transhuman utopia he always dreamed of. He wollingly sacrificed his life for a good future for his beloved and the rest of the galaxy. I'd rather he live, but he'd be the first to tell you the sacrifice was worth it.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

What can I say? Synthesis makes me happy. Shep follows in the footsteps of his friends Mordin and Legion, his death bringing forth the transhuman utopia he always dreamed of. He wollingly sacrificed his life for a good future for his beloved and the rest of the galaxy. I'd rather he live, but he'd be the first to tell you the sacrifice was worth it.

. At least Mordin's sacrifice was well done, Legion and Shepard in Synthesis, not so much. They died only for tears.

[Reorte]

How anyone could possibly defend forcing a fundamental change on every single living thing in the entire galaxy is beyond me. It is a worse crime than any that has ever been committed - worse than it's possible to commit in reality. If what it does could be taken or rejected by everyone it would be a completely and utterly different thing.

Even Refuse only affects a tiny proportion of living things.

[clennon8]

I get why some people like it. It's saccharine-sweet, easily the closest thing to puppies and unicorns and rainbows that any of the endings appear to provide.

On any objective level, though, it's a ridiculously stupid choice for any Shepard to make. That's all I'm saying.

[Reorte]

Hang on - just noticed the date this thread started. Who dragged it back from the grave?

[jtav]

My lore consistency checker broke under the strain of Lazarus and ME2 in general, so I treat it as a comic. It makes dramatic/thematic sense and I really really like the future and the message. The consent is a problem, but I consider making the choice justified under the circumstances.

[fr33stylez]

I just don't understand how Synthesis solves anyone's problem in ME3 (not even the Catalyst's Problem).

Why would there be peace just because everyone got turned into a cyborg? Do I assume the galaxy was also brainwashed in this process?

How does Synthesis solve the Catalyst's non-existant problem of synthetics being created?

What does Synthesis actually achieve? What am I missing?

[fr33stylez]

jtav wrote...

My lore consistency checker broke under the strain of Lazarus and ME2 in general, so I treat it as a comic. It makes dramatic/thematic sense and I really really like the future and the message. The consent is a problem, but I consider making the choice justified under the circumstances.

Fair enough.

[clennon8]

It achieves the semblance of an uber-happy transhumanistic ending for those who desire such a thing.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...

How anyone could possibly defend forcing a fundamental change on every single living thing in the entire galaxy is beyond me. It is a worse crime than any that has ever been committed - worse than it's possible to commit in reality. If what it does could be taken or rejected by everyone it would be a completely and utterly different thing.

 I just saved you from a nasty Reaper-blending scene.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

fr33stylez wrote...


How does Synthesis solve the Catalyst's non-existant problem of synthetics being created?

Organics are changed to integrate with technology, so he's established a connection between organics and synthetics.

[LinksOcarina]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...


How does Synthesis solve the Catalyst's non-existant problem of synthetics being created?

Organics are changed to integrate with technology, so he's established a connection between organics and synthetics.

And synthetics will no longer clash with organics. So any sort of cyclical cycle regarding that is now removed.

[Nightwriter]

I find this unwilling change business overblown. Synthesis bothers me more because it's closest to the Catalyst.

[Darth Asriel]

Yeah OP, most people who have 0 understanding of science like synthesis.

[clennon8]

Nightwriter wrote...

I find this unwilling change business overblown. Synthesis bothers me more because it's closest to the Catalyst.

I don't find the "unwilling change business" to be overblown at all.  It's a really big deal.  But I've stopped harping on it because I realized that it's not a worthwhile expenditure of time to try to continually refute the argument that it's no worse than Destroy in that regard.

[Ieldra]

I love my ascension-themed future. So, well, how it comes about isn't exactly ideal. How it's described isn't exactly a masterpiece of science-fictional exposition. It has a theme/lore inconsistency. You know what? I don't care. I'll discuss those flaws with anyone with an open enough mind to consider the possibility that all endings are good in their way, because that's what they are.

To the others:

You complain about the lack of "realistic downsides"? Blame yourselves. You're so determined to pull everything into the dirt that Bioware has used the biggest hammer to tell you that the outcome is good. I'd take any bet that if those "realistic downsides" had been included, you would ignore everything else and treated those as the whole picture, just because there can't be what must not be and a global change like Synthesis absolutely must not have a good outcome.

You say that global change is a big deal? Yes, of course it is, we've never denied that. What is isn't is "obviously evil", even less in an "objective sense". If you find it viscerally repulsive perhaps you should examine why you feel that way and why others do not. Perhaps you'll come to see that your value system is built on a mess of emotions and cultural conditioning and has nothing at all that can be reasonably called "objective". Just like mine, btw.. The difference is, I don't go about trying to ruin your games and implying you're, say, an "evil Destroy-ist" making an "indefensible" choice, or even worse, "deluded", for making a choice that disagrees with me. Such things have been the exclusive privilege of the anti-Synthesis crowd and some fanatic ITists.

Forgive me if I've lost all respect.

[Nightwriter]

clennon8 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I find this unwilling change business overblown. Synthesis bothers me more because it's closest to the Catalyst.

I don't find the "unwilling change business" to be overblown at all.  It's a really big deal.  But I've stopped harping on it because I realized that it's not a worthwhile expenditure of time to try to continually refute the argument that it's no worse than Destroy in that regard.

The ethics (or lack thereof) are easy to understand; it's the intensity I don't get.

[fr33stylez]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...


How does Synthesis solve the Catalyst's non-existant problem of synthetics being created?

Organics are changed to integrate with technology, so he's established a connection between organics and synthetics.

I fail to see how this solves the issue. What about a connection with synthetics will stop the organics from creating new synthetics - is this  a massive galatic brainwashing?

If the Catalyst is correct in saying 'the created will always rebel against its creators', how does Synthesis stop this?

There is a disconnect in the problem the Catalyst describes and the solution it proposes with Synthesis. Additionally the very problem the Catalyst is trying to solve by Synthesis is never really apparent in the trilogy.

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You complain about the lack of "realistic downsides"? Blame yourselves. You're so determined to pull everything into the dirt that Bioware has used the biggest hammer to tell you that the outcome is good. I'd take any bet that if those "realistic downsides" had been included, you would ignore everything else and treated those as the whole picture, just because there can't be what must not be and a global change like Synthesis absolutely must not have a good outcome.

People aren't determined to drag everything down into the dirt, it's just where logical, rational thinking leads to. If that wasn't what it was supposed to do then it's BioWare's fault for not thinking it through properly. If you're happy accepting a ludicrously positive portrayal as evidence that everything is all right then more the fool you. To many other people it just looks like propaganda. If you could kill half the population of Earth you'd have a great many positive outcomes (a good number of current issues would die with them) but I sure as hell wouldn't be happy with a portrayal of doing that being over the top positive when it should concentrate on the fact that you've just committed a horrific crime.

[SpamBot2000]

Nightwriter wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I find this unwilling change business overblown. Synthesis bothers me more because it's closest to the Catalyst.

I don't find the "unwilling change business" to be overblown at all.  It's a really big deal.  But I've stopped harping on it because I realized that it's not a worthwhile expenditure of time to try to continually refute the argument that it's no worse than Destroy in that regard.

The ethics (or lack thereof) are easy to understand; it's the intensity I don't get.

Synthesis is the foul heart of BW's universe-breaking project. It's the masterpiece confusion hath made. It dispenses with the laws of the game world entirely. It reveals an abyss of contempt.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 13 décembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[MegaSovereign]

fr33stylez wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...


How does Synthesis solve the Catalyst's non-existant problem of synthetics being created?

Organics are changed to integrate with technology, so he's established a connection between organics and synthetics.

I fail to see how this solves the issue. What about a connection with synthetics will stop the organics from creating new synthetics - is this  a massive galatic brainwashing?

If the Catalyst is correct in saying 'the created will always rebel against its creators', how does Synthesis stop this?

There is a disconnect in the problem the Catalyst describes and the solution it proposes with Synthesis. Additionally the very problem the Catalyst is trying to solve by Synthesis is never really apparent in the trilogy.

Well the idea behind synthesis is that organics have now been integrated with technology and as a result can compete with synthetics. The cosmic imperative dictates that there will always be conflict, but synthesis evens the playing field to where organics can evolve just as fast as synthetics.

I personally don't believe that the organic vs synthetic issue can't be resolved with Shepard-style diplomacy. Hence why I never really choose synthesis.

[clennon8]

@Ieldra:  And perhaps you need to reassess your own ad hominem attributions of petty motivations to people who find fault with the Synthesis ending.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 décembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[N7Gold]

Its beautiful, but its not right...

[MisterJB]

Reorte wrote...
People aren't determined to drag everything down into the dirt, it's just where logical, rational thinking leads to. If that wasn't what it was supposed to do then it's BioWare's fault for not thinking it through properly. If you're happy accepting a ludicrously positive portrayal as evidence that everything is all right then more the fool you. To many other people it just looks like propaganda. If you could kill half the population of Earth you'd have a great many positive outcomes (a good number of current issues would die with them) but I sure as hell wouldn't be happy with a portrayal of doing that being over the top positive when it should concentrate on the fact that you've just committed a horrific crime.

Propaganda? When did Bioware become a political party?

First and foremost, Pro-Synthesis have never tried to claim that our chosen ending is perfect, that the galaxy is suddenly Eden. Rather, we accept that every sginificant choice will have both positive and negative consequences which is something Anti-Synthesis have been unwilling to acknowledge, chosing instead to warp everything about this ending; coming up with ludicrious conspiracy theories; because you couldn't accept this change or simply do not support the means through which it is achieved.
I actually agree that the EC endings could have shown the less than optimal outcomes of every ending but you don't get to choose what they should concentrate on.