228 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

That's why I have thrown out the DNA angle and used something else.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Destroy you can logically presume from past data that organics will be able to create synthetic life again.
Control: Yeah keeping control is clearly a danger as is the danger of Shep not being changed by the process.
Synthesis: Jump into unknown. Red flags that leap to me but i can see your point that the unknown has a certain appeal.

Equally an evil denied is a something to be celeberated.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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?

Why are the reapers not going to reap then? Why won't a newly part synthetic person think do you know what i want to create an AI? I would argue fundamental procreation drives might very well be involved in the drive to create synthetic life. In order for snythesis to truly work it has to stop the drive to create new AI life.

[CuseGirl]

I'm also surprised that so many players are ok with Shepard being vaporized in 2 of the 3 choices.

[Giantdeathrobot]

The fact that it makes no amount of sense whatsoever already writes it out in my opinion. But let's play along a bit.

First,
philosophy and symbolism are all well and good, so long as they
function within the context of a story. I won't speak of the perfect
Platonian republic in Pokémon, for example, since while it's a perfectly
valid philosophical idea it simply doesn't fit at all. Same thing here. Transhumanism works in Deus Ex, Blade Runner or the like, soft sci-fi so to speak. Mass Effect is a space opera, enhancement technology is ubiquitous in the setting, for example every single Alliance marine has genetic enhancements. Hell, Shepard is practually a full-fledged cyborg him/herself. What's the big deal about evolutionationary perfection ect. all of a sudden? Same thing for Hegelian dialectics; this directly contradicts many established themes, and as Javik hmself says it weakened the Protheans. Beyond my own dismissal of the concept, it simply doesn't really work in Mass Effect as we see many different races working along quite readily. For all it's faults the Council guaranteed peace within it's very diverse allied species for millenia with no need for a magical beams of making everyone a half-robot and forcing a singularity on every living being in the galaxy.

Which brings us to christian imagery. A magical solution to mundane problems. Which is precisely THE thing that irks me most about the ending. First, it's not a solution anyway, how the hell will making everyone glow stop war between organics and synthetics. Second, it has been shown in-game that such a thing is perfectly possible without such extreme measures. No need to cite the example. Third, we already had more than enough religious imagery already if you ask me. Select Bible quotes are always cool (Ashley, Legion), Jesus Shepard was OK, but Joker and EDI going Adam and Eve? Overboard and useless. Fourth, Mass Effect, for all it's space opera goodness, was still relatively grounded. Of course, suspension of disbelief was very much required, but for me never broken. But the endings in general, and the green explosion in particular, simply shatter said suspension of disbelief. At the very conclusion of a trilogy. Yeah, great literary skills there guys.

So, philosophical themes are very fine. Forced pseudo-philophical musings in the last 10-15 minutes of a 100 hour trilogy? Now that's just posing and thinking yourself hotter than you are.

[Ieldra]

CuseGirl wrote...
I'm also surprised that so many players are ok with Shepard being vaporized in 2 of the 3 choices.

I'd rather have a "Shepard survives" version of all endings, tbh. I dislike that Shepard will be gone in my two favored options. But you could see that coming from a long way back, so it's not a primary issue. I can headcanon my way out of it anyway. The big-picture problems are much more massive.

@giantdeathrobot:
I concede that those who say the Synthesis as described shouldn't have been in the game have a point. The whole idea that some kind of physical merge is necessary to avoid that extinction scenario posited by the Catalyst is ludicrous and goes counter to a prevailing theme of the trilogy where you unify diverse people and species to achieve a common goal. That's why I have reduced the "merge into one" to "partaking in each other's nature" in my interpretation so that it doesn't betray everything that has come before anymore. Easy to justify since the original description makes no sense anyway.

[JEPrDEE]

Choosing synthesis is just saren 2.0

[CuseGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CuseGirl wrote...
I'm also surprised that so many players are ok with Shepard being vaporized in 2 of the 3 choices.

I'd rather have a "Shepard survives" version of all endings, tbh. I dislike that Shepard will be gone in my two favored options. But you could see that coming from a long way back, so it's not a primary issue. I can headcanon my way out of it anyway. The big-picture problems are much more massive.

@giantdeathrobot:
I concede that those who say the Synthesis as described shouldn't have been in the game have a point. The whole idea that some kind of physical merge is necessary to avoid that extinction scenario posited by the Catalyst is ludicrous and goes counter to a prevailing theme of the trilogy where you unify diverse people and species to achieve a common goal. That's why I have reduced the "merge into one" to "partaking in each other's nature" in my interpretation so that it doesn't betray everything that has come before anymore. Easy to justify since the original description makes no sense anyway.

How could I see Shepard had to die from a long way back? In some of his renegade dialogue, he says stuff like "Well I dont plan on dying anytime soon" or stuff like that. I mean, I get the whole heroic death thing, but for me, I planned on seeing the fruits of my labor loll...

To your second point: So you're trying to head canon the synthesis choice into enhancements, not really a true MERGING of organics and synthetics? hmmm....I get it, sorta.....

It's just tough to wrap my mind around the writers at Bioware just screwing the pooch so bad on this.....

[Lukeskymac]

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

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

Good, because I do too and I chose Synthesis 

Edit: Whatever they do with the Ending DLC, I want to keep Synthesis as a choice.

Modifié par Lukeskymac, 25 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[Ieldra]

Lukeskymac wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

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

Good, because I do too and I chose Synthesis 

Edit: Whatever they do with the Ending DLC, I want to keep Synthesis as a choice.

Who doesn't love DX1. An all-time classic in my eyes. But the parallel isn't perfect. The only way Helios Merge is similar to the Synthesis is that both are radical choices featuring elements that have never been tried before to solve a problem. 

I also want to keep the Synthesis as a choice (obviously, else I wouldn't have made this thread). But it would be a great help to describe it in a way that makes some sense. In the script from the November leak, it was "We synthetics will become more like you, and organics will become more like us": That was extremely vague, but you could fill it with something that makes sense. The current description you can all but throw away. If you must use symbolism to make sense of it, something has gone wrong. It's as if written by total amateurs with no idea of the concepts they were talking about.

@CuseGirl:
I saw Shepard's death coming when I tried to imagine a fitting role for him/her in the post-Reapers world and couldn't come up with anything. Only the hopeful goodbye scenes mislead me into thinking Shepard could survive this. That's one of the aspects of the endings I dislike most of all. Dashed hope, in more than one sense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 mars 2012 - 10:50 .

[Clumsy Astronaut]

A very well thought out post. I too liked the synthesis ending for it's transhumanist feel and this post pretty much sums up why.

[Ieldra]

Bumping this as a counterpoint to the "Synthesis turns everyone into husks" thread.

A claim that is plainly ridiculous BTW. Neither "we all end up like the Borg" nor "we all end up like husks" has any similarity to what the Synthesis is about. Comparison: all life on Earth is based on DNA? Is all life on Earth the same? Are we all thinking the same things? Changing things on a molecular level doesn't reduce species diversity or individual differences within a species.

Also, Joker and EDI and the others look pretty normal in the ending scene, with only a small cosmetic change.

[Elyiia]

I just want to know a few things about synthesis:

How does it affect reproduction, now that we have synthetic/organic hybrids?
How do the Geth cope with the concept of death from old age (based on organic parts not being immortal)?
What effect does it have on unborn children?
What effect does it have on cells mid-split?

[sartt]

Elyiia wrote...

I just want to know a few things about synthesis:

How does it affect reproduction, now that we have synthetic/organic hybrids?
How do the Geth cope with the concept of death from old age (based on organic parts not being immortal)?
What effect does it have on unborn children?
What effect does it have on cells mid-split?

 Space  Magic + Logic:huh: = Complete Disaster:devil:. Remember this equation. You will need it later.

Modifié par sartt, 30 mars 2012 - 11:39 .

[Lmaoboat]

The catalyst never really states what exactly Synthesis does, aside from some vague stuff about "new DNA" and "final evolution." All that's clear is that he thinks it is a solution to the singularity problem. The only way I could think of that synthesis could solve this problem is by giving organics their own singularity, which is what that stuff about being the final goal of evolution would seem to imply but, what would the criteria for being part of some ultimate lifeform be? Would primitive species be part of it? What about the dogs, or the circuit trees? And what would you do once you achieved perfection, just stand around and contemplate existence? And if you all of the sudden turned everyone into a pinnacle of evolution that operates on a level that we can not conceive, haven't you essential killed them? As Samara says on Legions loyalty mission, "If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body." But it doesn't really look like he did that. Everything just seems more circuit-y. So if everyone is just a cyborg, what was solved? There's still the potential for creating new synthetics that could achieve singularity and overrun the semi-synthetics. I don't think a malicious AI would have any problems killing a different AI, much less something just half-synthetic. I think a writer must have played Deus Ex, or something, and must have had his own, vague idea of what Synthesis was supposed, and forgot that most people aren't going to imagine that same thing he did, or that Mass Effect has barely any Transhumanistic themes.

[Ieldra]

Elyiia wrote...
I just want to know a few things about synthesis:

How does it affect reproduction, now that we have synthetic/organic hybrids?
What effect does it have on unborn children?

Not much of an effect, actually. The only difference is that the synthetic symbiont I proposed reproduces itself and passes on a copy of itself to the child.

Of course, you can create your own scenario with different effects.

How do the Geth cope with the concept of death from old age (based on organic parts not being immortal)?

Organic parts are not by defintion "mortal" (there are a few *real* organisms with functional immortality). Also the symbiont will slow aging, and well, damage is repairable, for synthetics and organics both. And both can die from too much damage (this is what aging is: cumulative damage on the cellular and genetic level)

What effect does it have on cells mid-split?

None. See above.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 mars 2012 - 12:01 .

[KaeserZen]

Trolling aside, I think you guys are getting way too deep into this. I personnaly beleive in Occam's Razor, and the most plausible explanation for the Synthesis ending would be :

[Ieldra]

Lmaoboat wrote...
I think a writer must have played Deus Ex, or something, and must have had his own, vague idea of what Synthesis was supposed, and forgot that most people aren't going to imagine that same thing he did, or that Mass Effect has barely any Transhumanistic themes.

I agree that the writers didn't think this through nearly enough. But as for transhumanist themes: What about biotics? if that's not transhumanist I don't know what is. It's even referenced as such in Martin Burns and his "Parliamentary Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies" (ME1, sidequest UNC: Hostage).

ME2 and ME3 dispensed with using the term, deliberately as I believe since there was a talk about it in the leaked scripts that was removed from the game, just as they removed any references to controversial SF themes in other places as well. I don't know if it was cowardice and fear of controversy or ideology that made them do it, but I resent it greatly.

[Elyiia]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...
I just want to know a few things about synthesis:

How does it affect reproduction, now that we have synthetic/organic hybrids?
What effect does it have on unborn children?

Not much of an effect, actually. The only difference is that the synthetic symbiont I proposed reproduces itself and passes on a copy of itself to the child.

Of course, you can create your own scenario with different effects.

How do the Geth cope with the concept of death from old age (based on organic parts not being immortal)?

Organic parts are not by defintion "mortal" (there are a few *real* organisms with functional immortality). Also the symbiont will slow aging, and well, damage is repairable, for synthetics and organics both.

What effect does it have on cells mid-split?

None. See above.

I'm still confused as to the bolded. I would make the assumption that in the ME universe we still don't understand cell regeneration well enough to prevent the "decay" for lack of a better word in our cells when they replace themselves, or age. So by my own thinking the organic parts would still decay as normal.

I know of the immortal jellyfish which I believe you are referring to, I just don't think it applies here.

Since Shepard is the basis for the synthesis model, I was thinking on the assumption you had a dominately synthetic or organic body with synthetic or organic enhancements.

[Lmaoboat]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...
I think a writer must have played Deus Ex, or something, and must have had his own, vague idea of what Synthesis was supposed, and forgot that most people aren't going to imagine that same thing he did, or that Mass Effect has barely any Transhumanistic themes.

I agree that the writers didn't think this through nearly enough. But as for transhumanist themes: What about biotics? if that's not transhumanist I don't know what is. It's even referenced as such in Martin Burns and his "Parliamentary Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies" (ME1, sidequest UNC: Hostage).

ME2 and ME3 dispensed with using the term, deliberately as I believe since there was a talk about it in the leaked scripts that was removed from the game, just as they removed any references to controversial SF themes in other places as well. I don't know if it was cowardice and fear of controversy or ideology that made them do it, but I resent it greatly.

Mass Effect had aspects of Transumanism, but it doesn't really have themes of it. It was pretty much there so the game could have "spell casting." 

[Lmaoboat]

Elyiia wrote...

I'm still confused as to the bolded. I would make the assumption that in the ME universe we still don't understand cell regeneration well enough to prevent the "decay" for lack of a better word in our cells when they replace themselves, or age. So by my own thinking the organic parts would still decay as normal.

I know of the immortal jellyfish which I believe you are referring to, I just don't think it applies here.

Since Shepard is the basis for the synthesis model, I was thinking on the assumption you had a dominately synthetic or organic body with synthetic or organic enhancements.

The mortality of the Geth isn't really relavent since their immortality lies in their ability to transfer to new bodies. Though I don't know how they're going to make new ones now unless all the raw materials also turned into cyborg stuff. I guess the Geth get the shaft in two endings.

Modifié par Lmaoboat, 30 mars 2012 - 12:06 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree that the writers didn't think this through nearly enough. But as for transhumanist themes: What about biotics? if that's not transhumanist I don't know what is. It's even referenced as such in Martin Burns and his "Parliamentary Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies" (ME1, sidequest UNC: Hostage).

Actually transhumanism is humanism applied to human augmentation. Though the misconception is commonly made and seemed to have .

That said it's mentioned in passing, but never such to warrant it being a major them for the ending.
Also being transhuman (or neo-evolutionist as I prefer) isn't about the uniformity the Synthesis ending implies. I don't think equating the Synthesis ending to transhumans is what one should do.

[Ieldra]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I agree that the writers didn't think this through nearly enough. But as for transhumanist themes: What about biotics? if that's not transhumanist I don't know what is. It's even referenced as such in Martin Burns and his "Parliamentary Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies" (ME1, sidequest UNC: Hostage).

Actually transhumanism is humanism applied to human augmentation. Though the misconception is commonly made and seemed to have .

That said it's mentioned in passing, but never such to warrant it being a major them for the ending.
Also being transhuman (or neo-evolutionist as I prefer) isn't about the uniformity the Synthesis ending implies.

Uniformity? All life on Earth is based on DNA. Is all life on Earth uniform? This assumption of "we all become the same" is a fallacy. Read my OP to see how I get out of that. It's more difficult since I needed to throw out the "new DNA" because that makes no sense, but it still works.

I don't think equating the Synthesis ending to transhumans is what one should do.

One "should" do? So...you're implying that there's a moral reason why I am obliged to not interpret the Synthesis in this way? Sorry but I'm not seeing the logic of that.

[Badwolf_alpha]

Interesting OP.

Sorry if this has already been covered.

If the supposition was that the created destroys the creator - and now synthetics and humans are combined (into a new kind of hybrid (with glowing green bits).

Won't this new hybrid also have (undiscovered) limitations? That they then, in turn are required to create a new "something" as a tool (similar to the way organics created synthetics). Such as multi-dimensional servants of pure energy, etc.

Which would perpetuate (and subsequently escalate) the created destroys the creator cycle.

My question is this; in this scenario the whole organics vs synthetics thing is a bit of a red herring? And therefore invalidates the finality of this R, G, B variant also?

[Clumsy Astronaut]

Threads like this give me some sense of happiness in what otherwise would have been despair. Even if they leave the endings, it's stuff like this that gives me hope that there will be something worth saving of the ME franchise

@ Ieldra2

Your threads bring me back to the days when forums were about theorycrafting and ethics of decisions as opposed to endless whining. BSN looks worse than the forums of online shooters now
(not that there's nothing to complain about when it comes to the endings)