228 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...
My motivation? I want to save all the time I've spent playing ME games from having been a total waste of time, and by writing this, give the same opportunity to others who would follow me in my line of reasoning. And you know, I think Bioware could do worse than to use some of what I've written as inspiration for a revised ending scenario.

I know what you mean. But I've gone the other way in "saving my experiences". Actually ended up posting it in the Miranda thread. Not the best place for it. But I'll find a more appropriate place for it once I've polished it.

The problem is this: if you use biochemistry, for instance carbon-based vs, silicon-based, for defining what is organic and synthetic, there is no space left for a difference that could reasonably result in inevitable conflict. Whlle my interpration, which defines "organic" as self-grown regardless of biochemistry, and synthetics as constructed regardless of chemistry, includes the possibility of such a conflict because synthetics can remake themselves and thus surpass organics, eventually superseding them.

Not necessarily. The organic-synthetic divide focuses more on the creator-created dynamic as opposed to DNA vs transistors or what have you. It's more a question of origin then of composition. For example if you admit the Reapers were not created but somehow evolved as machines even if they were on par technologically with the geth there might still be friction between them because one evolved while the other was merely created. And I believe organics would treat the two differently as well, perhaps favoring the evolved machines.

[Ieldra]

I've thought of origin as a defining difference. But that doesn't work. For instance, how would Miranda fit into that? An organic synthetic? And origin requires knowledge. You don't always know another's origin. In fact, most often you don't know. Third, it's pretty clear the Reapers didn't evolve as machines. They were created. The first by the Catalyst, the subsequent ones by their elders.

[Koolgool]

I don't think I will ever accept the Synthesis ending as a good ending for one basic reason:

Mass Effect, from the very beginning, encourages the idea that different peoples with diverse physiology, cultures, and backgrounds can all come together peacefully, whether united for a common goal or for a greater purpose or what have you. What the Synthesis ending suggests is that the only way to achieve peace is to remove diversity. That not only goes against what Mass Effect has been trying to establish in its universe, but what we as human beings have been striving for for hundreds of years, if not longer.

I wouldn't mind this ending being in the game if this ending wasn't portrayed as the "best" choice, which my opinion it is by far the worst. If it were clear this were a "bad" ending, I would have no problem with it.

This is an extreme example, but as the game currently stands, if Hitler had to choose from the three choices in the end I'm almost positive he'd choose synthesis. His idea of a perfect race fits that option perfectly.

Modifié par Koolgool, 23 mars 2012 - 07:26 .

[Ieldra]

You might notice that my scenario does not remove any diversity, except that it gives empathy to all synthetics. All the varying biochemistry of organic life remains, it will just be added to.

[AtreiyaN7]

Good and detailed post - I'm in agreement with you and have always preferred this ending. On the issue of DNA, I think it's possible that in the process of Synthesis, some sort of DNA analog is created within synthetics since they obviously do not come equipped with anything like DNA in their pre-Synthesis forms.

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra: I see your point ,origin is not a foolproof difference. Then again how many human vs aliens sci-fi stories have the aliens be analogous to synthetics? I don't think we need fundamental physical differences. Most of ME's aliens are very anthropomorphic. All you need is a sufficiently different alien, doesn't matter what its composition is. Hell, provided they haven't been killed or converted by the Reapers, the Yahg could serve as viable antagonists once they achieve FTL.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 23 mars 2012 - 07:36 .

[Ieldra]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
Good and detailed post - I'm in agreement with you and have always preferred this ending. On the issue of DNA, I think it's possible that in the process of Synthesis, some sort of DNA analog is created within synthetics since they obviously do not come equipped with anything like DNA in their pre-Synthesis forms.

It depends how you define "synthetic". The purpose of DNA is to enable self-creation from chemically coded information, something synthetics don't have since they're constructs, they come into being by being built and change themselves from there. If they had a DNA analogue, it would make them functionally identical to organics. If you interpret the Synthesis that way, it wouldn't be a combination. It would just turn all synthetics into functional organics, the advantages synthetics have over organics would be negated, and organics couldn't acquire them from synthetics. It would be a solution both one-sided and on a lower level, negating the term "synthesis". 

[Ieldra]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Ieldra: I see your point ,origin is not a foolproof difference. Then again how many human vs aliens sci-fi stories have the aliens be analogous to synthetics? I don't think we need fundamental physical differences. Most of ME's aliens are very anthropomorphic. All you need is a sufficiently different alien, doesn't matter what its composition is. Hell, provided they haven't been killed or converted by the Reapers, the Yahg could serve as viable antagonists once they achieve FTL.

The problem is that if the difference were merely similar to the difference between species, there would be even less of a rationale for the Synthesis than there already is. Because species have proven that they can coexist, over several cycles, while the quarian/geth situation could be explained away as being an anomaly. The difference must be of a more fundamental nature. I have used synthetics' lack of empathy combined with their higher potential for self-improvement as that difference, which is a common theme in literature dealing with this subject. I guess other scenarios are possible. This just appears to fit best at the moment.

[CrutchCricket]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The problem is that if the difference were merely similar to the difference between species, there would be even less of a rationale for the Synthesis than there already is. Because species have proven that they can coexist, over several cycles, while the quarian/geth situation could be explained away as being an anomaly. The difference must be of a more fundamental nature. I have used synthetics' lack of empathy combined with their higher potential for self-improvement as that difference, which is a common theme in literature dealing with this subject. I guess other scenarios are possible. This just appears to fit best at the moment.

They've proven they can coexist because of similar ideologies (which is really because of anthopomorphization but that's beside the point). But basically every species we see is similar in their morals, their economics and military, even their faiths. But what you need is a species that is not only vastly different from the "galactic community" but also adamantely opposed to it. That's why I mentioned the Yahg. They're irrelevant because they're still planet locked. But if they had the tech, the galaxy would've been at war long before the Reapers showed up.

You're right this is all beside the point of synthesis. But then I never said I buy into synthesis fitting in the ME universe.

Also if you see this before the Miranda thread, I didn't get what you meant by your comment.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 23 mars 2012 - 08:34 .

[Lmaoboat]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You might notice that my scenario does not remove any diversity, except that it gives empathy to all synthetics. All the varying biochemistry of organic life remains, it will just be added to.

Both EDI and Legion seemed to have some measure of empathy already. Besides, we really don't know what it did besides make everything glow.

[Ieldra]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You might notice that my scenario does not remove any diversity, except that it gives empathy to all synthetics. All the varying biochemistry of organic life remains, it will just be added to.

Both EDI and Legion seemed to have some measure of empathy already. Besides, we really don't know what it did besides make everything glow.

Yeah, that's why I'm creating this scenario. To put some content into a concept defined vaguely and contradictory. Legion and EDI appear to have empathy, yes, but not all synthetics are like them.

[Sonashi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You might notice that my scenario does not remove any diversity, except that it gives empathy to all synthetics. All the varying biochemistry of organic life remains, it will just be added to.

Oh wait. Firstly I just want to congratulate you. You've put hard work in your OP.

Can you explain to me that bolded part? What synthetics? What empathy? As far as I know Geths already have empathy thanks to Legion. It's the same story with EDI (she admitted that she learnt, let's say humanity, thanks to Jeff and Shepard).

One thing wonders me. Why Shepard can still be alive after destroy ending? He is part of synthetic. And please don't tell me that it doesn't mean he should be dead. I think you perfectly remember Lazarus project in ME 2. They installed synthetic parts into Shep's brain, heart, spine so obviously if one of them break Shep is dead.

And if you say bull**t to the new DNA why can't you say that to destroy all synthetic life? There is now evidence that all synthetics are dead.

That's how bad the endings are, they doesn't confirm or deny anything. So please don't eat me with your response

I'll keep posting this until everyone realize that none of the endings is the best.
[...]

Tolerance and Unity


Arguably, the overreaching thrust of Mass Effect from the first
moment you meet Shepard to the landing of forces from all over the
galaxy on Earth is tolerance. Humanity has worked to find its place in
the galaxy, overcoming old prejudices to work forward toward a common
future. Each game has Shepard putting aside the issues of his crew with
one another and with him in order to get a job done, and everyone is
better for it. While Shepard can choose to take the side of one person
or race over another in many instances, often condemning one side to
destruction, the theme at work in all cases is one of finding a place in
the universe among all the other races. Even if you choose to be intolerant, the very fact that tolerance or intolerance is the choice at hand builds on the theme.
The theme is extended even further throughout the games as Shepard
brings together a team of various species who carry a lot of emotional
baggage and problems with each other from a historical, cultural and
racial standpoint. Unifying them, turning them from enemies to allies,
is dealt with repeatedly in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2; by Mass
Effect 3, it’s extending to include the entire galaxy. Shepard is
literally solving long-standing problems of hatred and violence between
several groups of people. He helps them learn tolerance, and later,
unity.

The Illusive Man stands against these themes as a symbol of hatred
and racism, pushing humanity backward and separating it. And the Reapers
stand against these themes, unyielding in their belief that organic
life must be wiped out/harvested/ascended/whatever. But where tolerance
has always been an option in the games before, and has always been
achievable before, it is discarded wholly in the end. There is no
tolerance permitted among the Reapers or by the Guardian. And in fact,
the synthesis ending dismantles the idea of tolerance and unity
altogether by forcing homogenization on all the life in the galaxy,
synthetic included. The control ending forces the Reapers to
tolerate you, with the assumption that eventually, synthetics will ruin
everything again through their lack of tolerance; the destruction
ending, as the Guardian claims, will mean the eventual destruction by
all synthetics.


Mass Effect continually asks “Can’t we call just get along?” and as
Shepard, players can work toward that end for three full games. But the
ending totally undoes your work toward galactic unity by undervaluing
it, then throwing it out altogether, almost as though it were intended
for another story. So what that the races of the galaxy have come to
value and understand one another in a way never before possible as they
unite against a common enemy: not possible with synthetics and organics,
the Guardian proclaims. That’s just an immutable fact. So you’re forced
to choose a solution that discards free will.

But the very fact that Shepard is where he is means he has already
chosen a solution — unity; tolerance. In the end, Shepard is forced to
make a decision that implies that unity, working together, tolerance on a
galactic scale — the very things he has been working toward and
accomplishing over the span of the entire game (and all three games,
really), at every step — are inconsequential and in fact incompatible
with the reality of the game’s story. Doesn’t matter how many alliances
you broker or how much understanding you cultivate: it makes absolutely
no difference.
[...]

[Sonashi]

double post, sorry

Modifié par Sonashi, 23 mars 2012 - 11:28 .

[atum]

If you ask EDI about the Human Reaper in ME 2, she will tell you it's beyond her understanding and part organic, part synthetic.

This is what I don't get. How does that jive with Synthesis? Isn't synthesis what they have been doing all along? The Starchild seems to claim that Sheperd's arrival at the Catalyst, and the Crucible are what made Synthesis possible, yet they were already creating "hybrid" Reapers.

Oddly though, it does fit with indoc theory. (Sorry, not intended to derail, just pointing out a side note)

Modifié par atum, 23 mars 2012 - 11:39 .

[Ieldra]

@Sonashi:
What you posted is the reason why a fourth option is necessary: reject the starchild's reasoning with exactly the arguments you made translated into in-world arguments. It's also the reason why I didn't say the Synthesis is the best end, I said it was "a good end" considering several of the underlying themes of the presentation.

@atum:
You are organic. Bacteria are organic. Are you the same? The Reapers are biosynthetic. Shepard is biosynthetic. Biotics are borderline biosynthetic. Are they the same? It is a fallacy to think that all biosynthetic life must be like the Reapers. The Reapers want to transform advanced organic life into Reapers, which is a very specific kind of biosynthetic construct. The Synthesis as I have outlined it gives organics synthetic parts without turning them into constructs. Ignoring the difference is akin to saying that using antibiotics to kill an infection is murder.

Also, the Reapers may have organic parts, but in their basic makeup they are constructs. I have proposed "constructs vs. self-grown" as the defining difference between synthetics and organics. The Catalyst appears to agree when it lumps the Reapers together with synthetics.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 07:47 .

[Sonashi]

Exactly, we need fourth option. For me the biggest problem with the endings is that if you want to win you have to play God. Either you have to control nations (in Reaper form) which, according to ME 1, are independent and beyond comprehension or you have to change every species in the galaxy or destroy all synthetics. That's just wrong, we have no right to do this.

Modifié par Sonashi, 24 mars 2012 - 08:44 .

[noobcannon]

space magic and green lasers.

[Ieldra]

Sonashi wrote...
Exactly, we need fourth option. For me the biggest problem with the endings is that if you want to win you have to play God. Either you have to control nations (in Reaper form) which, according to ME 1, are independent and beyond comprehension or you have to change every species in the galaxy or destroy all synthetics. That's just wrong, we have no right to do this.

"Playing" god? I have no problem with assuming godlike power in principle. You just need to be responsible about it. If the choices were well laid-out and explained, and if the problem made sense in the context of the greater story, I'd say that fate put me at this fulcrum of events, and the necessity that a choice be made plus the fact that I'm standing there gave me that right. 

The Synthesis is a vision for the future that I have laid out as a desirable one. It is a good solution to the problem posed if you accept it as a problem. Only the story tells you "no, this isn't a problem". That's why a fourth option is needed. But I would still choose the Synthesis if the starchild could make a convincing point that the problem is real. I would not reject it on a principle I think is misguided.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 10:34 .

[ardias89]

It might be a way to cheat us and it would make sense. The Reapers arent machines if i remember correct. They are half organic and half machine. And their systems are organic minds. So i believe a bit in the Indoctrination theory here and say that its actually the Reapers cheating you into accepting to be a part of them. They view themselfs as the final form of life. After all the option only appears if you are somewhat succesfull in uniting the galaxy and the Reapers only harvest races they can get new stuff from like technology or ideas. And the current civilizations of the galaxy actually succeded where others failed.
This is not a fact only me thinking!

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Doesn't the concept of self-change presented by synthesis go against everything Mordin tells you about advancement and limitations in ME2?  He specifically warns about exactly this kind of self-improvement when talking about the Collectors' cybernetic enhancements.

"Can't lift load, invent wheel.  Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement, no advancement, culture stagnates."

[Ieldra]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...
Doesn't the concept of self-change presented by synthesis go against everything Mordin tells you about advancement and limitations in ME2?  He specifically warns about exactly this kind of self-improvement when talking about the Collectors' cybernetic enhancements.

"Can't lift load, invent wheel.  Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement, no advancement, culture stagnates."

(1) Self-change is driven by limitations just as much as other technology.
(2) As long as we aren't omnipotent, there will always be limitations. It's a long way from the scenario I laid out to, say, being able to teleport to the next galaxy, and even if you get there, the next challenge awaits you. Your perceived limitations, the situations that pose a challenge to you, grow with your power. Only if you reach the point where you can't see new challenges you will begin to stagnate.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 11:54 .

[CroGamer002]

This is how I would have go for Synthesis ending.

[FoxShadowblade]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Its a trap nothing more.

...Must resist...picture...

Will settle for caps lock.

ITS A TRAP!

Also, space magic. 

[Twinzam.V]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...
Doesn't the concept of self-change presented by synthesis go against everything Mordin tells you about advancement and limitations in ME2?  He specifically warns about exactly this kind of self-improvement when talking about the Collectors' cybernetic enhancements.

"Can't lift load, invent wheel.  Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement, no advancement, culture stagnates."

(1) Self-change is driven by limitations just as much as other technology.
(2) As long as we aren't omnipotent, there will always be limitations. It's a long way from the scenario I laid out to, say, being able to teleport to the next galaxy, and even if you get there, the next challenge awaits you. Your perceived limitations, the situations that pose a challenge to you, grow with your power. Only if you reach the point where you can't see new challenges you will begin to stagnate.

But if you tackle every limitation with technology, you will stagnate, look at the abacus and the calculator and tell me which of those two uses less of your brain.

"Can't lift load, invent wheel.  Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement, no advancement, culture stagnates."

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 24 mars 2012 - 12:00 .

[Ieldra]

Mesina2 wrote...
This is how I would have go for Synthesis ending.

It is rather apparent that you do not like it, to use such a scenario. Good that nothing in the actual description supports that notion.