561 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Ieldra2 wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
No, I am open to the idea of co-existence instead of destruction or enslaving. And you're judging the Reapers by human standards again, which is - recall the rewrite/destroy heretics comment from Legion - misplaced.

Sorry, but I have to say poor argument, at least from my perspective, it's not about assigning human values to the reapers, it's about making a judgement call on the entire galactic community, "ALL" species in the galaxy.

The more you say the more the destroy ending looks more appealing, do I destroy the EDI and the geth along with the reapers or do I impose my will upon the entire galaxy?

There is no indication at all that anyone loses their individuality or "free will" (as far as there is such a thing)

There is no indication of anything, which makes you decide in your head what the eugenics..erm I mean, "synthesis" does.  You are getting rid of what you think the "undesirable" traits are in humans, to try and fix them in ones perfect image.  

[Anduin The Grey]

matthewmi wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Oh my, can you stop making unfounded assumptions? How is the Synthesis *anything* like making Reapers? By making everything part Synthetic, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that. Well, then I say humans are like bacteria because both are organic. There was actually a famous movie villain who said that back in 1996.

They are not Reapers, but they are the same type of life form as Reapers, based on a combination of organic and synthetic.
The point is, the Reapers can only co-exist with us if we become this specific type of life form. That is not co-existence, that is domination.

Exactly, the reapers if still around after synthesis, would by far be more powerful than any other species, heck they are spaceships with giant laser beams, looks like they could impose their newfound "freewill" and order us around quite easily.

This is actually answered should put two and two togther from what the Catalyst says, of course, at this point, one assumption is as likely to be as correct as any other assumption, making any assumption completely moot and void and worse, pitiful to depend on in any serious argument, which I see many of these threads as anything but.

There's a reason we're all butting our collective heads against the wall, the endings were crap, but only from a story telling point of view, they left far too much to the imagination and everyone has been left wanting to be baby walked through it, which I really hope we don't get.

[DJBare]

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is no indication at all that anyone loses their individuality or "free will" (as far as there is such a thing)

But you don't know that, so your basing your judgement on an assumption, in destroy we see that Shepard can survive, so I might just believe the catalyst when he states all "synthetic" life will be destroyed, as I said, from my perspective that is more acceptable than imposing my will on the entire galaxy, yes I'm gutted that EDI and the geth maybe destroyed, but I can live with that a lot easier than the idea of raping the galaxy.

Modifié par DJBare, 23 avril 2012 - 03:51 .

[YNation913]

wright1978 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What about Joker and EDI?

Okay, really. What about them? What do we see in 10 seconds that tells us whether they've been changed or not?
How does that change that synthesis is what the Reapers want?

Then again you seem to be okay with war criminals winning so nevermind.

Yeah show me a 10 second clip of a collector and a 10 second clip of Javik.
One's a pale imitation of life but 10 seconds isn't enough to tell the difference.

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

Sorry i see no evidence of higher intelligence in that scene. Collectors aren't husks but they are a pale imitation of life, not something i'd ever subject life to in order to ensure its survival.

I thought Collectors actually were husks though. They're not an imitation of life at all, they have no semblance of emotion, no culture, they're just tools.

[Unit-Alpha]

Cypher_CS wrote...

 

WandererRTF wrote...

No, I am open to the idea of co-existence instead of destruction or enslaving. And you're judging the Reapers by human standards again, which is - recall the rewrite/destroy heretics comment from Legion - misplaced.

Exactly, since synthesis imposes both destruction (of evolution) and enslaving (of free will) on all living beings (not excluded just to sapient beings) it is the wrong choice both on moral and ethical basis. For me - like many others - it is the worst option you could pick. The other options are bad as well but not nearly as horrible as synthesis. 

EDIT: And for the record, i have nothing against transhumanism, however that is not what synthesis is.

 

Where does it say or show that it imposes destruction of evolution?
Genetic algorithms exist today. AI can evolve, Nueral Networks can evolve. Hell, I'm working on one.
Where does it say or show that it ensalves free will?

The Angry One wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...

Jeez....

No, you aren't getting this.

It's not about Destroying the Reapers, it's about the Life in the ENTIRE Galaxy.
If you're a damn Xenophobe and just Renegade everything (don't be nitpicky here, just an extreme example) - then Destroy is your obvious choice.
Screw everybody. Let Dog sort them out.

If you're power hungry, then Control is the obvious choice for you. Isn't it?

It's not about the decisions Shepard made when faced with Reapers only, it's the overall themes.

Why are you thinking one dimensionally?
It's not about mirroring all your former choices against Geth on the next Geth choice. Or vs Asari on your next Asari related choice, and vs Reapers on your next Reaper related choice.
It's about all those decisions coming together.

It's about saving that life FROM the Reapers.
Synthesis compromises that life permanently, it violates and mutates that life into something the Reapers tolerate, hence they leave it alone.
That is a complete betrayal of every theme in the game.

Control is not so much a betrayal as it is poorly set up. It could work as an ultra renegade choice, but it comes out of the blue, mere minutes after Shepard argues that control is impossible due to being far too much of a gamble.

Yes, it does violate life as we know it. Permanently.
But what if it does it for the better, like with the symbiosis of Geth and Quarian enviro-suits?
We aren't shown anything to deny that or contradict that, are we?

What's the problem with Reapers tolerating it?
This statement seems like your bias towards the must-have destruction of Reapers. Which is fine, cause it's your choice, and your view of Shepard based on the choices you've made throughout the three games.
That's the whole point.

So if someone came along, strapped you down to an operating table, cut off one of you arms and replaced it with a mechanical one that was far superior, you would be okay with that? We aren't arguing about whether it might be better or not, we are arguing that it is morally wrong to force it on everyone.

[Meltemph]

but only from a story telling point of view, they left far too much to the imagination and everyone has been left wanting to be baby walked through it, which I really hope we don't get.

What?

Modifié par Meltemph, 23 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[Anduin The Grey]

stysiaq wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...


It's certainly different, so was the lack of boss ending. How many flops became cult classics 20 years later? We'll only know then.

1. you apply the movie logic to games industry, which is at most 25 years old (were not talking Pong here) ?

2. I don't want to wait 20 years for ME3 ending to gain cult following for its siliness and dumbness

3. Lack of the boss fight is something different that, please excuse my language, a brutal rape on intelligence. The first one is an interesting design choice, and it fits ME, the other not so much.

4. The movie flops which gain cult following are mostly bad movies which gain the cult following because they feature some old sex symbol in a fancy outfit, or they are just so dumb they become entertaining. Its not the path ME should follow.

Whether it will become a cult or not will have little to nothing to do with what we say here, it will either happen or it won't and yes, I am talking about movie and games industry logic in the same sentence, whether games will make us all actors in the future is something yet to be seen, but we are seeing such a thing albeit on a very basic level.

Point number 3 you mention is pretty much correct as far as I'm concerned, do I like a 2 dimensional game or one that tries to be different? At the end of the day, it is a game, if the ending is crap, doesn't matter if you have a boss ending or not.

[Cobra's_back]

Anduin The Grey wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's just an excuse. If you want to explore, choose Control and check. *Then* you can fly those Reapers who don't want to exist anymore in a black hole. Or chosse Synthesis and set them free. Maybe some will fly into the next star.

But that's just it; they don't want anything.  They have no free will.  Legion even told us this in ME2; he described Sovereign as being many programs (presumably former people) controlled by a single will.  If the Catalyst had really preserved anything, wouldn't the Reapers display more free will?  That little punk had used them to destroy their own civilizations after all, wouldn't one or two of them have maybe told him to go jump in a lake or something?  At best, those people are just data, no longer sentient.  At worst, they're slaves.

And if you choose synthesis, and the Reapers just leave, where do you think they'll go?  What do you think they'll do?  I'd wager they'd just sit there and do nothing for the next ten billion years.  Given that they are the biggest mass murderers in the history of the galaxy I think destroy is exceedingly charitable.

Then Destroy is a valid choice for you. Good. But isn't for me. I'm just saying Synthesis is another valid choice.

Besides, disgust is not a category of a rational morality.

No, but wrong is. And synthesis is wrong, morally and ethically, not to mention scientifically or logically.

What is it about synthesis that is wrong, morally and ethically not to mention scientifcally or logically?

Do you mean the real world???? The answer would be yes it is wrong?? This is considered a criminal act in my country.


In the world of Mass Effect, Shepard on several occasions was repulsed by it. I’m thinking about the creepers, TIM improved agents and the altered Prothean ( Collectors). Again the player doesn’t even know what exactly is being changed in this new DNA framework. It’s clear as mud.
 
Also, for the paragon Shepard there isn’t even a need for this option. EDI and Legion already seem somewhat human. Quarians and Geth have achieved peace. Nothing points to the natural evolution process as going wrong.

[The Angry One]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Yes, it does violate life as we know it. Permanently.
But what if it does it for the better, like with the symbiosis of Geth and Quarian enviro-suits?
We aren't shown anything to deny that or contradict that, are we?

Joker. Still. Limps.
The comparison with the Quarians is invalid. The Geth only upload to Quarian volunteers.
This is perfectly fine, as Quarians have consented to this action.

What's the problem with Reapers tolerating it?
This statement seems like your bias towards the must-have destruction of Reapers. Which is fine, cause it's your choice, and your view of Shepard based on the choices you've made throughout the three games.
That's the whole point.

What's the problem? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
That the Reapers are UNREPENTANT. They will still exterminate organics. They now leave the species of the galaxy alone because they are no longer pure organics, they are like them.
This is basically the Reapers winning, one way or another the organics have been exterminated, in it's place is a new life form they find acceptable

[Richard 060]

Synthesis ain't 'disgusting'...

...it's nonsensical.


Aside from the fact that Evolution Categorically Does Not Work That Way, what is gained from the superficial effect of adding a green glowing 'Tron' effect to all characters and plants (and presumably the Normandy's AI core...)?

Also, ignoring the fact that evolution, by definition, has no 'final' goal or outcome (unless, of course, the universe hits some kind of limbo state without any change, all genetic variation is weeded out of life, and/or lifeforms simply stop breeding...), if everything has 'truly' been 'evolved', why is everything largely the same as before? Plants and people alike have the same CG texture added - that's it. That'd be like evolving protozoa to human-level of sentience - and the only visible change would be a top hat and opposable thumbs...

And what about EDI/the Geth? They're not C-3PO-style human facsimiles, but intelligent computer programs, that simply make use of synthetic humanoid bodies. Remember, EDI's intelligence is still ultimately based in the Normandy - meanwhile, there may be thousands of active Geth programs in any single platform. How exactly does synthesis affect them? Are the Geth now bound to their platforms (whichever they were inhabiting at the time)? Or is the opposite true, and former-organics can now freely upload themselves between bodies? And is the Normandy now partly-organic, or did the Synthesis effect somehow 'know' to also transfer EDI's program to her humanoid body?


This is all what's known in the biz as 'bad writing'. I.e., if the merest application of logic or reference to facts from WITHIN THE GAME ITSELF massively contradicts your final plot twist, you've screwed up somewhere...

[Anduin The Grey]

Meltemph wrote...

but only from a story telling point of view, they left far too much to the imagination and everyone has been left wanting to be baby walked through it, which I really hope we don't get.

What?

Nobody wants a game to be a bed time story, if I want to see someone's story I'll watch a film. I find it really annoying that many here are just looking for every answer on a plate. The story isn't finished yet and we're all arguing about assumptions on things we may or may not have gotten right, considering it's a sci-fi genre most assumptions, mine included are mostly likely based on our own fantasies, not what the writers are working on.

[Cobra's_back]

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What about Joker and EDI?

Okay, really. What about them? What do we see in 10 seconds that tells us whether they've been changed or not?
How does that change that synthesis is what the Reapers want?

Then again you seem to be okay with war criminals winning so nevermind.

Yeah show me a 10 second clip of a collector and a 10 second clip of Javik.
One's a pale imitation of life but 10 seconds isn't enough to tell the difference.

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

Sorry i see no evidence of higher intelligence in that scene. Collectors aren't husks but they are a pale imitation of life, not something i'd ever subject life to in order to ensure its survival.

I thought Collectors actually were husks though. They're not an imitation of life at all, they have no semblance of emotion, no culture, they're just tools.

EDI said their DNA was altered. They were experimented on.

[DJBare]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

So if someone came along, strapped you down to an operating table, cut off one of you arms and replaced it with a mechanical one that was far superior, you would be okay with that? We aren't arguing about whether it might be better or not, we are arguing that it is morally wrong to force it on everyone.

You just reminded me of this www.youtube.com/watch

[M Hedonist]

Richard 060 wrote...

Synthesis ain't 'disgusting'...

...it's nonsensical.


Aside from the fact that Evolution Categorically Does Not Work That Way, what is gained from the superficial effect of adding a green glowing 'Tron' effect to all characters and plants (and presumably the Normandy's AI core...)?

Also, ignoring the fact that evolution, by definition, has no 'final' goal or outcome (unless, of course, the universe hits some kind of limbo state without any change, all genetic variation is weeded out of life, and/or lifeforms simply stop breeding...), if everything has 'truly' been 'evolved', why is everything largely the same as before? Plants and people alike have the same CG texture added - that's it. That'd be like evolving protozoa to human-level of sentience - and the only visible change would be a top hat and opposable thumbs...

And what about EDI/the Geth? They're not C-3PO-style human facsimiles, but intelligent computer programs, that simply make use of synthetic humanoid bodies. Remember, EDI's intelligence is still ultimately based in the Normandy - meanwhile, there may be thousands of active Geth programs in any single platform. How exactly does synthesis affect them? Are the Geth now bound to their platforms (whichever they were inhabiting at the time)? Or is the opposite true, and former-organics can now freely upload themselves between bodies? And is the Normandy now partly-organic, or did the Synthesis effect somehow 'know' to also transfer EDI's program to her humanoid body?


This is all what's known in the biz as 'bad writing'. I.e., if the merest application of logic or reference to facts from WITHIN THE GAME ITSELF massively contradicts your final plot twist, you've screwed up somewhere...

You've likely put more thought into this than the writers themselves.

[Cypher_CS]

Unit-Alpha, I understand your argument fully.

But then again, it's YOUR own personal view point, based on YOUR own experience with the game.
To me, after the achievement of Geth/Quarian cooperation, and faced with such bad alternatives...

You see, the choice is not
Destroy Repears - Control Reapers - Synthesize

It's Destroy Geth who are working with Quarians and helping them heal from their intolerance to the environment, and destroy EDI and destroy pretty much all civilization through the destruction of Technology.
Again, that's the choice I am given, based on my previous choices in the game.
It might be different for you.

Based on that given choice, I chose Synthesis. Cause there is no better alternative for me.

Was it explained enough?
No, that's a valid argument on quality.



You guys, I think the endings are pretty good, considering they spark so much debate.
Intelligent debate for the most part, even.

[WandererRTF]

Where does it say or show that it imposes destruction of evolution?

Final evolution of life... <--- stated very clearly in the game

Where does it say or show that it enslaves free will?

Perhaps enslaving is a tad harsh phrasing but rather imposing you own will (decision) over all others regardless of their opinions or even if the life in question actually was sentient or not. Regardless you are violating all lifeforms in a single act. In essence you are subjugating life just like in the control ending only the reins of control are different.

[Meltemph]

I find it really annoying that many here are just looking for every answer on a plate. The story isn't finished yet and we're all arguing about assumptions on things we may or may not have gotten right, considering it's a sci-fi genre most assumptions, mine included are mostly likely based on our own fantasies, not what the writers are working on.

Umm, people are looking for answers that the writers questions brought up, there is no "deep thinking" to understand all the implications of the endings, cause they dont tell us. You dont get "smarter" by thinking about this games ending. Any moron(quite literally) can think of good questions, the hard part is answering them. The writers are either trolling us, or didnt know how to end the series and just asked some very silly questions.

You sound like people who have read Foundation and now all the sudden think they have leveled up their intelligence... No you just leveled up your scifi book knowledge.

[Anduin The Grey]

Both Geth and the super sexy EDI might not be destroyed by the Destroy option, a fact someone from retake mentioned a while ago in disgust that if both survived at least half retake would swallow it and ask for seconds.

[d-boy15]

I think the whole point of endings is not about life or destroy reaper, that the mass effect
main theme but not for ending we got.

it's about the shepard (players) view in that situation and vent kid motive behind reaper.

destroy - reject vent kid reason, put you faith in organic race to build their own future and
believe that organic can find a way to made peace with synthatic.

control - believe that you have power to control it. in this choice you may either believe or
not believe in vent kid logic but that doesn't matter now reaper are under you command.

synthasis - in this choice, I think you believe in vent kid logic, you help him find a new
way to stop chaos.( but we all know that most people choose this because they don't
want to kill geth)

it's all about uncertain future of galaxy like dark energy ending plot. so, I say that no endings
is better than other. it's depend what you believe and what you prefer to risk.

Modifié par d-boy15, 23 avril 2012 - 04:08 .

[Anduin The Grey]

Meltemph wrote...

I find it really annoying that many here are just looking for every answer on a plate. The story isn't finished yet and we're all arguing about assumptions on things we may or may not have gotten right, considering it's a sci-fi genre most assumptions, mine included are mostly likely based on our own fantasies, not what the writers are working on.

Umm, people are looking for answers that the writers questions brought up, there is no "deep thinking" to understand all the implications of the endings, cause they dont tell us. You dont get "smarter" by thinking about this games ending. Any moron(quite literally) can think of good questions, the hard part is answering them. The writers are either trolling us, or didnt know how to end the series and just asked some very silly questions.

You sound like people who have read Foundation and now all the sudden think they have leveled up their intelligence... No you just leveled up your scifi book knowledge.

I'm not talking about  deep thinking at all, no amount of deep thinking will come from sparse answers. I'm not trying to promote my own intelligence, I'm saying if you want to argue constructively then argue about facts not about assumptions on facts that can be explained with under 10 words.

[Meltemph]

d-boy15 wrote...

I think the whole point of endings in not about life or destroy reaper.

it's about the shepard (players) view in that situation and vent kid motive behind reaper.

destroy - reject vent kid reason, put you faith in organic race to build their own future and
believe that all species can find a way to made peace with synthatic.

control - believe that you have power to control it. in this choice you may either believe or
not believe in vent kid logic but that doesn't matter now reaper are under you command.

synthasis - int this choice, I think you believe in vent kid logic, you help him find a new
way to stop chaos.

it's all about uncertain future of galaxy like dark energy ending plot. so, I say that no endings
is better than other. it's depend what you believe and what you prefer to risk.

I dunno... I think the game plays off ones desires, honestly.  Become an exostential god? Control the reapers and make sure only "good" happens.  Want to "fix" humans so they are som uch better then they are now?  Here is an eugenics machine that will fix humans in your best image.  Want to kill the reapers for what they have done? Here blow them up, oh BTW to do so you will need to gas their neighbors.

[YNation913]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What about Joker and EDI?

Okay, really. What about them? What do we see in 10 seconds that tells us whether they've been changed or not?
How does that change that synthesis is what the Reapers want?

Then again you seem to be okay with war criminals winning so nevermind.

Yeah show me a 10 second clip of a collector and a 10 second clip of Javik.
One's a pale imitation of life but 10 seconds isn't enough to tell the difference.

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

Sorry i see no evidence of higher intelligence in that scene. Collectors aren't husks but they are a pale imitation of life, not something i'd ever subject life to in order to ensure its survival.

I thought Collectors actually were husks though. They're not an imitation of life at all, they have no semblance of emotion, no culture, they're just tools.

EDI said their DNA was altered. They were experimented on.

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.

[Cobra's_back]

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

What about Joker and EDI?

Okay, really. What about them? What do we see in 10 seconds that tells us whether they've been changed or not?
How does that change that synthesis is what the Reapers want?

Then again you seem to be okay with war criminals winning so nevermind.

Yeah show me a 10 second clip of a collector and a 10 second clip of Javik.
One's a pale imitation of life but 10 seconds isn't enough to tell the difference.

Gotta disagree with this one. The scene in synthesis looks like the culmination of EDI and Joker's romance, which means that they're able to retain what they were before. It's enough to know that they're not husks or indoctrinated because Reaper slaves don't take comfort on the shoulders of their lovers.

Sorry i see no evidence of higher intelligence in that scene. Collectors aren't husks but they are a pale imitation of life, not something i'd ever subject life to in order to ensure its survival.

I thought Collectors actually were husks though. They're not an imitation of life at all, they have no semblance of emotion, no culture, they're just tools.

This is from Mass Effect Wiki

"While exploring a supposedly derelict Collector ship, Shepard and team discover the true origin of the Collectors. Since they exhibit a similar quad-strand genetic structure unique to the Protheans, Shepard realizes that the race formerly believed extinct still exists but has been completely subjugated by their Reaper masters. Their DNA showed signs of "extensive genetic rewrite" including three fewer chromosomes, reduced heterochromatin structure, and the elimination of superfluous "junk" sequences."

Here is the link for more information http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Collector

[ed87]

I finished watching the new star trek movie and the messages at the end were about putting aside differences, friendship, and teamwork. As corny as they were, those values are relevant in my life.

Im not sure how the message presented by the synthesis ending can enrich my life in any way. If anything, those messages go against a lot of values in society.

[Cypher_CS]

WandererRTF wrote...

Where does it say or show that it imposes destruction of evolution?

Final evolution of life... <--- stated very clearly in the game

Where does it say or show that it enslaves free will?

Perhaps enslaving is a tad harsh phrasing but rather imposing you own will (decision) over all others regardless of their opinions or even if the life in question actually was sentient or not. Regardless you are violating all lifeforms in a single act. In essence you are subjugating life just like in the control ending only the reins of control are different.

I don't think that means what you think it means...

Yes, he did say "Final evolution of life..."
But -
1. He isn't God. So who knows what will evolve beyond even his comprehension in a Billion years.
2. And this is the important part, he means Final stage. It doesn't mean that natural selection or evolution in general will not happen. Only that it will happen as a synthesis of both organic and synthetic organisms. 
When people have babies, they will still be manifestations of their parent's evolution or natural selection or whatever. It's a final stage, not a final state!
Huge difference.

Okay, your second argument...

You're right.
I guess BioWare should have had a sequence where Shep goes all...
"So, I need to choose? Oh, crap. Wait here, I'll go phone Hackett and get everyone on a conference call. Got a Cell handy, btw?"
And then he goes off on ME4 - The Search for a Phone to Call and Decide with everyone's concensus.

All the choices have major ramifications on all life, on all civilizations.
So same argument you apply on Shep\\s forced decisions should be applied to all three, not just Synthesis.