228 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@paxbanana:
The end of natural evolution as opposed to artificial evolution is no necessary part of my scenario. I only said that it's a possible interpretation of the term "final evolution of life". On the other hand, it is possible to imagine that a culture has the potential to completely control their own genetics. To which degree they exercise that control, and to which degree that is desirable, that's a different question I have not touched upon. But if the knowledge is complete, then it should be no problem at all to create solutions to new environmental challenges and solve the evolutionary problems with intent instead of relying on random change.

Also please note that I have avoided the term "perfection" since it's associated with an unchanging state. We might debate if that's necessarily the case but that's not the problem here so I'd rather avoid using it in the first place. I'm speaking of improvement, which doesn't have a goal and no defined end, and I have explicitly said that as long as there is life, there is change. Life without change is no life, but nobody says that change must be random.

[Kawamura]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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. 

I wouldn't say it's important that the symbolism implies it's a good thing. In fact, that makes it even worse. That it's considered the "Good" choice disgusts me morally. Like, their moral framework up until the last ten minutes has been similar to mine and then they change it drastically at the end. 

[Ieldra]

CuseGirl wrote...
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?

As I said, I'm not trying to convince anyone here. But I would like to point out that the Reapers don't say we aren't good enough, in fact, the problem is that we're too competent, having created an advanced civilization. The ultimate "final solution" in the Reapers eyes would probably be something like "keep them stupid enough so that they never build an advanced civilization. My scenario is the opposite of that. 

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

Reminds me of Shepard when looking at the Thorian for the first time. "Why can't anything be simple?". But yeah, given the mess of the current endings, that would simplify things immensely.

[Ieldra]

Kawamura wrote...
I wouldn't say it's important that the symbolism implies it's a good thing. In fact, that makes it even worse. That it's considered the "Good" choice disgusts me morally. Like, their moral framework up until the last ten minutes has been similar to mine and then they change it drastically at the end. 

It's important because the Synthesis would be unpalatable if it didn't imply that the changes were beneficial. As it is, you have to weigh the benefits against the problem of making galaxy-wide changes. If there was no downside to it, it wouldn't be interesting. If there was no upside to it, then it might as well not exist as an option. It says: if you want this problem to go away, then you must compromise your morals. Whatever you do, you won't be coming out of this choice clean. That's how it should be. Where you pay the price, that's where your personal philosophy comes in.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 07:43 .

[CuseGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Reminds me of Shepard when looking at the Thorian for the first time. "Why can't anything be simple?". But yeah, given the mess of the current endings, that would simplify things immensely.

And I'm not saying I want all the endings to be sunshine and rainbows. But as someone who really tried their hardest to get as many war assets as possible, scanning and running away from reapers and such over and oveer again, I have a hard time thinking synthesis is the perfect ending. All this time, we've been working toward taking down the Reapers, not integrating with them or controlling them but killing them DEAD and at the end, I'm told destroying the Reapers could doom organics to extinction? Really B <_<

I appreciate your trying to explain why Bioware had the audacity to include the synthesis ending. The reason I said "I think of things in too simple terms" is this: I dont have time to think about christian symbolism when I've already spent 100 hours trying to simply Kill the Reapers. And if Bioware claims the game was rushed (because of EA interests), then don't tell me you were sitting around thinking about christian/human-perfectionist symbolism either.

Now dont get wrong, I have a Ph.D in over-thinking the philosophy behind fictional works lolll....but for me, this wasn't one of those works. ::sigh:: This "Clarity" DLC better be worth it because it's the only reason I'm not trading the game in yet....

[BlackAlpha]

 I agree almost entirely with the original post. I think that's very close to what the developers intended. But there are two more things you do have to keep in mind:

1. Even the plants have been affacted by the "synthesis". I think this means that it affects everything that is alive. This change affects even entities that are currently alive. Plus, the change applies rather quickly, considering you are changing (in real time) the anatomy of living things. This is borderline, if not pure, space magic. The closest explanation I can come up with is that the rules of the universe got rewritten; a new code is in place, so to speak.

2. Assuming Casper (which embodies a powerful and ancient AI) is correct when he says that the "created" always want to destroy their "creators", and assuming Casper is not an idiot, the goal of synthesis is to avoid conflict between man and machine. I think this is accomplished by making the distinction between organics and synthetics obsolete, by merging them together, so that there's no more organics or pure synthetics. So I think that's the conclusion the developers were aiming for. And, as pointed out in the first post, this opens up endless of (positive) possibilities for "life", making synthesis the "happy ending".

Modifié par BlackAlpha, 24 mars 2012 - 07:46 .

[Ieldra]

Cusegirl, there lies the difference between us. I've always found the Reapers interesting, right from Sovereign's first appearance in ME1. I've been killing them because that seemed like the only way to make them stop. But I'd rather study them - millions of years of history of organic species preserved - so when presented with the choice to end this war without killing them, it's perfectly IC for my main Shepard to consider other options.

I concede the point that all this symbolism may be a random result. After these endings, I've lost a lot of respect for Mac Walters and Casey Hudson. But still, it's there, and I might as well work with it.

[wright1978]

I dislike the mass violation of every living and synthetic thing in the universe synthesis implies.
Worse than that synthesis is supposed to end the threat of the creation of an AI that destroys its creator. If all synthesis does is improves what's to stop these new beings creating more AI's. Does synthesis strip away aspects of organic beings (individual inspiration,innovation) in order to avoid the creating of further AI's

[Kawamura]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I wouldn't say it's important that the symbolism implies it's a good thing. In fact, that makes it even worse. That it's considered the "Good" choice disgusts me morally. Like, their moral framework up until the last ten minutes has been similar to mine and then they change it drastically at the end. 

It's important because the Synthesis would be unpalatable if it didn't imply that the changes were beneficial. As it is, you have to weigh the benefits against the problem of making galaxy-wide changes. If there was no downside to it, it wouldn't be interesting. If there was no upside to it, then it might as well not exist as an option. It says: if you want this problem to go away, then you must compromise your morals. Whatever you do, you won't be coming out of this choice clean. That's how it should be. Where you pay the price, that's where your personal philosophy comes in.

I feel that the game implies this is the "best" ending. That is what's disgusting to me.

EDIT: and frustrating, as I feel the last two games, and even the previous 30 hours of the last game, would not suggest this as the "best" ending.

Modifié par Kawamura, 24 mars 2012 - 08:00 .

[Ieldra]

@BlackAlpha:
ad 1. I chose to ignore the presentation of the plants in the Normandy scene because it's too much space magic for me. in spite of Mac Walters' preference, the ME universe is not a comic book universe. My goal was to present a scenario that makes a little sense in the results, even if the process is still space magic. And anyway, if synthetics had a DNA analogue they would be functionally identical to organics, so that cannot be if you want keep the concept of even partly synthetic life meaningful.

ad 2. Remove all distinction does not appear to be a desirable scenario to me, so I used "partake in each other's nature" instead. I am firmly convinced the writers were completely unaware of this possible distinction.

[Ieldra]

Kawamura wrote...
I feel that the game implies this is the "best" ending. That is what's disgusting to me.

Yes, I understand that. That should be the decision of the player. If all scenarios are morally problematic, a roleplaying game shouldn't try to promote one over the others.

But ME1 and ME2 both were partial to the Paragon endgame decision.

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

[CuseGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Cusegirl, there lies the difference between us. I've always found the Reapers interesting, right from Sovereign's first appearance in ME1. I've been killing them because that seemed like the only way to make them stop. But I'd rather study them - millions of years of history of organic species preserved - so when presented with the choice to end this war without killing them, it's perfectly IC for my main Shepard to consider other options.

I concede the point that all this symbolism may be a random result. After these endings, I've lost a lot of respect for Mac Walters and Casey Hudson. But still, it's there, and I might as well work with it.

It's like having a conversation with TiM lol....

That's part I hate the most about the Reapers and the GodChild. They kept saying stuff like "harvested" and "preserved". All I ever see the Reapers do is build more Reaper dreadnoughts/ships and turn people into ground military units. It's not like the Reapers have EVER presented why being preserved is so great. And we've been inside a delerict Reaper. I didn't see any preserved organics who had ascended. I saw mindless husks, I saw Scions with 15 heads stuffed into their bellies, shooting shockwaves at me.

And every charcter who has tried to "understand" the Reapers or "align" themselves with the Reapers ends up committing acts they would have NEVER agreed to had they not been indoctrinated.

I mean....personally, everytime I heard those words harvested and preserved, it made me angry. For me, harvested/preserve = "dead" and I can't choose that for other organics, nor can I choose to integrate with those who would use that language. But that's why we all play the way we want to play. You prefer to study them, I prefer to kill them.

[ericjdev]

It's not well explained but it sounds deplorable, even genocidal to me. Changing the makeup of every sentient in the galaxy against their will. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more sickeningly evil act.

[Ieldra]

ericjdev wrote...
It's not well explained but it sounds deplorable, even genocidal to me. Changing the makeup of every sentient in the galaxy against their will. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more sickeningly evil act.

Let me ask you this: Imagine you had the chance to either give everyone on Earth a lifespan of 250 years and an immunity to 90% of the existing diseases, or give it to no one. Disregarding the population problems that would result from such a scenario, would you do it? Judging the morality of changing the physical makeup of someone against their will becomes a little bit more tricky with consequences like this, don't you think?

@Cusegirl:
You forget that after the Synthesis, the Reapers won't be enemies any more. Study becomes a less risky prospect.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ericjdev wrote...
It's not well explained but it sounds deplorable, even genocidal to me. Changing the makeup of every sentient in the galaxy against their will. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more sickeningly evil act.

Let me ask you this: Imagine you had the chance to either give everyone on Earth a lifespan of 250 years and an immunity to 90% of the existing diseases, or no one. Disregarding the population problems that would result from such a scenario, would you do it? Judging the morality of changing the makeup of someone against their will becomes a little bit more tricky with consequences like this, don't you think?

How can you disregard the population problems in such a scenario?
Lifespan of 250 years but what about quality of life? It's the quality not the length that matters.
Will this immunity lead to a plethora of new deadly strains of diseases which we are not immune?

[Sonashi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Ummm.. I used analogy. I was talking from Reapers perspective. In one moment all their mystery just gone. They were perfect villain, their independence and ignorance towards organics made ME somehow exciting. And in the end some duff god-child said that they are only his puppets and I can control them if I want. I'd say NO. I can understand Synthesis, I can understand Destroy ending but Control? Never.

Right, I think I have nothig more to say about that. If you want you can answer my question about living Shep from destroy ending (I think i haven't seen your answer yet), someday.

Please do carry on. 

[Giguelingueling]

Blarty wrote...

It's a good and well thought out breakdown.

The one thing I would consider is that whilst you are correct in your supposition that 'That is bullsh*t. There can't be a hybrid DNA' there is the small matter that an equal amount of BS is on the cover of every box of 'Mass Effect'; the words Mass Effect and the idea that there is 'space-magic' that creates a mass-free corridor within time-space in order to counter-act infinite mass as an atom approaches the speed of light, and yet everyone seems absolutely chipper on this point whilst crying foul on something equally as ridiculous

You could explain the mass free corridor with M-theory ( graviton would be particule that can travel between parallel universe ) So the mass effect simply force all gravitron in our universe to go in another creating a mass free corridor.

[BlackAlpha]

ericjdev wrote...

It's not well explained but it sounds deplorable, even genocidal to me. Changing the makeup of every sentient in the galaxy against their will. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more sickeningly evil act.

Interesting point of view. I guess playing god is not for everyone.

Modifié par BlackAlpha, 24 mars 2012 - 08:49 .

[Ieldra]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ericjdev wrote...
It's not well explained but it sounds deplorable, even genocidal to me. Changing the makeup of every sentient in the galaxy against their will. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more sickeningly evil act.

Let me ask you this: Imagine you had the chance to either give everyone on Earth a lifespan of 250 years and an immunity to 90% of the existing diseases, or no one. Disregarding the population problems that would result from such a scenario, would you do it? Judging the morality of changing the makeup of someone against their will becomes a little bit more tricky with consequences like this, don't you think?

How can you disregard the population problems in such a scenario?
Lifespan of 250 years but what about quality of life? It's the quality not the length that matters.
Will this immunity lead to a plethora of new deadly strains of diseases which we are not immune?

This is a thought experiment designed to make a polnt about the morality of changing someone's physical makeup against their will. For an experiment like this, you have to presuppose that all non-tested criteria remain unchanged. The benefit in question is a life that is longer and healthier than the "unchanged" version. Everything else remains the same, including appearance etc.. 

[legaldinho]

ladies and gentlemen, i give you presidium fish. this is the reason for the synthesis ending. Just took shep a long time.

Modifié par legaldinho, 24 mars 2012 - 09:06 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

This is a thought experiment designed to make a polnt about the morality of changing someone's physical makeup against their will. For an experiment like this, you have to presuppose that all non-tested criteria remain unchanged. The benefit in question is a life that is longer and healthier than the "unchanged" version. Everything else remains the same, including appearance etc.. 

Well thought experiments work on paper but get messy in reality. So yeah you can claim people's freewill can be violated for the greater good but as has been shown repeatedly in history you better be damn sure you know the consequences before you cross that line. So violating people's free will in synthesis may bring a tangible benefit such as longer life but it will almost certainly bring negative consequences. I'm certainly not willing to cross that moral line without some pretty hard definite evidence of what those consequences are.

[hanshotfirs]

My issue with synthesis is, while it may be the "utopian" choice, the ME series has always been based around choices and free will... by choosing synthesis, you're not allowing anyone else in the galaxy to have a say in the matter, you're deciding for them that they will be improved and they will have to deal with it. I keep coming back to the term "genetic rape," which may not be accurate, but best summarizes how that ending make me feel.

Yes, I'm Commander Shepard, and I've made all this effort to get people to trust me... but the Shepard I played through with wouldn't have decided something like this for the whole galaxy. Especially since the races we're talking about have only explored about 1% of the galaxy, there's A LOT more planets and races out there that I'm choosing to "synthesize" with synthetics.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

[@Cusegirl:
You forget that after the Synthesis, the Reapers won't be enemies any more. Study becomes a less risky prospect.

Actually as i stated earlier that's one of the even more disturbing aspects of Synthesis.
Destroy- destroys reapers
Control- Shep gets reapers to leave
Synthesis- Reapers no longer see as a threat.

To me it is like Inception. The goal in that movie was to convince the son to break up his father's empire. However they couldn't just implant a message to do that. They had to get to the root of the relationship with the father to do so.


Similarly in Synthesis the goal is to make the reapers not view organics as a threat. In order to do this though you need to get to the root of why organics create synthetics in the first place. That's getting into fundamental procreation drives at the heart of organic life.  Change our behaviours so we will never think ot creating an AI again. That doesn't lead me to a nice place in terms of viewing what has just been done to organics.

Modifié par wright1978, 24 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[Ieldra]

@wright1978:
The thing is, you must make a decision. You can't do nothing because everyone will be harvested if you do nothing. And that decision will affect every intelligent being in the galaxy. You don't know the consequences if you choose Destroy - organics may go extinct in a million years. You don't know the consequences of Control - maybe you won't be able to keep the Reapers under control. I agree you should weigh the consequences of your decision and do your best estimate, but in the end every decision is a jump into the unknown. The Synthesis may be a bigger jump than the other options, but you know.....that's the attraction. Status quo bias won't get you anywhere in this situation.

For the moral angle, also consider this: a good denied is an evil.

About your last post: the change is physical, not in behaviour. It is partaking in each others' nature so that the other is less "other". I do not find that very problematic in itself. And what have procreation drives to do with anything?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 mars 2012 - 09:32 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

DNA DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT!!!!