228 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Badwolf_alpha wrote...
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?

I've created this scenario in order to put some logic into it, but in the end you're right. As long as there is some motivation to create beings more intelligent and capable than yourself, there will be the risk of the extinction event the Catalyst mentions. None of the endings is a permanent solution to that because as long as there is intelligent life, such motivations will exist.  

I think the final choice is more a choice about where you want intelligent life in the galaxy to go, and about the kind of safeguards, if any, it needs in order to survive in a more general sense. The final choice is interesting as such, but the link to the organic/synthetic conflict doesn't make sense. That's the main reason why the ending feels disconnected from the rest of the game.

My interpretation of the Synthesis reduces the risk of the extinction, but by no means makes it impossible, exactly because it is in no way "final" but creates more possibilities through the merge of organic and synthetic. A more literal interpretation of the Catalyst's words - if one could be found that makes sense - would perhaps work, but it would end in a state of being that could hardly be called life.

[Arijharn]

Synthesis may be presented as the "best" option by the Catalyst who portrays itself as some sort of omniscient being (a God) with it's talk of 'final evolution of life' etc, but we've already disproved it's theories (it's 'solution') by building the Crucible in the first place and deploying it.
If it's wrong here, where else can it be wrong?

I like the aim of transhumanism etc because I don't find the human form in and of itself particularly sacrosanct, but Synthesis to me isn't any more of a 'solution' precisely because we don't know the consequences of our actions for it any more or less than our other 'solutions' (and no; 'head-canoning' my way out of it isn't valid for me, I dislike doing it because I think it's a bit like cerebral masturbation, and is done out of a disregard of what the writer may have originally intended, but that's just me.).

Destroy to me gives the best option because it allows the populace to go forward as they would normally (or as normal given the circumstance). Sure, AI's may be created and they may be a future threat, but they may not be actively hostile. The Catalyst may have had a point in saying conflict is inevitable (really?), but annihilation isn't. If Shephard can shake the hand of the Geth despite their past differences, then why can't others?

Control to me is somewhat interesting, but I rejected it because it doesn't really solve anything in particular.The Reapers can still be a threat as to the development of AI's etc, etc.

[new_bio]

All endings are simple parallels.
We have three options:
Destroy evil.
Control evil.
Join evil.
I think, this game tries to force on us the conviction, that that evil is quite cool and even more - joining him, is best possible option. It is probably fundamental reason, why so much people hate current endings.

[Clumsy Astronaut]

@ new_bio
I fail to see the parallels. If someone uses an axe to murder someone is the axe evil? If so is it evil to use the axe to cut down wood to build homes for the homeless? Also it is clearly portrayed that synthetics are not evil, so synthesis is not evil any more than the Geth are.

[Ieldra]

@Clumsy Astronaut:
Thanks for the appreciation. Remember ME2? Big threads were made about the endgame decision and they continued almost until ME3 came out. I miss those times, and I would prefer to do more of that here - eventually. But first we need a fix for this abomination of an ending. It is a sign of how bad things are that so little debate of the kind "which ending is best" is going on.

Anyway, back to the Synthesis. I may get depressed every time I approach the end, but I refuse to wallow in it.

@Arijharn:
We haven't disproven its theories. We have some evidence that it might not be right with its assumption of the inevitable extinction, and I want to confront it about that, that's all. Apart from that, I see the final choice more about where you want civilization to go and where it may or may not have to be constrained in a more general sense. The Reaper threat is resolved one way or the other.

[Ieldra]

Clumsy Astronaut wrote...
@ Ieldra2
We both seem to believe that synthesis is a good ending, why do you think the vast majority discard it in favor of control?

Here a few points:
(1) the intuition that to become part synthetic is to have foreign objects in your body, which creates a visceral aversion.
(2) the intuition that evil is contagious, and that any idea embraced by a villain (Saren) is automatically bad.
(3) the ethical problem of changing everyone's nature, even if it's beneficial.
(4) the fact that Reapers are organic/synthetic hybrids, too, with all the associations that follow.
(5) the nonsensical description of the Synthesis by the Catalyst.
(6) the apparent betrayal of ME's theme "unity in diversity" (that really needs some elabortion to get around)

Some of these problems aren't any. People just need some mental adjustment to see that (1, 2 and 4 mostly), others I have dealt with in my OP (5 and 6), one remains a factor everyone needs to figure into their own choice (3). And I think the vast majority chooses Destroy, for reasons I could go into here, but I don't want to trigger a lengthy debate about the merits of one final choice vs. the other on this thread.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 avril 2012 - 08:23 .

[Clumsy Astronaut]

Thanks, I was curious about your perspective on the general consensus.

[Ieldra]

Quoting this from another thread:

Candidate 88766 wrote...
The chance to stop organics ageing and succumbing to disease whilst also granting synthetic beings true 'life'? Sounds pretty good to me.

In the ME universe, people are getting augmented all the time. It is inevitable that eventually synthetic and organic life will become virtually indistinguishable.

Synthesis also provides the best hope for the future: its logical to assume that organics will become more intelligent as a result and this, combined with the now friendly Reapers, means technological advances will come thick and fast. Plus, problems such as starvation etc in the aftermath of the war will be gone.

My main problem is that it seems to work by magic though.

Fits nicely with the scenario I outlined in the OP. That the Reapers are not Reapers anymore after the Synthesis is a fact that appears to pass some people by and bother others. But if they've been controlled by the Catalyst, I see no reason why making peace with them should be impossible.

Also I'd like to incorporate another element into my scenario. The creator of the unofficial epilogues posits that after the Synthesis, everyone will have short-range networking. This is a legacy of the geth who have the same ability, only in FTL (not sure if that survives the Apocalypse), so it is a very plausible development. Thanks to Siduri for bringing it up.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 avril 2012 - 11:55 .

[Ieldra]

I'm just going to bump this as an antidote against the unreasonable outpouring of hate against the Synthesis ending by the "Destroy is the only option" fundamentalists. I don't want to repeat myself, I've said it all.

[Xandurpein]

@OP. I appreciate the thought you put into this, but ultimately this is just your imagination. I have several problems with how you propose the Synthesis could function in practice, but the fundamental question for most of us who refuse the Synthesis option is that we simply have no idea what will happen. It's perfectly plausible that something like what you describe will happen. It's also perfectly possible that the result will be something really awful, like turning everybody into husks.

To you this ambiguity leaves an opening to imagine a relatively happy ending, but for me the ambiguity means that I'm forced to make a decision with no information about if the outcome of my decision will result in a happy end or a nightmare. It's not because I consider that Synthesis will be a nightmare that I reject it, but because I can't rule out the possibility that it will be a nightmare. Your whole reasoning just boils down to a severe case of wishful thinking, when I apply it to Shepard's choice in the game.

[Ieldra]

For me the symbolism was always clear: the Synthesis is meant to be a good ending. It's the non-symbolic interpretation that makes problems, and because of the nonsensical description we have little to go on about the actual effects. But whatever the effects, they will remain within the framework circumscribed by the symbolism and thus be mostly beneficial.

Nonetheless, I wish for a better description. Hopefully the Extended Cut will give us something like that.

[Oldbones2]

An interesting Read OP,

Like what you did with it though I still disagree.

[PsyrenY]

Brilliant post OP. I would hope that if Bioware decide to elaborate on synthesis they give this a careful read.

[Ieldra]

Thanks for the comments, Oldbones2 and Optimystic_X. Not everyone will agree, of course, that's how it should be, but I think it's important to show why - ethical problems notwithstanding - the Synthesis is a good ending and not the horrible nightmare some people are determined to paint it as.

Also, I'm going to add this from the Unofficial Epilogues, because it adds greatly to the Synthesis scenario:

Post-Crucible, Day 41
Memorial speech delivered by Provisional Councilor Kahlee Sanders, at the ruins of St. Paul's Cathedral, London

I haven't ever given a speech like this before. A lot of us have been doing a lot of things for the first time, these past several weeks.

We're still figuring out how things are going to work now. We have these new spontaneous short-range networking capabilities—those of you who are physically present are sharing my thoughts at hyper-verbal speeds—and we're achieving a kind of unity and consensus that was never before possible. On the other hand, we still haven't established extra-system communications or travel, so we're not sure if the same thing is happening across the galaxy. We think it must be.

Even the Reapers are maintaining a presence in the network right now. I can feel their thoughts, so vast and timeless, like whales singing to each other in the lightless depths. I'm sorry. I seem to be straying from my prepared remarks.

We're here because, even as we mingle and exchange and learn, we need to mark what we have lost. We need to mourn. Those of us with organic origins have lost loved ones, homes, comrades-in-arms. Those of us with synthetic origins have lost analogous things. And all of us have lost so, so much time. Time spent at war with each other, when we could have been sharing and building and creating.

Out of all that has been lost, we have chosen today to mark the passing of a single human life. We are gathered together to mourn, and to celebrate, the enduring sacrifice of Commander xxxxx Shepard, the architect of our future.

Commander Shepard gave us our tomorrows. He isn't here to see them dawn. But all of us who look upon a rising star do so because of him.

We grieve, but we also rejoice. This is Shepard's victory. This is our victory. Thank you.

Thank you, Siduri, for this inspired vision!

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 avril 2012 - 08:42 .

[paul165]

An extremely interesting OP that gives a thoughtful interpretation of the synthesis ending. I suspect my main problems with it are a)the consent issue and the amount of headcanon you are required to use because as presented in the game the implications are troubling.

Also before reading this thread I hadn't noticed the plants in the synthesis ending (probably because by that stage I was banging my head against the desk) so thanks all for that.

Personally I tend to favour control also largely based on Siduri's excellent fandom epilogue just because control gives more flexibility - want to work towards synthesis? No problem the Reapers have the tech to assist. Want to rebuild the mass relays? Sure. Starchild was right? Ok no problem.

Of course the problem with control (well one of them) is that yes you have all these benevolent options but you also have options like overthrow the Council, exterminate the Batarians or just generally work out whatever issues Shepard had by the end of the game. You think the Hegemony was a bad government Shepard could turn the whole galaxy into a cult serving them forever

[Ieldra]

paul165 wrote...
An extremely interesting OP that gives a thoughtful interpretation of the synthesis ending. I suspect my main problems with it are a)the consent issue and the amount of headcanon you are required to use because as presented in the game the implications are troubling.

I think the real problem is that all the evidence that the Synthesis is a good ending is circumstantial, symbolic or after-the-fact. At the time when Shepard makes the decision, there's only the assumption that taking a step forward in evolution is a good thing and that, if Shepard is used as the model of transformation, the result can't be that bad. Once you're over that hurdle, the decision becomes justifiable because the results can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone. 

When I wrote the OP, the Extended Cut hadn't been announced. Perhaps this is another good time to insist that the Synthesis gets a better description. 

Personally I tend to favour control also largely based on Siduri's excellent fandom epilogue just because control gives more flexibility - want to work towards synthesis? No problem the Reapers have the tech to assist. Want to rebuild the mass relays? Sure. Starchild was right? Ok no problem.

Of course the problem with control (well one of them) is that yes you have all these benevolent options but you also have options like overthrow the Council, exterminate the Batarians or just generally work out whatever issues Shepard had by the end of the game. You think the Hegemony was a bad government Shepard could turn the whole galaxy into a cult serving them forever

Yep, Control is another good option. I have no problem with its inherent openness because whatever happens is what *your* Shepard would do when put in a position to control the Reapers. As opposed to the other two options where the consequences are mostly inherent to the decision if they can be pinned down at all, in Control you have, well, control over the consequences because Shepard is your character.

And have you read Siduri's Synthesis epilogue (I quoted a part of it a few posts above)? *That*s how I want my ME universe to go on.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 07:41 .

[Ieldra]

Just putting this take on the ending options here so I don't forget it...

(1) Destroy is the pro-organic choice. The Reapers, their technology (the mass relays) and all synthetics are destroyed to give organics a new start, with the understanding that they face the risk of extermination. Shepard sacrifices his synthetic nature and if he survives, will continue his life as a baseline human. it is appropriate and fits the theme that the relays are destroyed in this ending.

(2) Control is the pro-synthetic choice. Organic life continues as before, under the guardianship of synthetics, only that with Shepard there's now a more benevolent controlling entity. Shepard sacrifices his organic nature and ascends to become a kind of AI god (compare the "Second Singularity Transapients" from the Orion's Arm universe project ). It is appropriate and fits the theme that the relays are not destroyed in this ending.

(3) Synthesis is the choice that makes the galaxy's organics and synthetics take a step forward on some evolutionary scale by letting each partake in the others' nature (see the OP for an explanation), thus eliminating the "they're just machines" attitude on the part of organics and the "they're dangerous would-be-slave masters" attitude on the part of synthetics. After peace is achieved, the Reapers leave of their own will and it's possible there will be some co-operation. Shepard sacrifices all that he is towards that end.
It is appropriate that the relays are destroyed in this ending AND that a different method of long-range FTL is found soon.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[Thracecius]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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 [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

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.

I don't want to sound overly combative, but I find it hard to believe that someone with your obvious level of intelligence couldn't come up with anything at all for Shepard to do in a "post-Reapers world". One of the evident themes present within Mass Effect is that humans are one of the most, if not the most, adaptable race in the galaxy, with Shepard as the obvious example of this theme. To think that Shepard could not adapt to a reality where he/she no longer has to shoot something is, in my mind, ludicrous at best, and outright insulting at worst. Shepard is presented as a problem solver and a leader with few, or no, equals, and also (in most cases) someone with enough humility to accept whatever task is set before him/her. Remember, before Shepard was the "Defender of the Galaxy" he/she was just a soldier and followed orders well enough to be promoted to the rank of Commander (leading others and setting a worthwhile example), which implies that his/her value was greater than any degree of disobedience implied by being either Ruthless or a Renegade.

So, with that being said, are you still unable to come up with a role for Shepard in a "post-Reapers world"? 

The above prodding aside, this thread has been an interesting read and I appreciate the thought you've put into it, as well as your consistency, even though I find the Synthesis ending to be a little too happy-fun-peace-make-good for my conscience.

Modifié par Thracecius, 15 avril 2012 - 10:34 .

[Ieldra]

@Thracecius:
Oh no, I didn't mean that Shepard couldn't find a role for himself in an after-the-Reapers world. The thing is that compared to what Shepard already did, anything he does after stopping the Reapers would seem trivial from a narrative point of view. It would be like watching a legend step back into normal life. Appropriate for the character, but not interesting for the reader/player.

@all:
As for the Synthesis, I'd like to add this it my scenario (thanks to Siduri again): All sentients gain networking capabilities and become part of an interconnected web of minds, a noosphere, which promotes understanding and empathy between all domains of sentient life. This will not end all conflict, since particular interests still exist, but it will make resolving these conflicts easier. More fundamental conflicts about participating in that web will be a challenge the post-Synthesis civilizations will have to face. Organics and synthetics have exactly the same capability in that regard, so while their origins will still shape them in other aspects, the old conflicts have been superseded by others.

I've also added to the OP the fact that Shepard - who already is an organic/synthetic hybrid - is used as a model for the change. This might influence some people's opinion....

[ArchDuck]

Synthesis is Shepard helping the Reapers rape the genetic code of every living thing in the galaxy.

[Ieldra]

ArchDuck wrote...
Synthesis is Shepard helping the Reapers rape the genetic code of every living thing in the galaxy.

What does the chemistry of your genetic code matter, if your identity is unchanged? Also, my Synthesis scenario does exactly not do this. Not because I'm against it, but because the idea of "synthetics with a genetic code" makes no sense.

[HoldTheLine]

jtav wrote...

One thing I would add under themes is that Synthesis sets the Reapers free. They are no longer under Catalyst control and *choose* to stop fighting. Theoretically, they can now be integrated into the community.

Sorry, I'm late to the thread, but what you said is what I always pictured happened after Synthesis. Just glad to see someone thought of that.

[Thracecius]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Thracecius:
Oh no, I didn't mean that Shepard couldn't find a role for himself in an after-the-Reapers world. The thing is that compared to what Shepard already did, anything he does after stopping the Reapers would seem trivial from a narrative point of view. It would be like watching a legend step back into normal life. Appropriate for the character, but not interesting for the reader/player.

*snip*

Aha, put in that context I understand what you mean. I feel like a bit of a thickie for not seeing that now. 

Still, I think it's a bit hamfisted for BioWare to only come up with solultions that (presumably) kill off Shepard simply because he/she has already "done the impossible" repeatedly. Let the legend retire peacefully; not every epic has to end with "The Ultimate Sacrifice". Art or no, Mass Effect is still a thing created as a consumer product, and therefore should reflect the interests and culture of those consuming it, and right now I think people are more in the market for hope than they are of meaningful death.
Besides, if BioWare wants to be the progenitor of Canadian Surrealism they should at least warn us. 

[ArchDuck]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...
Synthesis is Shepard helping the Reapers rape the genetic code of every living thing in the galaxy.

What does the chemistry of your genetic code matter, if your identity is unchanged? Also, my Synthesis scenario does exactly not do this. Not because I'm against it, but because the idea of "synthetics with a genetic code" makes no sense.

So you wouldn't mind if someone just injected you with some sort of retro virus that rewrote your genetic code?

If asked they say its to make you "more evolved" (using the theory of evolution improperly and out of context, unless of course they are also precognisant).

Also it would be extremely improbable that significantly altering your genetic code would leave you "the same person". Changes that completely alter your genetic code and its expression (as per the green ending) and somehow leave you exactly the same, biochemically and personality wise, would be beyond space magic and into the realm of some sort of omniscient deific science team.

[Ieldra]

ArchDuck wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...
Synthesis is Shepard helping the Reapers rape the genetic code of every living thing in the galaxy.

What does the chemistry of your genetic code matter, if your identity is unchanged? Also, my Synthesis scenario does exactly not do this. Not because I'm against it, but because the idea of "synthetics with a genetic code" makes no sense.

So you wouldn't mind if someone just injected you with some sort of retro virus that rewrote your genetic code?

I would not mind if someone changed changed the biochemistry of my genetic code to something else, provided it didn't change my personality and didn't have negative side effects.

If asked they say its to make you "more evolved" (using the theory of evolution improperly and out of context, unless of course they are also precognisant).

Yes, the Catalyst uses a teleological concept of evolution, which is stupid. But the meaning is quite clear - the idea is that the merge gives you more understanding and control over your environment and yourself. Or how else would *you* understand "taking a step forward in evolution". From a metagaming viewpoint, I cannot assume that the Catalyst misleads me in this, since this would mean I have no information at all left to make a decision. I might as well just press a random button in that case. Which is why it is so important that the Extended Cut explains these things better.

Also it would be extremely improbable that significantly altering your genetic code would leave you "the same person". Changes that completely alter your genetic code and its expression (as per the green ending) and somehow leave you exactly the same, biochemically and personality wise, would be beyond space magic and into the realm of some sort of omniscient deific science team.

As I said,  my scenario dispenses with the "new DNA" as nonsensical. As for personality changes - take EDI and Joker as examples - I would expect the Synthesis to leave the current personality as it was, but change the potential for the future. So, ten years after the Synthesis, I would probably be someone different than in a non-Synthesis scenario, but at the moment of the change, no personality change occurs.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 01:03 .