286 réponses à ce sujet

[pistolols]

Delta_V2 wrote...
Everything we've seen has shown that forcibly combining organics and synthetics simply does not end well.

Worked out pretty good for Shepard.

Delta_V2 wrote...
Now that I think about it...Overlord is also an example of Control going horribly wrong.

How are we supposed to choose something other than Destroy again?

Edi's control over Eva worked out pretty good.


--What Javik is talking about sounds more like the Reaper's version of synthesis which is described as just using the organic body as a host to slowly consume until there's not much left. It's not a mutually beneficial coexistence which seems to be the idea behind picking synthesis at the end of the game. Are we sure this specific race is not mentioned elsewhere by Javik as having been manipulated by the Reapers? Another thing to consider is Javik's heavy bias against machines in general. Another thing to consider is he specifically says "the AI seized the physical body".. Artificial Intelligence being software code intelligence, not just tech itself. Shepard with his implants being a successful example of synthesis (and the literal primary ingredient for galaxy wide synthesis), but there isn't any AI involved, it's just tech. Although it is interesting they sort of slipped that possibility in when Shepard comes to ask himself "What if i'm just an AI that thinks it's Shepard?" -fascinating notion to contemplate. Made me question and think about the entire thing from the beginning of ME2 on... but that's for a different, Total Recall inspired, conversation

Ultimately i tend to agree with Illusive Man's take with all this. He tells shepard something along the lines of winning the war is not going to be black and white, but more grey than Shepard wants to admit.  And when it comes to synthesis specifically, i see that as just being the only way the writers reasoned they could have a Peace-with-Reapers option, and they were determined to have a neutral option.  I never got the impression synthesis is supposed to be the "best" ending, either.  Rather it's just the most complicated and therefore requires the most advanced built Crucible (which is based on EMS).  The catalyst seems to show a preference for it, but that's just him.  You don't have to agree with it.

Modifié par pistolols, 25 avril 2012 - 03:39 .

[humes spork]

"Do not listen to what others think, do what you must."
-Javik

[viperabyss]

Bad King wrote...


I love Mordin and all but that's a massive generalisation of technological advancement. Many of our most important inventions today were invented by accident not out of necessity. Even without limitations, advancement may occur.

I disagree. Indeed, there are some inventions today that were invented by accident (like X-ray), but the inventors did study in extensive detail about the technology they're dealing with.

Take Marie Curie for example. Sure, she discovered radioactivity that they weren't very certain what it was. That resulted in her husband's death, as well as her own death. However, they did understand the elements they were working with.

What Mordin was saying is giving cavemen a nuclear weapon. Cavemen simply don't have the mental capacity, or background information regarding the nuclear weapon. 

And I quite agree with his statement about limitations. Throughout human history, inventions have always been made due to limitations. Don't have safe, and reliable light source when it's dark? Invent a light bulb. Don't have a reliable, fast way of communicating with others who are far away? Invent a telephone. Don't have a bomb to end all wars? Develop a nuclear weapon. Even the history of flight is a result of mankind attempting to overcome to limit of flying. Without that limitation, there wouldn't be advancement, because you can basically do anything.

[viperabyss]

pistolols wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...
Everything we've seen has shown that forcibly combining organics and synthetics simply does not end well.

Worked out pretty good for Shepard.

Actually, no. What happened in Shepard's case was not a true combination suggested by the ending. He was hooked up to a machine, and the machine project analogue information to him. In essence, what he did is not so different from what you and I do when we sit in front of the computer. Organics and synthetic minds are put in close proximity, but there's still a translator in the middle, separating them.

What was suggested in the Synthesis ending is a "true" fuse of organics and synthetic mind. In reality, it wouldn't happen, given the vastly different nature of how these two fundamentally function. Either you have a synthetic mind and an organic body, or vice versa. 

[pistolols]

viperabyss wrote...

pistolols wrote...

Delta_V2 wrote...
Everything we've seen has shown that forcibly combining organics and synthetics simply does not end well.

Worked out pretty good for Shepard.

Actually, no. What happened in Shepard's case was not a true combination suggested by the ending. He was hooked up to a machine, and the machine project analogue information to him. In essence, what he did is not so different from what you and I do when we sit in front of the computer. Organics and synthetic minds are put in close proximity, but there's still a translator in the middle, separating them.

What was suggested in the Synthesis ending is a "true" fuse of organics and synthetic mind. In reality, it wouldn't happen, given the vastly different nature of how these two fundamentally function. Either you have a synthetic mind and an organic body, or vice versa. 

But Shepard is the literal ingredient for synthesis (that's why he has to jump into the beam) so your speculation doesn't seem quite accurate.  For whatever synthesis is, which there is not enough information to fully understand, but whatever it is it is based off of shepard.

[Seryl]

I'm going to try to articulate what I think a bit better this time.

Synthesis is evil. Full stop. Leaving aside the idea of a Singularity (which I believe to be extremely stupid for other reasons I'm not going into right now), the Synthesis option as it is presented, literally makes Shepard decide what is good for every living thing in the galaxy WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. He does not get to speak to anyone else about this choice before he is forced to make it. He is literally wielding the power of G-d here. For him, or anyone else, to believe that they are qualified to do so is not only past arrogance, but might also be past hubris. It's mind boggling to think that one person, no matter how well intentioned, can wield that kind of power responsibly and safely.

Control is just as wrong. The Reapers, no matter what they might represent, have shown that they can think for themselves. They are sentient beings. To dominate them into obeying Shepard's commands means that Shepard is overwriting what they are with what he is. In effect, he is indoctrinating and enslaving them into following him. They are now his personal toys. That's worse than just killing them.

Let's leave both of those points aside too, All of the information that is given before making that decision is what the Starkid says. He CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. He is in control of the Reapers. He is the one that devised the Reapers as a solution to a problem that is negated by the Quarians and Geth fighting right outside his window. He has committed genocide against TRILLIONS, if not more. What does he care if he lies to one man in order to achieve his goals?

Destroy is the only moral choice here. EDI and the Geth MIGHT be destroyed by doing this (again, however, we have only the starkid's information to go on here and it isn't trustworthy at all), but it is the only choice that doesn't involve either overriding the free choices of every life in the galaxy or in the outright enslavement of an entire race.

In addition, the Reapers are known to be a threat that needs to be ended. The Geth maybe, possibly, against all evidence, becoming a threat is not guaranteed to happen. Ending a known threat in exchange for a risk that will likely not even happen seems like an easy choice to me.

Modifié par Seryl, 25 avril 2012 - 04:38 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Don't you see. Walters saw too many episodes of BSG and like Gaius Baltar wanted to be a cylon. The skin jobs are part organic/part machine. That's why Synthesis is the best ending.

I cannot rewrite the genetic code of every single living being in the galaxy to be part machine and part whatever without their consent. Shepard does not have that right. Shepard has two choices to make: Destroy or Control.

[spirosz]

Shepard even has the balls to determine whats "right" for the future of trillions of people - forcing that "evolution" on what not even be the pinnacle of evolution itself, we certainty don't know and I highly doubt Starchild did. Plus, what gives him/her the right to determine something to that extreme, are his/her views the views the same as everyone? I know I'd be pretty pissed if I woke up as part machine, but what Shepard does is always right!

[Drummernate]

Synthesis is not that bad...

I wouldn't mind.

Robots are coolio.

Modifié par Drummernate, 25 avril 2012 - 05:20 .

[HellishFiend]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The fact is that the implications of synthesis aren't unpleasant; they are merely unknown, beyond the brief glimpse of a perfectly happy EDI and Joker we get in the green ending. You're free to assume the worst of course, but as my name implies I'm a bit more inclined to see the brighter side of things.

And as a transhumanist I find Synthesis quite appealing.

Listen to yourself.... you're... indoctrinated. O_O

[Elyiia]

For why Synthesis is supposed to be the "best option" it makes sense from Star-Jar's point of view. In destroy, Star-Jar dies. In Control, he's replaced by Shepard and is no longer in control of the Reapers. The only one which doesn't really affect him is Synthesis so it makes sense he'd want Shepard to pick that option.

[SilentK]

viperabyss wrote...

Bad King wrote...


I love Mordin and all but that's a massive generalisation of technological advancement. Many of our most important inventions today were invented by accident not out of necessity. Even without limitations, advancement may occur.

I disagree. Indeed, there are some inventions today that were invented by accident (like X-ray), but the inventors did study in extensive detail about the technology they're dealing with.

Take Marie Curie for example. Sure, she discovered radioactivity that they weren't very certain what it was. That resulted in her husband's death, as well as her own death. However, they did understand the elements they were working with.

What Mordin was saying is giving cavemen a nuclear weapon. Cavemen simply don't have the mental capacity, or background information regarding the nuclear weapon. 

And I quite agree with his statement about limitations. Throughout human history, inventions have always been made due to limitations. Don't have safe, and reliable light source when it's dark? Invent a light bulb. Don't have a reliable, fast way of communicating with others who are far away? Invent a telephone. Don't have a bomb to end all wars? Develop a nuclear weapon. Even the history of flight is a result of mankind attempting to overcome to limit of flying. Without that limitation, there wouldn't be advancement, because you can basically do anything.

Synthesis will not remove all limitations in life. If the power goes out, even after the synthesis ending you will have to fix that yourself. If there is a earthquake on your planet people will still need the help of others to get out of the rubble. Synthesis do not remove all the bad things that can happen in life. There will still be accidents, sickness, and wars. So I do not believe that synthesis removes all problems that occur in life. But, I would like to know more how it altered the lives of those living in the galaxy.

[Trikormadenadon]

Bad King wrote...

Katherine wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

lalaquen wrote...

I thought that the fact that it was a bad idea would've been obvious to everyone the minute the Catalyst VI/AI said: "synthesis is the final evolution of life". Evolution is essentially just drift/change; an ongoing process that occurs as the direct byproduct of life. The only way for it to "end" is for all life capable of growth and change to end.

I agree with what you say about evolution. I had over 5000 EMS and he said the synthesis would be the FINAL evolution of life. Bad news.

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates! Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disastrous. Our Fault."


-- Dr. Mordin Solus, ME2

I love Mordin and all but that's a massive generalisation of technological advancement. Many of our most important inventions today were invented by accident not out of necessity. Even without limitations, advancement may occur.

Yeah but those accidents occured while we were trying to overcome some other unrelated limitation. "Necessity is the mother of invention." If we don't need something, we won't create it. Bottom line.

[PsyrenY]

HellishFiend wrote...

Listen to yourself.... you're... indoctrinated. O_O

Shh, don't tell anyone before I can implant them. 

Trikormadenadon wrote...


Yeah but those accidents occured while we were trying to overcome some other unrelated limitation. "Necessity is the mother of invention." If we don't need something, we won't create it. Bottom line.

I, and many other synthesis proponents like Ieldra, agree that "final evolution" is a preposterous notion. Life without continuous improvement is stagnant, just as Mordin says.

However, Synthesis can end natural evolution just fine without violating that truth - replacing it with deliberate/elective change. Synthetics like EDI and the Geth can both "evolve" after a fashion, but they choose exactly the manner in which they do so, rather than being passively acted upon by their environments over eons of time. A useful view of synthesis is that it will give us the ability to make the modifications that we want or need ourselves, rather than depending on slow, dangerous and imprecise external stimuli.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 25 avril 2012 - 06:16 .

[Fapmaster5000]

You know, this was probably the "speculation for everyone" that Mac and Casey wanted. They just didn't anticipate that it would be drenched in so much disgust.

You know, it really does bring up an interesting question, and some really cool debate. This was simply not the proper vehicle to deliver it.

Oh, and "BTW", Synthesis can be best be summed up as:

[Fapmaster5000]

Optimystic_X wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Listen to yourself.... you're... indoctrinated. O_O

Shh, don't tell anyone before I can implant them. 

Trikormadenadon wrote...


Yeah but those accidents occured while we were trying to overcome some other unrelated limitation. "Necessity is the mother of invention." If we don't need something, we won't create it. Bottom line.

I, and many other synthesis proponents like Ieldra, agree that "final evolution" is a preposterous notion. Life without continuous improvement is stagnant, just as Mordin says.

However, Synthesis can end natural evolution just fine without violating that truth - replacing it with deliberate/elective change. Synthetics like EDI and the Geth can both "evolve" after a fashion, but they choose exactly the manner in which they do so, rather than being passively acted upon by their environments over eons of time. A useful view of synthesis is that it will give us the ability to make the modifications that we want or need ourselves, rather than depending on slow, dangerous and imprecise external stimuli.

I'm actually relatively okay with transhumanism.  It concerns me, but more for the way people approach it than anything.  Not something I'd choose, but whatever, your bag.

The "moral" problem with Synthesis is that Shepard chooses this fate for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, with no concern.

The issues with Control and Destroy are far lesser.  Control takes free will from creatures who never had it, and who were your mortal enemy since before you were born.  Ethical concerns?  Heck yes, but ones more easily bypassed.  Destroy has genocide in it, but that's less of an issue than it would seem.  Destroy would possibly destroy a species (bad!), but it was a species which had comitted, entirely to a "win or die" fight.  They knew the stakes going in, and their consensus means that this ending was sacrificing soldiers, not civilians, since every geth would be entirely committed to the war.  

Further, Destroy is only accepting genocide if you ACCEPT the Catalyst's logic.  It is entirely possible for Shepard to say, "Fack you, no, I'll take my chances that you're wrong." and choose Destroy.  Synthesis means that you ACCEPT the Catalyst's logic that you WILL rape each and every organism in the galaxy, and then willfully choosing to do so.  Destroy can be killing without intent, Synthesis is always rape with intent.  

So, no, even in a scenario where the Catalyst is COMPLETELY RIGHT, and Destroy ends bad and Synthesis ends good, Shepard is still more morally reprehensible in the Synthesis ending, because he comitted a vile act with INTENT.

EDIT:  Consider, a child that kills her friend with her father's gun.  Is that murder if she did not concieve that the gun would kill?  Consider this against a man who chooses to inflict torture on another human being to change their opinion on a matter he believes important.  Is that action not wrong, even if his belief is just?

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 25 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[MisterJB]

Letting "Morals" stop you from achieving something that has the potential to improve the life of all sentients in the galaxy, regardless of their financial status, is far more vile.

[HellishFiend]

MisterJB wrote...

Letting "Morals" stop you from achieving something that has the potential to improve the life of all sentients in the galaxy, regardless of their financial status, is far more vile.

How appropriate that your avatar is a husk. <_<

[MisterJB]

HellishFiend wrote...
How appropriate that your avatar is a husk. <_<

Were avatars indicative of our choices ingame, I'd say you picked "Control".

I did not see any Husks in the Synthesis Ending. I saw organic life, fundamentally changed, but with zero indications of having lost their freedom. I saw a synthetic resting her head on the should of the organic she loves; a common organic gesture of affection.

Modifié par MisterJB, 25 avril 2012 - 06:40 .

[SilentK]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

I'm actually relatively okay with transhumanism.  It concerns me, but more for the way people approach it than anything.  Not something I'd choose, but whatever, your bag.

The "moral" problem with Synthesis is that Shepard chooses this fate for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, with no concern.

The issues with Control and Destroy are far lesser.  Control takes free will from creatures who never had it, and who were your mortal enemy since before you were born.  Ethical concerns?  Heck yes, but ones more easily bypassed.  Destroy has genocide in it, but that's less of an issue than it would seem.  Destroy would possibly destroy a species (bad!), but it was a species which had comitted, entirely to a "win or die" fight.  They knew the stakes going in, and their consensus means that this ending was sacrificing soldiers, not civilians, since every geth would be entirely committed to the war.  

Further, Destroy is only accepting genocide if you ACCEPT the Catalyst's logic.  It is entirely possible for Shepard to say, "Fack you, no, I'll take my chances that you're wrong." and choose Destroy.  Synthesis means that you ACCEPT the Catalyst's logic that you WILL rape each and every organism in the galaxy, and then willfully choosing to do so.  Destroy can be killing without intent, Synthesis is always rape with intent.  

So, no, even in a scenario where the Catalyst is COMPLETELY RIGHT, and Destroy ends bad and Synthesis ends good, Shepard is still more morally reprehensible in the Synthesis ending, because he comitted a vile act with INTENT.

EDIT:  Consider, a child that kills her friend with her father's gun.  Is that murder if she did not concieve that the gun would kill?  Consider this against a man who chooses to inflict torture on another human being to change their opinion on a matter he believes important.  Is that action not wrong, even if his belief is just?

I dislike the use of the word "rape" when it comes to this choice. It feels like it used to color a morally ambigious descision with something that is decidedly wrong. Calling it rape does not turn synthesis into sexual violence.

How would you describe syntehsis if you removed that word. Is it the alteration without asking for permission before? Hmm... I can see it from both sides. It is not an easy choice to alter everyone. But also, if the solution is presented, is it right to turn away simply because you could not ask for advice. I guess that the day-to-day sort of comparison would be turning down a necessary medical procedure because you do not know if the patient currently not communicative would be supportive of it. Guess it is up to each and every Shepard to make that difficult choice themselves.

[viperabyss]

pistolols wrote...


But Shepard is the literal ingredient for synthesis (that's why he has to jump into the beam) so your speculation doesn't seem quite accurate.  For whatever synthesis is, which there is not enough information to fully understand, but whatever it is it is based off of shepard.

So what the Catalyst is saying is that Shepard is essentially a "prototype" of combination of organics and synthetics? But as far as we know, Shepard maintained his organic body, with some cybernetic implants. By that logic, wouldn't anyone with cybernetic implant (Quarian, biotics) are considered a combination of organics and synthetics?

OR, is the Catalyst hinting that Shepard's consciousness is part synthetic? How does that even work?

Sorry, too much mind f*** at this time.

[Nimrodell]

MisterJB wrote...

Letting "Morals" stop you from achieving something that has the potential to improve the life of all sentients in the galaxy, regardless of their financial status, is far more vile.

Actually, Javik himself confirms what you just said, but in a bit different way. When Shepard asks him why did Protheans loose to Reapers, he simply says - they weren't able to adapt to new ways - one Empire, one doctrine (teachings and belief). Their rigid attitude was their undoing.  Until EC is out, we actually don't know anything about any of the choices and their implications.

[Hermit_UK]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

LTKerr wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

I agree. The disturbing thing is that the leaked script and the game itself both indicate that synthesis is supposed to be the best.

If that's true... well, I don't know what to say, it doesn't make any sense. It's stupid. So Bioware thought that the best way to end the trilogy is turning every organic into whatever cyborg with silicon DNA and every synthetic into...eh... some kind of three-fingered cylon?

It's because they were literally copying Deus Ex. The mistake they made was that with the Deus Ex version of synthesis, it was only the main character and the other options were much, much worse for the world. Not forced genetic rape for everyone that does very little to help the situation, as it was in ME3.

Actually, in Invisible War the Helios/Synthesis ending is just that. IW Spoilers ahead:  

[viperabyss]

SilentK wrote...

Synthesis will not remove all limitations in life. If the power goes out, even after the synthesis ending you will have to fix that yourself. If there is a earthquake on your planet people will still need the help of others to get out of the rubble. Synthesis do not remove all the bad things that can happen in life. There will still be accidents, sickness, and wars. So I do not believe that synthesis removes all problems that occur in life. But, I would like to know more how it altered the lives of those living in the galaxy.

Well theoretically speaking, by combining organics and synthetics, your body would form a symbiotic relationship, where the synthetic part would rely on the organics part for power, and organics part rely on the synthetic part for...strength and logevity perhaps?

I agree that synthesis does not remove limitations. I was merely pointing out the fact that human advancement is due to limitations, and our desire to overcome them.

[HellishFiend]

MisterJB wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...
How appropriate that your avatar is a husk. <_<

Were avatars indicative of our choices ingame, I'd say you picked "Control".

I did not see any Husks in the Synthesis Ending. I saw organic life, fundamentally changed, but with zero indications of having lost their freedom. I saw a synthetic resting her head on the should of the organic she loves; a common organic gesture of affection.

Is that what you saw? I saw three strikingly similar endings that played out almost identically despite ostensibly different choices, which indicates to me that it was Shepard's delirious and optimistic imagination. In the one in question, I also saw Shepard being transformed into what looked very much like a Husk with TIM's eyes. Also, I'll quote the IT video here because it puts it quite simply: "Merge a human with reaper code and you get husks, not space magic"

On a side note, my avatar is a Batarian because I rather enjoy the two new Batarian classes in the multiplayer game. No other reason.