561 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Yes, I have a habit of doing that.
Joe Kucan is a fan of mine because of that and my work on his character

I'm saying you're taking the kid's words at face value.
Hell, even the Bible should NEVER be taken at face value.

****** Sapiens is a stage of Evolution, right?
****** Erectus before it?
****** Neanderthalensis?
Right, these are all stages of Evolution, right?

X-Men have ****** Superior - the Mutants (I'm guessing they don't mean the Morlocks).

That's all this dude means, he, being probably a synthetic or half synthetic himself, can't imagine a stage of evolution beyond ****** Digitalis or whatever.

But then that would make the synthesis ending even more useless, since it effectively does nothing, other then make people more machine in their adaptability.  It still wouldnt create the fundemental problem with synthetics destrroying the creator, since the basis for this isnt racism, but perspective.

Modifié par Meltemph, 23 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[YNation913]

DJBare wrote...

YNation913 wrote...


Mordin and Javik said they were just husks; tools for the Reapers. People seem to think synthesis turns everyone into husks, but based on the Catalyst's description of how it would work (flawed as the nuances may be), Shepard would serve as the blueprint for life; and it's made clear that Shepard exists as an organic/synthetic hybrid with free will and all that good stuff.

That's the problem.

I understand your view. I full heartedly agree that the "ideal' ending should have been more idealistic, since this seems to be more consistent with the previous endings in the series. Putting the moral quandry of forcibly changing life aside though, my point is that Shepard was not a husk, so there's no reason to think the galaxy is enslaved in the synthesis ending.

Now as far as the immorality of the decision, ultimately, Shepard does what needs to be done so that life can move on (and this isn't necessarily exclusive to the synthesis ending). In ME2, Legion would have never considered the possibility of using Reaper code to advance the geth, but in ME3, when using Reaper technology is the only way for his race to survive, Legion puts idealism aside and does what needs to be done so that the geth can survive and even co-exist with their enemy.

[The JoeMan]

Also, how the hell is Shepard a mix of organic and synthetic life??? He is organic life with cybernetic implants. Big deal. So is my mom and millions of other people with pace makers implanted in their chests. Couldn't Star Jar have gotten one of them to jump into his glowing light of doom?

[Wolven_Soul]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Biotic Flash Kick wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Zolt51 wrote...

It is *very* questionable to say the least.
I personally won't choose it. I just don't feel "entitled" to make the decision on behalf of everyone else. Even though I've just spent the last 5 years saving their collective ass.

BUT I can understand that some people would at least want to try it. It is a fascinating avenue to explore, and it's a chance that simply won't come twice.
If you take the catalyst's logic seriously, then it's practically the only option too. Other endings you just consider that the synthetics problem will just have to take care of itself in the far, far future.

I feel the same with the destroy/control endings, I'm not going to kill the Geth and EDI and I'm not going to rob them of their freewill

But synthesis robs *everyone* of their free will.

No it doesn't, Your DNA has nothing to do with free will, you me both have human DNA doesn't stop us both from being individuals. You could look at it as gifting humanity to the synthetics as Shepard has taught Legion and EDI and it has been shown in the past that memories in the ME universe are stored in DNA promoting understanding and tolerance thoughout the galaxy.(but I guess that depends on the type of shepard you were)

And?
It doesn't complete your mission goal.

Yes it does, the reapers are stopped

At least until these new hybrids start to make their own brand new AI synthetics.  Reapers might be making a return in that case.  Because nothing about synthesis stops what the Starchild considers the most dangerous thing in the universe.

[Cypher_CS]

Permit me to not express my opinion about Lit Professors. Also, I thought this debate is about the choice itself, not the quality of the writing of the ending.

[Meltemph]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Permit me to not express my opinion about Lit Professors. Also, I thought this debate is about the choice itself, not the quality of the writing of the ending.

The choice itself is the product of poor writing... I'm not sure how you seperate the two.

[Cobra's_back]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Yes, I have a habit of doing that.
Joe Kucan is a fan of mine because of that and my work on his character

I'm saying you're taking the kid's words at face value.
Hell, even the Bible should NEVER be taken at face value.

****** Sapiens is a stage of Evolution, right?
****** Erectus before it?
****** Neanderthalensis?
Right, these are all stages of Evolution, right?

X-Men have ****** Superior - the Mutants (I'm guessing they don't mean the Morlocks).

That's all this dude means, he, being probably a synthetic or half synthetic himself, can't imagine a stage of evolution beyond ****** Digitalis or whatever.

It wasn't natural. Most of the characters in the X-Mex movie were born with their gift. That was natural. Unless I missed something and the government caused the mutation??? Many of the characters did not want the government to alter their genes.

[Cypher_CS]

Meltemph wrote...

It still wouldnt create the fundemental problem with synthetics destrroying the creator, since the basis for this isnt racism, but perspective.

Now THAT is a great point for debate.

[lex0r11]

I'll just leave this here.

[Anduin The Grey]

Meltemph wrote...

I think this topic and countless others like it on these forums quite frankly and successfully contradict your statement

Only because it dumps easy to ask questions at the end of the story. That doesnt make the ending good, it just means the writers knew some questions that always cause debate. Eugenics kinda has that "hot button" all over it typically.

So what are we arguing about if we all have the same basic notion, as far as I'm concerned the phrase, "I called it first". It's better we stick to the facts and keep the assumptions as assumptions, interesting as some of them may be unless it's canon it's not fact.

If all people talked about with the endings was facts, there would be very little to talk about.

And there is most likely the problem, some folks would rather talk bollocks than talk constructively. Many of the arguments are good, but ultimately many of them serve little to no purpose.without proper context, spread discontent and divert attention from the real issues.

[Cypher_CS]

X-Men lore deals with Nuclear affects on the Human Genom, anything from Bomb tests to Microwaves to Hiroshima to Chernobyl.
And still, that's not the point. Just gave it as an example of an evolutionary stage.

[ActingIsLyf]

I kinda view it as a best of times, worst of times scenario because YAY this is the best bet for the galaxy, but nooo everyone is part computer.

Kinda like this video: http://m.youtube.com...top_uri=/&gl=US

[Wolven_Soul]

EvilMind wrote...

Synthesis is the best ending, its the next step in evolution which is a good thing. People who whine about it just dont look at the bigger picture, in the long run synthesis is a good thing

It is not the next step of evolution.  Evolution is a completely natural process, and nothing about synthesis, or synthetic augmentation is natural. 

I am not saying I am against the idea of humanity eventually augmenting themselves in such ways, as at least they would have a choice in the matter.  I am just saying it is not in anyway a natural state of evolution.

[Meltemph]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I think this topic and countless others like it on these forums quite frankly and successfully contradict your statement

Only because it dumps easy to ask questions at the end of the story. That doesnt make the ending good, it just means the writers knew some questions that always cause debate. Eugenics kinda has that "hot button" all over it typically.

So what are we arguing about if we all have the same basic notion, as far as I'm concerned the phrase, "I called it first". It's better we stick to the facts and keep the assumptions as assumptions, interesting as some of them may be unless it's canon it's not fact.

If all people talked about with the endings was facts, there would be very little to talk about.

And there is most likely the problem, some folks would rather talk bollocks than talk constructively. Many of the arguments are good, but ultimately many of them serve little to no purpose.without proper context, spread discontent and divert attention from the real issues.

You have effectively said something without saying something, I tip my hat to you.  So then, what is the "real" issues?

[marshkoala]

I don't think the writers expected the reaction they got though. Yes we are debating but most people don't like the endings.
I bet the writers thought we would like the endings and I guess debate how one of three endings felt to us and why we picked only one of three...

[Anduin The Grey]

Meltemph wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

I think this topic and countless others like it on these forums quite frankly and successfully contradict your statement

Only because it dumps easy to ask questions at the end of the story. That doesnt make the ending good, it just means the writers knew some questions that always cause debate. Eugenics kinda has that "hot button" all over it typically.

So what are we arguing about if we all have the same basic notion, as far as I'm concerned the phrase, "I called it first". It's better we stick to the facts and keep the assumptions as assumptions, interesting as some of them may be unless it's canon it's not fact.

If all people talked about with the endings was facts, there would be very little to talk about.

And there is most likely the problem, some folks would rather talk bollocks than talk constructively. Many of the arguments are good, but ultimately many of them serve little to no purpose.without proper context, spread discontent and divert attention from the real issues.

You have effectively said something without saying something, I tip my hat to you.  So then, what is the "real" issues?

We aren't talkikng about them

[Cobra's_back]

YNation913 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

YNation913 wrote...


Mordin and Javik said they were just husks; tools for the Reapers. People seem to think synthesis turns everyone into husks, but based on the Catalyst's description of how it would work (flawed as the nuances may be), Shepard would serve as the blueprint for life; and it's made clear that Shepard exists as an organic/synthetic hybrid with free will and all that good stuff.

That's the problem.

I understand your view. I full heartedly agree that the "ideal' ending should have been more idealistic, since this seems to be more consistent with the previous endings in the series. Putting the moral quandry of forcibly changing life aside though, my point is that Shepard was not a husk, so there's no reason to think the galaxy is enslaved in the synthesis ending.

Now as far as the immorality of the decision, ultimately, Shepard does what needs to be done so that life can move on (and this isn't necessarily exclusive to the synthesis ending). In ME2, Legion would have never considered the possibility of using Reaper code to advance the geth, but in ME3, when using Reaper technology is the only way for his race to survive, Legion puts idealism aside and does what needs to be done so that the geth can survive and even co-exist with their enemy.

I hear what your saying and do agree. The change is not well explained. We know exactly what Legion is doing and why. Here the option isn't really needed. There was no real Crazy AI taking over the world.

This could have made more sense if they explained exactly what gets changed and Shepard was fighting an AI like the AI in "Terminator Salvation". There was no real big threat in Msss Effect.

Modifié par ghostbusters101, 23 avril 2012 - 04:39 .

[matthewmi]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Dude, the body is NOT synthetic. It's a hybrid.
Of course adaptability would be possible. AI today can adapt, so why can't it in a futuristic sci fi world?

I'd like to know how you reproduce, in this new utiopia, or would you need to?  Besides being a moral evil, synthesis is just not explained in enough to detail to jump into a giant energy beam, and just gamble that it works out great.

[Wolven_Soul]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Well that is why the player gets to choose, Genocide is not an option to me and I believe in freewill. Synthsis allows life to continue and break the cycle of extinction while making the universe more genetically diverse than its ever been before

How the heck does it make the universe more genetically diverse?  It gives everyone the same synthetic bits.  If anything it reduces the genetic diversity a little bit.

[Meltemph]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

EvilMind wrote...

Synthesis is the best ending, its the next step in evolution which is a good thing. People who whine about it just dont look at the bigger picture, in the long run synthesis is a good thing

It is not the next step of evolution.  Evolution is a completely natural process, and nothing about synthesis, or synthetic augmentation is natural. 

I am not saying I am against the idea of humanity eventually augmenting themselves in such ways, as at least they would have a choice in the matter.  I am just saying it is not in anyway a natural state of evolution.

The ending isnt transhumanism.  Transhumanism is like replacing something with tech.  What snythesis is, is an extreme form of eugenics, quitel iterally.  The kid even says this when he says it creates a new fromework, a new DNA.  You are "fixing" the "undesirable" traits in organics, essentially, is what the kid is trying to argue, which is why he thinks it fixes his solution.  

Remember he never stated that the crucuible is forcing him to do any of this, but that it gives him new possibilities, that is how it changed him.  There is no indication that it changed him beyond this.  The arguement with synthesis, I think, isnt because it is what it is, but because you mentally have to fix people in your own image or in your own "pefect" image, since the game doesnt give you anything.  This causes a problem...as you can see.

Modifié par Meltemph, 23 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[Kidd]

There is a game called Tales of Symphonia that goes deep into the idea of the synthesis ending. Basically, the ultimate cure to racism is to ensure everyone's the same. That way everyone can exist on the same terms, with nobody ever getting that strange feeling in their gut.

Since I've always found it very difficult to not side with the villains in that game, myself, my self-insert Shepard chose synthesis. Is it wrong to force it on everyone? Erm, yes, I believe it is. "But I'm just hurting you because I love you! All will be fine!"

... alright, someone make sure I never have children.

[zarnk567]

I would have laughed if when we saw everybody after the green wave they were now green goo, and star-child is just there troll-facing you, "SEE THEY ARE THE APEX OF EVOLUTION".

[zarnk567]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

There is a game called Tales of Symphonia that goes deep into the idea of the synthesis ending. Basically, the ultimate cure to racism is to ensure everyone's the same. That way everyone can exist on the same terms, with nobody ever getting that strange feeling in their gut.

Since I've always found it very difficult to not side with the villains in that game, myself, my self-insert Shepard chose synthesis. Is it wrong to force it on everyone? Erm, yes, I believe it is. "But I'm just hurting you because I love you! All will be fine!"

... alright, someone make sure I never have children.

Tales of Symphonia was an amazing game.

[Meltemph]

Wolven_Soul wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Well that is why the player gets to choose, Genocide is not an option to me and I believe in freewill. Synthsis allows life to continue and break the cycle of extinction while making the universe more genetically diverse than its ever been before

How the heck does it make the universe more genetically diverse?  It gives everyone the same synthetic bits.  If anything it reduces the genetic diversity a little bit.

Because there was some person on this forum that tried to argue that a synthetic/organic mix means that each species would have more variation, because there is an added component...  Yes, I am not kidding ,someone tried to argue this.

[Orumon]

We adressed this in Deus ex invisible war far better:

First question: Is it right to give someone nano-tech augmentations. The answer was yes, if it was voluntary.
Second question: Is it fair that some people are compatible with nanite augmentations and some aren't, thus giving the compatibles an enormous advantage? No, but life isn't fair and frequently the simply unlucky fall behind and die.
Third question: Is acceptable for an augmentation that is compatible with everyone by altering a persons DNA so they can tolerate it acceptable? Very iffy, depends on certain morals about the human genetic structure you have. Granted, it's adressed in setting that it does not introduce anything radical, just a small genome determining tolerances, but I'm still leery about it. Ultimately, again, I believe it should be strictly voluntary.

Comparable to the third question, but performing much more radical changes, is the synthesis, which massively changes genetic structure and alters the basic physiology (Joker/EDI) is perhaps different, since it's explicitely stated that the whole point of it is removing difference and narrowing diversity. Ultimately I'm less inclined to side with this, especially since it's not done voluntarily.