228 réponses à ce sujet

[Elyiia]

The synthesis has pretty crazy consequences. Firstly imposing mortality on the Geth, seeing as they are part organic it's safe to assume they can't just replace parts. Secondly, they have to find another way to reproduce. They can't just build new Geth anymore. Geth sexy time? Finally you're rearranging the body parts of the entire universe. Even if this doesn't hurt, it probably invalidates over half the medical facts that people are used it.

[Ieldra]

Twinzam.V wrote...

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 abbacus and the calculator and tell me wich of those two uses less of your brain.

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

Mordin's reasoning is misapplied.

Improvement by self-change means that the added abilities become part of yourself. You *are* partly synthetic then. If the challenges you set yourself are beyond unaugmented human means - and they increasingly are - then to meet them you need technology. Anything else is giving in to romanticism. The human condition as it is is not something sacred. Limitations exist to be overcome. Advancement means overcoming them. Cultural change comes from the interaction between the old and the new. As long as there are any challenges left, there will be advancement and change. Unless you become decadent and don't want to meet any challenges any more. Then you will stagnate regardless of limitations.

[Ieldra]

Elyiia wrote...
The synthesis has pretty crazy consequences. Firstly imposing mortality on the Geth, seeing as they are part organic it's safe to assume they can't just replace parts. Secondly, they have to find another way to reproduce. They can't just build new Geth anymore.

Why not? Synthetics are still constructs. To become true individuals they had to incorporate some Reaper code, but nothing prevents them from building new bodies as before. Individuality comes with experience. People may start out genetically identical but they become different people. So with the geth. Build a new platform, copy some default code into it and let it start a new life.

Finally you're rearranging the body parts of the entire universe. Even if this doesn't hurt, it probably invalidates over half the medical facts that people are used it.

Am I? My scenario just adds to them. Yeah, people will have to learn to use their new abilities. Learning, acquire new knowledge, new ways to express yourself and new ways to affect the universe around you - that's something good, right?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[thegame30]

@Ieldra2

You just don't see it... It all makes perfect sense in the realm of space magic & Starchilds.

Why else will the reapers be in London? They wanted to resurrect Lord Voldemort. Then use the crucible as a big giant wand so he could cast Avada Kedavra and kill everyone in the galaxy.

SPACE MAGIC!

[Twinzam.V]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Twinzam.V wrote...

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 abbacus and the calculator and tell me wich of those two uses less of your brain.

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

Mordin's reasoning is misapplied.

Improvement by self-change means that the added abilities become part of yourself. You *are* partly synthetic then. If the challenges you set yourself are beyond unaugmented human means - and they increasingly are - then to meet them you need technology. Anything else is giving in to romanticism. The human condition as it is is not something sacred. Limitations exist to be overcome. Advancement means overcoming them. Cultural change comes from the interaction between the old and the new. As long as there are any challenges left, there will be advancement and change. Unless you become decadent and don't want to meet any challenges any more. Then you will stagnate regardless of limitations.

But if that improvement is imposed by someone else, that isnt real evolution. You are following a pattern others imposed on you, that's another form of stagnation. For example you see that every military plane is different nation from nation, since they resolved the problems encountered in different ways and designed them for a specific role.

Modifié par Twinzam.V, 24 mars 2012 - 12:13 .

[Noatz]

The problem is that ME is not transhumanist sci fi. The only entities that embody this idea to any degree are the Reapers, the despised antagonists of the entire trilogy, and their transhumanist credentials are muddied by it never being explained exactly how they function:

Step 1: use elaborate trap to blindside and round up organics.
Step 2: turn organics into goo
Step 3: ???
Step 4: profit

This was one of the questions which people expected to have answered (because we were told as much) but in the end just wasn't. Bottom line is that its a square peg in a round hole.

[Ieldra]

Twinzam.V wrote...
But if that improvement is imposed by someone else, that isnt real evolution. You are following a pattern others imposed on you, that's another form of stagnation. For example you see that every military plane is different nation from nation, since they resolved the problems encountered in different ways and designed them for a specific role.

The *means* of improvement are provided by the Synthesis. It's like you're given tools. How you use them is up to you. You may use them to kill, you may use them to make better tools, you may use them to improve the circumstances of living or countless other things. You set your own challenges. Diversity, you know? This vision doesn't remove it.

[Ieldra]

Noatz wrote...
The problem is that ME is not transhumanist sci fi. The only entities that embody this idea to any degree are the Reapers, the despised antagonists of the entire trilogy

*biotics
*greybox implants
*Martin Burns and his commitee for transhuman studies.
*Shepard himself

There's even a conversation about transhumanism between Shepard and Mordin in the leaked script. I wonder why they cut it.

This was one of the questions which people expected to have answered (because we were told as much) but in the end just wasn't. Bottom line is that its a square peg in a round hole.

Which I just rounded a bit so that it now fits better

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 12:42 .

[Sonashi]

Fair enough, i understand your point of view. I was struggling between synthesis and destroy. Main goal of synthesis is beautiful in my opinion but i couldn't choose that. Every single galaxy nation should achieve their final stage of evolution on their own. Not by doing shortcuts. Please remind yourself conversation with Legion after ME 2 ending (after destroying CB).

Choosing destroy ending was tough decision for me. Killing all synthetics isn't good choice but, you know, i'm not sure they all are dead after that.

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.

I want to belive that Catalyst was lying.

IF destroy ending wouldn't kill all synthetics, would you prefer this to synthesis?

[Ieldra]

Sonashi wrote...
Fair enough, i understand your point of view. I was struggling between synthesis and destroy. Main goal of synthesis is beautiful in my opinion but i couldn't choose that. Every single galaxy nation should achieve their final stage of evolution on their own. Not by doing shortcuts. Please remind yourself conversation with Legion after ME 2 ending (after destroying CB).

Doing shortcuts is not, by itself, a problem. In a way, every technology is a shortcut, and it doesn't matter if you take it from someone else or develop it on your own. Technology transfer has existed throughout human history. Sometimes it has resulted in disaster, but more often it was useful. Legion's reasoning is not unproblematic and most certainly not universally applicable. .

IF destroy ending wouldn't kill all synthetics, would you prefer this to synthesis?

Destroy would become a viable option, but I would still prefer the other two options.

[Sonashi]

Destroy would become a viable option, but I would still prefer the other two options.

Really? Interesting. I think control ending isn't as good as the other endings. By choosing control you change nothing. Like Miranda said: "The Reapers are still out there" and we don't know if Shepard will be able to control them for 50k years. We can suppose that mass relays aren't destroyed, that's good thing...I think but species still using them, ummm I don't know. You can't guarantee that in the next cycle Reapers won't win. It's just delaying inevitable.

[Ieldra]

Sonashi wrote...

Destroy would become a viable option, but I would still prefer the other two options.

Really? Interesting. I think control ending isn't as good as the other endings. By choosing control you change nothing. Like Miranda said: "The Reapers are still out there" and we don't know if Shepard will be able to control them for 50k years. We can suppose that mass relays aren't destroyed, that's good thing...I think but species still using them, ummm I don't know. You can't guarantee that in the next cycle Reapers won't win. It's just delaying inevitable.

And in Destroy there is no guarantee that synthetics won't surpass organics and leave them behind in the evolutionary race. Every option has its risks and downsides. Besides, if you choose Control you can just fly the Reapers into the next black hole if you want.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[Edje Edgar]

Final evolution can only exist aslong as you are perfectly adapted to a non changing environment, you said this yourself. The whole premise of the "ubermensch" is stupid. This should've been the ending of some 19th century novel instead.

Synthesis assumes that the nature of conflict is based in our "material" rather than on the "immaterial". Being made of the same stuff doesn't mean anything if we lack the same experiences. As conflict are, atleast in my humble opinion, based on ideas. Having empathy has never stopped anyone from shooting a person he saw as a threat.

You can reason it away as some very vague spiritual philosophy, but it just has no ground in any realistic sense.

[Meltemph]

The idea that changing and creating a "new dna" gives you empathy of synthetics that were created and have a completely different "construction"... Not to mention that what synthesis is, is not really transhumanism. Transhumanism is adding tech to yourself, the child clearly stated that it was creating a new DNA, not adding tech to you. Either way the idea that creating a new dna does not alter that species in a fundamental way is just silly, there is no way of knowning WHAT that means, without experiencing it. This idea that another technological singularity that threatens the galaxy, not being possible anymore, strikes me as nothing short of wishful thinking.

So at the end: You need a singularity to control a singularity, to have that singularity destroy other potential singularities, and then at the end, try and create a new biological/synthetic singularity, which apparently means, no more singularities matter anymore... It is only as complex as WE try and make it.

The game itself kept it pretty simple and the tone in previous games very evident. This ending requires you filling in massive blanks and requires you to think of a way to rationalize any philosophy possible implications to try and make it fit. However, trying to make the ending fit makes the ending even worse because of its omission and silliness.

Modifié par Meltemph, 24 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[Sonashi]

Ieldra2 wrote...


And in Destroy there is no guarantee that synthetics won't surpass organics and leave them behind in the evolutionary race. Every option has its risks and downsides. Besides, if you choose Control you can just fly the Reapers into the next black hole if you want.

You always say that the biggest issue with destroy ending is genocide all synthetic life. I completely understand that. Control ending reminds me situation with Collectors (slave thing you know).

“You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.”

That is such a perfect line. It delivers so much menace in just 14
words…a single sentence. It sets the stakes for the protagonist, grants
the villain a perfectly ominous entrance, and delivers real emotional
weight to the situation. That is the kind of beautifully simplistic, yet
artfully delivered line I hope I can come up with in one of my own
stories someday. But enough fawning over that, the point is, the Reapers
were damn good villains. In Mass Effect 1, Sovereign says “Each of us
is a nation.” They are so far above us that it was frightening, the fact
we didn’t know why the Reapers were exterminating advanced organic life
every 50,000 years is what made it so scary. That was what made them a
good villain. They were unknowable. And nobody was asking to know them.
That was a question we absolutely didn’t need to know the answer to.

But then the AI God comes along and basically reveals they are the Terminators to his Skynet.

And now i should control them, like they did with Collectors? I can't. I'm too weak for this game. I would rather be dead than become somebody's slave.

Modifié par Sonashi, 24 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[Alessar1288]

There is no such thing as the ultimate or end goal of evolution. There is no such thing as a stagnant environment with no changes. Evolution doesn't even lead to a final end point.

I always pick destroy, if you can have your own interpretation of an ending so can I. I was told destroy would kill me since I was part synthetic and yet Shep is alive only in the destroy ending. I've seen EDI walk out on my friends Destroy playthrough, and I never was able to witness the Geth falling over.

And anyways synthesis wouldn't prevent pure synthetics from being created. The whole fact that you keep bringing up that destroy wouldn't prevent synthetics from surpassing organics isn't resolved in synthesis. Or will every new synthetic that is created just magically come out being part organic too?

Modifié par Alessar1288, 24 mars 2012 - 05:24 .

[Ieldra]

Edje Edgar wrote...
Final evolution can only exist aslong as you are perfectly adapted to a non changing environment, you said this yourself. The whole premise of the "ubermensch" is stupid. This should've been the ending of some 19th century novel instead.

Didn't you read my OP? I specifically said there was no "final evolution of life", that this was a figure of speech inspired by religious symbolism. I just reinterpreted it. And I do not find the idea of self-improvement stupid. Natural or artificial evolution, the humans of 50k years from now will be noticeably different from us. Might as well take some control of the process.

You can reason it away as some very vague spiritual philosophy, but it just has no ground in any realistic sense.

If the only way to make sense of it is by using the phrasing as a figure of speech, I feel justified in doing so.

[Kawamura]

Ieldra2 wrote...


Didn't you read my OP? I specifically said there was no "final evolution of life", that this was a figure of speech inspired by religious symbolism. I just reinterpreted it. And I do not find the idea of self-improvement stupid. Natural or artificial evolution, the humans of 50k years from now will be noticeably different from us. Might as well take some control of the process.

I think part of my problem with Synthesis (and while I believe that's the "Good" ending for ME3, so your interpretations are probably more canonical than mine) is that you make this choice for others. You decide you want to control the process, so you decide to control it in all others. 

That's a major violation of consent in my mind. 

[SolidisusSnake1]

The only reason Synthesis is a choice is because Casey Hudson loves Deus Ex. That's it.

[Ieldra]

Meltemph wrote...
the child clearly stated that it was creating a new DNA

Except that a hybrid DNA makes no sense. That's why I've thrown it out and used my own interpretation.

The game itself kept it pretty simple and the tone in previous games very evident. This ending requires you filling in massive blanks and requires you to think of a way to rationalize any philosophy possible implications to try and make it fit. However, trying to make the ending fit makes the ending even worse because of its omission and silliness.

Except that trying to keep it simple resulted in things making no sense. So how exactly does filling in blanks make it silly? I'd say the silliness lies in the game trying to represent a complex idea in simple non-controversial terms when the result can only be a description that makes no sense if you take it literally.

[Fdmatt]

So Saren was right all along? So when Shep says to EDI "are you saying submission is preferable to extinction" and convinced her some things were worth fighting for, even to the end, he was lying?

No thanks I'll choose my Destroy ending.

[Ieldra]

@Alessar:
I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just trying to make sense of an idea that is described in a nonsensical way in the game.

@Sonashi:
You are not becoming a slave. Besides, I was just saying that Control is a better way to get rid of the Reapers even if you want them destroyed. Just say Shepard flies them into a black hole post-ME3. No geth genocide, the Citadel stays and the relays are only damaged instead of destroyed.
As to avoid any enslaving at all, there is the Synthesis, you know. The Reapers will leave on their own. Nobody will be destroyed or enslaved.

[Ieldra]

Kawamura wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Didn't you read my OP? I specifically said there was no "final evolution of life", that this was a figure of speech inspired by religious symbolism. I just reinterpreted it. And I do not find the idea of self-improvement stupid. Natural or artificial evolution, the humans of 50k years from now will be noticeably different from us. Might as well take some control of the process.

I think part of my problem with Synthesis (and while I believe that's the "Good" ending for ME3, so your interpretations are probably more canonical than mine) is that you make this choice for others. You decide you want to control the process, so you decide to control it in all others. 

That's a major violation of consent in my mind. 

Yes, that's why it's so important that the symbolism implies that the changes are beneficial. It's stlll a problem, but you can't opt out of the responsibility to make a choice that affects the future of all intelligent life in the galaxy. Destroy might condemn organics to extinction, Control might defer organics' self-determination, Synthetics might effect changes that some people wouldn't want. Every choice has its own problems and risk attached. You can't ask every single individual if they'd rather be free but under the risk of extinction or under the benevolent guardianship of a newly-ascended god. Or if they'd rather be free and not under the risk of extinction, but changed in their physical nature. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 07:08 .

[paxbanana3915]

I have a bit of an issue with your point on there no longer being "natural evolution". If these new beings live, they will die, and many will die because of undesirable traits--whether it be they're lacking a receptor for a deadly virus or they don't have any microvilli in their intestine and can't absorb nutrients, etc. That's not going to change. There will always be 'natural evolution', whether or not the beings can selectively breed and/or improve their own underlying (I'm just going to call it this for the sake of my sanity) genetic code. If these beings control their genetic basis enough that they've reached 'perfection' and have only one code spread among all, then that's the end of all life; it takes one problem, one virus, one bacteria, and that will wipe out a 'society'. Variety is what keeps life going; random changes in DNA that more than likely don't affect anything in the individual gets passed on and culminated into a gene that may or may not help an individual far down the line survive and pass on their genes.

I may have misread this, but you were basically saying in contrast to evolution, the new beings can change their genetic makeup (or whatever it is that they possess and pass on to their progeny) at will. And these new beings are ruled by empathy because it's a desirable trait?

I understand what you're trying to say, but in the end, this wouldn't work. The empathy that you're talking about I'm going to say is more altruism. Altruism is likely rooted in our genetic makeup. If these new beings can change their genetic makeup/self, then they can change their ability to resist altruism. Why would an arguably perfect being be altruistic when they can be without it and steal/lie/rape/pass on more of their genes/have more power? All it takes it one being to do this for there to be war and genocide.

That's not even mentioning what kind of horror there would be if someone could screw around with their own genetic code. ...erm, Space Cancer. (Sorry, I had to say it.)

Anyway, that was a very thoughtful post, but I still can't suspend enough disbelief to stomach it. I will never rule out utopia, but making everything the same isn't going to achieve it.

[CuseGirl]

Maybe I think of things in too simple of terms but I don't like the idea of making organics into organic-synthetic hybrids, nor do I want to turn EDI or the newly individualized Geth Primes into organic-synthetic hybrids. I just went thru hundreds of hours of fighting forces who claimed that my people and my allies aren't good enough and must be "harvested". Why would I then change my allies into something they didn't ask for?

::sigh:: Is it too much to just kill the Reapers and stand on their corpses?