561 réponses à ce sujet

[Oldbones2]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...



Saren Synthesis (SS) and Catalyst Synthesis (CS) are different only in execution, the end result is the same. 

I take issue with this statement only because it is clear from the end that organics resemble nothing like Reapers nor in function, they also have a capacity to smile which am pretty sure the Reapers would find little use for.

Saren's sythesis -

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their malevolent benefactors The Reapers.
- Use nanotechnology or robotic replacement to enhance the organic form.
- One person makes choice for the good of all (Saren)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will


Catalysts synthesis

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their sworn enemies The Reapers.
- Use a very scientifically unsound technicque to replace organic DNA with synthetic and vice versa
- On person makes choice for the good of all (Shepard)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will




Who care if you CAN smile? 


What matters if you can CHOOSE when you smile.

[Capthon]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Capthon wrote...

The synthesis ending result is the backdoor for the reapers for their final goal: to be a part of every single being in the galaxy. With this they can control everything, they ARE everything (or be a part of it). When I think about: It's disgusting ...

Saren thought he could get his own synthesis ending and the Reapers were content enough to tell him just enough for him to continue working for them. Once he had opened the gate to dark space, we were all going to be husks.

Make sense, really it does. And it's ironic, that the hero who stopped the mad man and indoctrinated Saren in ME1 years before, now finally bring "peace" to the galaxy with the same method the other Spectre (sic!) wanted to initialize. 
...

And: anyone wonder why we got 3 (three) colors at the end? I mean, we only have 2 colors and maybe "neutral" ones in conversations through the entire series. There was never a green option. The green feels so "out of game", as if it wasn't "right", some sort of being unreal. Do you get my suggestion? 

[Oldbones2]

Capthon wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Capthon wrote...

The synthesis ending result is the backdoor for the reapers for their final goal: to be a part of every single being in the galaxy. With this they can control everything, they ARE everything (or be a part of it). When I think about: It's disgusting ...

Saren thought he could get his own synthesis ending and the Reapers were content enough to tell him just enough for him to continue working for them. Once he had opened the gate to dark space, we were all going to be husks.

Make sense, really it does. And it's ironic, that the hero who stopped the mad man and indoctrinated Saren in ME1 years before, now finally bring "peace" to the galaxy with the same method the other Spectre (sic!) wanted to initialize. 
...

And: anyone wonder why we got 3 (three) colors at the end? I mean, we only have 2 colors and maybe "neutral" ones in conversations through the entire series. There was never a green option. The green feels so "out of game", as if it wasn't "right", some sort of being unreal. Do you get my suggestion? 

I don't believe in Meta Gaming or subscribe to the Indoctrination Theory.

[Cobra's_back]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Short answer to thread title: no, it's not disgusting under any circumstances unless you're a speciest who can't see beyond your own kind imo.

I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.

In the USA it’s a criminal act. It is a criminal act because it does go against an individual’s rights.

Any children born to rape are not automatically labelled criminals though are they?

Wow. Not what I was trying to say. I'm trying to say "it is an illegal act to perform a change on an individual that was not requested.”
 
If you mean a person’s right to an abortion Roe v. Wade?? Roe v. Wade doesn’t fit this example.

Skinner v. Oklahoma makes more sense. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942),[1] was the United States Supreme Court ruling which held that compulsory sterilization could not be imposed as a punishment for a crime, on the grounds that the relevant Oklahoma law excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties. This is where the state wanted to impose a sentence of compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted two or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude". The defendant, Jack T. Skinner, had been convicted once for chicken-stealing and twice for armed robbery.
 
The motivation behind the law was primarily eugenic: to try to weed out "unfit" individuals from the gene pool. Criminal sterilization laws like the one in Oklahoma were designed to target "criminality," believed by some at the time to possibly be a hereditary trait. Most punitive sterilization laws, including the Oklahoma statute, prescribed vasectomy as the method of rendering the individual infertile (which, unlike castration, does not affect sexual urge or function) in males, and salpingectomy in females (a relatively invasive operation, requiring heavy sedation, and hence with more risks to personal well-being).


I'm sure there are more closer fits.

[YNation913]

[quote]Khevan77 wrote...

[quote]YNation913 wrote...

[quote]Khevan77 wrote...

The issue isn't whether this will have a profound impact on the day to day life of an individual, although it certainly may.  The issue is that we don't know, and we're forcing that change on everything in the galaxy.  This is morally questionable, and certainly horrible writing.  Thus, it's the worst ending in ME3, in my opinion.[/quote]

Well, there can't really be a definitive answer. But I believe certain elements of the story point us in a certain direction.

Let's compare the synthesis ending to the resurrection of Shepard. Was it ethical for a corpse to be stolen, experimented on, and brought back to life with synthetic enhancements without the person's consent? Did it ultimately benefit humanity? We're never really made privy to what's new in Shepard after the Lazarus project, just that he now relies on synthetic components to live and that he also has a few "upgrades." 

The question now is whether Shepard's being was truely altered in being brought back with enhancements? The Illusive Man no doubt new the advantages synthetic upgrades would bring to Shepard, but also recognized the value in preserving Shepard's sense of self. We don't know the exact nature of his implants, but does it matter if Shepard is still who he was before? "You're still you, you just might have a few extra bits and pieces now." 

So does it really matter if we don't now exactly what enhancements the hybrids have in synthesis, if their individuality and sense of self is preserved? If the composition of the stuff that made your body function changed, gave you enhanced abilities, but ultimately preserved your sense of self, would the nature of your upgrades really matter? Would it matter if these ambiguous upgrades were forced upon you? I contend that the ONLY function of  synthesis that matters is the potential for individuals to function at a level that prevents the Reapers from believing in the necessity of harvesting advanced civilizations. As long the abilities that contribute to individual senses of self are preserved, the exact nature of the physiological alterations is irrelevent.

Modifié par YNation913, 23 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[RoyalGambit]

Other than the rape thing, my main problem with synthesis is that it doesn't even solve the problem of singularity. Even though you're partly synthetic, you'd still be able to build an incredibly advanced AI (maybe even more so), and then get wiped out by your own creation. Destroy seems like the way to go. Not even convinced the Geth actually die.

[Anduin The Grey]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Saren's sythesis -

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their malevolent benefactors The Reapers.
- Use nanotechnology or robotic replacement to enhance the organic form.
- One person makes choice for the good of all (Saren)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will


Catalysts synthesis

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their sworn enemies The Reapers.
- Use a very scientifically unsound technicque to replace organic DNA with synthetic and vice versa
- On person makes choice for the good of all (Shepard)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will

Ah for a moment I thought the Saren Synthesis argument was that his idea of Synthesis was akin to the Synthesis ending of ME3. In either case your last point in Saren's 'choice' is still invalid. It's quite clear we were going to end up as husks once the Citadel opened it's relay to Dark Space, which had he done so would have been pretty much the same as any other cycle. Not just husks, husks that would be abandoned to the elements once the Reapers served their function and retreated back into Dark Space to await the end of the next cycle.

[Cobra's_back]

[quote]YNation913 wrote...

[quote]Khevan77 wrote...

[quote]YNation913 wrote...

[quote]Khevan77 wrote...

The issue isn't whether this will have a profound impact on the day to day life of an individual, although it certainly may.  The issue is that we don't know, and we're forcing that change on everything in the galaxy.  This is morally questionable, and certainly horrible writing.  Thus, it's the worst ending in ME3, in my opinion.[/quote]

Well, there can't really be a definitive answer. But I believe certain elements of the story point us in a certain direction.

Let's compare the synthesis ending to the resurrection of Shepard. Was it ethical for a corpse to be stolen, experimented on, and brought back to life with synthetic enhancements without the person's consent? Did it ultimately benefit humanity? We're never really made privy to what's new in Shepard after the Lazarus project, just that he now relies on synthetic components to live and that he also has a few "upgrades." 

The question now is whether Shepard's being truely altered in being brought back with enhancements? The Illusive Man no doubt new the advantages synthetic upgrades would bring to Shepard, but also recognized the value in preserving Shepard's sense of self. We don't know the exact nature of his implants, but does it matter if Shepard is still who he was before? "You're still you, you just might have a few extra bits and pieces now." 

So does it really matter if we don't now exactly what enhancements the hybrids have in synthesis, if their individuality and sense of self is preserved? If the composition of the stuff that made your body function changed, gave you enhanced abilities, but ultimately preserved your sense of self, would the nature of your upgrades really matter? Would it matter if these ambiguous upgrades were forced upon you? I contend that the ONLY function of  synthesis that matters is the potential for individuals to function at a level that prevents the Reapers from believing in the necessity of harvesting advanced civilizations. As long the abilities that contribute to individual senses of self are preserved, the exact nature of the physiological alterations is irrelevent.[/quote]




This is a slippery slope. It’s not legal. It is the invasion of one's personal rights. If you want to take this option, do it. Many players cannot separate what they know to be true. It violates natural evolution and personal civil rights.

I do respect a person’s chose for fiction and if it makes you happy great. Just cannot agree with it.

Modifié par ghostbusters101, 23 avril 2012 - 07:29 .

[Anduin The Grey]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Short answer to thread title: no, it's not disgusting under any circumstances unless you're a speciest who can't see beyond your own kind imo.

I've argued the subject to death, so I tend not to bother with people like that guy who claims that Synthesis somehow robs everyone of free will. It doesn't - it just makes changes to the base matter to create a compatible biochemistry in my opinion. Sometimes one person changes the course of history without asking everyone if it's A-OK with them.

In the USA it’s a criminal act. It is a criminal act because it does go against an individual’s rights.

Any children born to rape are not automatically labelled criminals though are they?

Wow. Not what I was trying to say. I'm trying to say "it is an illegal act to perform a change on an individual that was not requested.”
 
If you mean a person’s right to an abortion Roe v. Wade?? Roe v. Wade doesn’t fit this example.

Skinner v. Oklahoma makes more sense. Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942),[1] was the United States Supreme Court ruling which held that compulsory sterilization could not be imposed as a punishment for a crime, on the grounds that the relevant Oklahoma law excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties. This is where the state wanted to impose a sentence of compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted two or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude". The defendant, Jack T. Skinner, had been convicted once for chicken-stealing and twice for armed robbery.
 
The motivation behind the law was primarily eugenic: to try to weed out "unfit" individuals from the gene pool. Criminal sterilization laws like the one in Oklahoma were designed to target "criminality," believed by some at the time to possibly be a hereditary trait. Most punitive sterilization laws, including the Oklahoma statute, prescribed vasectomy as the method of rendering the individual infertile (which, unlike castration, does not affect sexual urge or function) in males, and salpingectomy in females (a relatively invasive operation, requiring heavy sedation, and hence with more risks to personal well-being).


I'm sure there are more closer fits.

That was interesting by itself though so thanks

As for my response, it is unchanged, as are previous ones, rape victims have as much choice over their evolution as anyone else, (paraphrasing a longer argument I made a few pages earlier), the decision by Shepard may be obscene, but the synthesis itself is no more disgusting than any other act of evolution, in that, like it or not, we are what we are.

[Anduin The Grey]

RoyalGambit wrote...

Other than the rape thing, my main problem with synthesis is that it doesn't even solve the problem of singularity. Even though you're partly synthetic, you'd still be able to build an incredibly advanced AI (maybe even more so), and then get wiped out by your own creation. Destroy seems like the way to go. Not even convinced the Geth actually die.

Before we can determine whether or not it would solve the issue we would first need to know what actually happened in the Synthesis process.

[YNation913]

[quote]ghostbusters101 wrote...

[quote]YNation913 wrote...

[quote]Khevan77 wrote...

[quote]YNation913 wrote...

[quote]Khevan77 wrote...

The issue isn't whether this will have a profound impact on the day to day life of an individual, although it certainly may.  The issue is that we don't know, and we're forcing that change on everything in the galaxy.  This is morally questionable, and certainly horrible writing.  Thus, it's the worst ending in ME3, in my opinion.[/quote]

Well, there can't really be a definitive answer. But I believe certain elements of the story point us in a certain direction.

Let's compare the synthesis ending to the resurrection of Shepard. Was it ethical for a corpse to be stolen, experimented on, and brought back to life with synthetic enhancements without the person's consent? Did it ultimately benefit humanity? We're never really made privy to what's new in Shepard after the Lazarus project, just that he now relies on synthetic components to live and that he also has a few "upgrades." 

The question now is whether Shepard's being truely altered in being brought back with enhancements? The Illusive Man no doubt new the advantages synthetic upgrades would bring to Shepard, but also recognized the value in preserving Shepard's sense of self. We don't know the exact nature of his implants, but does it matter if Shepard is still who he was before? "You're still you, you just might have a few extra bits and pieces now." 

So does it really matter if we don't now exactly what enhancements the hybrids have in synthesis, if their individuality and sense of self is preserved? If the composition of the stuff that made your body function changed, gave you enhanced abilities, but ultimately preserved your sense of self, would the nature of your upgrades really matter? Would it matter if these ambiguous upgrades were forced upon you? I contend that the ONLY function of  synthesis that matters is the potential for individuals to function at a level that prevents the Reapers from believing in the necessity of harvesting advanced civilizations. As long the abilities that contribute to individual senses of self are preserved, the exact nature of the physiological alterations is irrelevent.[/quote]



This is a slippery slope. It’s not legal. It is the invasion of one's personal rights. If you want to take this option, do it. Many players cannot separate what they know to be true. It violates natural evolution and personal civil rights.
 
I do respect a person’s chose for fiction and if it makes you happy great. Just cannot agree with it.[/quote]

No no, I'm just throwing out ideas here. No choice is "right." I'm just led to wonder whether if Shepard's rights as a person could be violated for the purpose of stopping the Reapers in ME2, can everyone else's rights be violated for the same purpose? This isn't even necessarily exclusive to synthesis, rights are being violated in every choice.

Modifié par YNation913, 23 avril 2012 - 07:36 .

[Bill Casey]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

 the Catalyst seemed to think it was the best idea out of the 3 and assuming he wasn't lying, he was in the best position to judge.

You do know he controls The Reapers, right?

[Anduin The Grey]

Bill Casey wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

 the Catalyst seemed to think it was the best idea out of the 3 and assuming he wasn't lying, he was in the best position to judge.

You do know he controls The Reapers, right?

Well aware, apart from this whole can't and won't dialogue depending on EMS.

However, his motivation is to stop AI life from being created AND going on to exterminate all life in the galaxy possibly cosmos. Whatever bizarre race thought they could wipe out AI life before they became too advanced to control by wiping out their organic creators with AI life too advanced for those being harvested to resist, well, aliens huh? Might not understand them but we can bang them! (Sorry, I really did find that Gamer Poop video funny  ).

Unless of course, the Catalyst was lying all the time?

Either he/it can't make the changes made to him/it by the Crucible or he won't, as mentioned previously. What does each say about the Catalyst or is it like the talk with the council in ME1 once you complete Noveria, destroy the Rachni Queen and you get accused of genocide by the Turian councillor or if you spare the Rachni Queen said same councillor accuses your Shepard of unleashing the Rachni upon the galaxy again.

[AtlasMickey]

So if I said I wanted to Synthesize y'all, it'd be like I was making a rape threat and trolling everybody in a really vicious and disgusting way, huh? Really?

I want to Synthesize all of you. Every last one.

[Sohlito]

AtlasMickey wrote...

So if I said I wanted to Synthesize y'all, it'd be like I was making a rape threat and trolling everybody in a really vicious and disgusting way, huh? Really?

I want to Synthesize all of you. Every last one.

Shall I drop my pants now or...how does this work?

[Fapmaster5000]

Synthesis is repulsive on multiple levels, both mechanically (how the heck does green light turn into "machine DNA"/what happens to virtual intelligences who exist as code, not hardware) and ethically (racist/narcissistic/rape/body-horror/lol-free-will), as well as going against the motives of the series up until that point (Saren/your standing orders/every speech about diversity overcoming/yada yada).

It's atrocious, and every time I see it held up as the "best" ending, I get a little sick inside.

[Cobra's_back]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

As for the genetic rape argument, rape removes choice, there are whole lines of families who most likely owe their whole line to rape, rape is seen as a stain but we are more than just the sum of our genes. We may very well have genetic predispositions but unlike addiction or indoctrination, they do not compel us, to say that synthesis is akin to genetic rape is to claim evolution the same, doesn't matter how you got here, you are here, whether any of us owe our lines to a rapist going back thousands of years or not was not our choice, but we play the cards we are dealt with because they are the only cards we have.

It might be obscene to choose it on Shepards behalf but as players we are not forced to make any choice, none of the choices are prefect but they are the only choices that are open to us.

From Mass Effect 1 the whole Trilogy set itself up for us to make difficult decisions and then to live with the consequences, judging by the ire on the forums sinjce the endings were uncovered am guessing they made the last 3 choices of the trilogy too hard for most if not all of us to swallow.

Not really. In the end, you will use your background to make the decision. Someone who studies biology and has a strong background in evolution more than not would stay away from green. They would probably choose blue or red. They would pick between those two depending on if they could live with losing a 1,000,000 to save a trillion, or make an assumption that control means releasing the reaper from its current programming. They pick blue tell the reapers to go to dark space and do not return. This is a leap of faith but some would prefer it to losing a 1,000,000.



On a different note the concern from the biologist point of view would be the interference with the repeating of successful dominate genes. The stuff that makes us improves over time.
 
The ending is just a bit vague.

[Anduin The Grey]

AtlasMickey wrote...

So if I said I wanted to Synthesize y'all, it'd be like I was making a rape threat and trolling everybody in a really vicious and disgusting way, huh? Really?

I want to Synthesize all of you. Every last one.

Ok dokey now turn it into an ultimatum,

You've got a choice, I turn your DNA semi synthetic or I can let the Reapers reduce you to goo while you're conscious and you all die?

[alienatedflea]

Saren's sythesis -

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their malevolent benefactors The Reapers.
- Use nanotechnology or robotic replacement to enhance the organic form.
- One person makes choice for the good of all (Saren)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will

Whoever made this arguement up is misinformed,

If you actually play Mass Effect (Virmire mission),

Saren actually says, "Isn't submission preferable over extinction?"  Saren was all for submission NOT synthesis.

[Cobra's_back]

AtlasMickey wrote...

So if I said I wanted to Synthesize y'all, it'd be like I was making a rape threat and trolling everybody in a really vicious and disgusting way, huh? Really?

I want to Synthesize all of you. Every last one.

Cute. If you were successful at it . We all visit you in jail.

[Anduin The Grey]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

As for the genetic rape argument, rape removes choice, there are whole lines of families who most likely owe their whole line to rape, rape is seen as a stain but we are more than just the sum of our genes. We may very well have genetic predispositions but unlike addiction or indoctrination, they do not compel us, to say that synthesis is akin to genetic rape is to claim evolution the same, doesn't matter how you got here, you are here, whether any of us owe our lines to a rapist going back thousands of years or not was not our choice, but we play the cards we are dealt with because they are the only cards we have.

It might be obscene to choose it on Shepards behalf but as players we are not forced to make any choice, none of the choices are prefect but they are the only choices that are open to us.

From Mass Effect 1 the whole Trilogy set itself up for us to make difficult decisions and then to live with the consequences, judging by the ire on the forums sinjce the endings were uncovered am guessing they made the last 3 choices of the trilogy too hard for most if not all of us to swallow.

Not really. In the end, you will use your background to make the decision. Someone who studies biology and has a strong background in evolution more than not would stay away from green. They would probably choose blue or red. They would pick between those two depending on if they could live with losing a 1,000,000 to save a trillion, or make an assumption that control means releasing the reaper from its current programming. They pick blue tell the reapers to go to dark space and do not return. This is a leap of faith but some would prefer it to losing a 1,000,000.



On a different note the concern from the biologist point of view would be the interference with the repeating of successful dominate genes. The stuff that makes us improves over time.
 
The ending is just a bit vague.

The ending is vague, far too vague for anyone to swallow. Personally I chose Synthesis on my first playthrough and for one of my characters that might still be true, the rest will probably be Destroy when I get round to completing them.

[Anduin The Grey]

alienatedflea wrote...

Saren's sythesis -

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their malevolent benefactors The Reapers.
- Use nanotechnology or robotic replacement to enhance the organic form.
- One person makes choice for the good of all (Saren)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will

Whoever made this arguement up is misinformed,

If you actually play Mass Effect (Virmire mission),

Saren actually says, "Isn't submission preferable over extinction?"  Saren was all for submission NOT synthesis.

He does mention (twice if I recall), once defintiely at your final encounter on the Citadel that he is the prtotype for a new way forward, both organic and synthetic but with neither of the others weakness.

Edit:
He does ask on Virmire, rhetorically, isn't submission better than extinction, neither statement is wrong

Modifié par Anduin The Grey, 23 avril 2012 - 08:02 .

[DJBare]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

So if I said I wanted to Synthesize y'all, it'd be like I was making a rape threat and trolling everybody in a really vicious and disgusting way, huh? Really?

I want to Synthesize all of you. Every last one.

Ok dokey now turn it into an ultimatum,

You've got a choice, I turn your DNA semi synthetic or I can let the Reapers reduce you to goo while you're conscious and you all die?

Or I can destroy the reapers, why did you limit the ultimatum to two choices when three are available, that's like making up the rules to suit your argument.

[Seival]

Gogzilla wrote...
Is Synthesis is disgusting ?

It's even worse than just a disgusting... This ending should be removed and forgotten.

[Fapmaster5000]

alienatedflea wrote...

Saren's sythesis -

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their malevolent benefactors The Reapers.
- Use nanotechnology or robotic replacement to enhance the organic form.
- One person makes choice for the good of all (Saren)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will

Whoever made this arguement up is misinformed,

If you actually play Mass Effect (Virmire mission),

Saren actually says, "Isn't submission preferable over extinction?"  Saren was all for submission NOT synthesis.

Ooh, too much to resist:

Shepard's synthesis - 

- Force the various races of the galaxy to evolve to be like their malevolent benefactors, the Reapers.
- Use a green light to enhance the organic form with nanotechnology and/or robotic replacement.
- One person makes choice for the good of all (Shepard)
- Solves the current and future problems at the expense of free will


I see one difference, and that difference is that green light was required.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 23 avril 2012 - 08:04 .