286 réponses à ce sujet

[ThinkIntegral]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

I answered this way back on page four, in response to someone else.  I'll bring it back in this post:

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.

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?

 

It's not that there are no problems with Destroy.  Good God, no.  You're quite probably committing mass murder, or, at best, throwing the geth into the sacrificial pile like Zhukov in the Great Patriotic War.  History will judge you harshly, but it will judge you because it can; your "cold calculus of war" (to quote Garrus) won the day, despite the odds.  Control is possibly better, possibly worse, involving gambling the fate of the galaxy on your ability to mind-slave a sentient race.  

As I stated in my lolLONGPOST, though, both of these can be better or worse depending on POV and reasoning.  I cannot yet find a reason or method by which Synthesis passes even the most basic "smell test".

Like I said, I don't think you'll ever be satisfied with Synthesis.

[Nimrodell]

stevefox1200 wrote...

There is a big difference from a flying machine and a machine that completely rewrites everything in know existence's DNA in a matter of minutes that will have no negative health effects in a quick shock wave

That is pretty much a literal God machine in a universe where hyperspace style jumps are the most crazy thing they have

For you it is big difference but for the men in XIX  century there was no difference and yes, Catalyst is more god-like being, entity since it already created Cycles and Reapers (strange how people doubt DNA re-writing and since ME2 they know bits how Reapers are made and they don't question that) - but I'm not defending synthesis, I'm merely trying to state - stop looking at things from your own, mortal, limited, human perspective. What would you say when you'd learn that many scientists actually consider our universe as one of the most improbable ones? Check this out. Anyway, people here would even question Arthur Clarcke's Starchild and the Monolith and all Odyssey novels I guess, even those are SF classic nowadays - because they need our scientific background - and that's reader's bigotry.

[Ieldra]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
As I stated in my lolLONGPOST, though, both of these can be better or worse depending on POV and reasoning.  I cannot yet find a reason or method by which Synthesis passes even the most basic "smell test".

I usually revert to the phrasing from the leaked script when describing the Synthesis: "We [synthetics] will become more like you, and you will become more like us". This means, the basic nature of synthetics and organics will be retained, they will just acquire desirable traits from each other. This will reduce the difference in thinking Javik mentions, so that both sides see enough of themselves in the other to prevent the kind of disregard that results in extinction.

I feel justified in going back to the phrasing from the leaked script because what the game gives us is complete nonsense. There can't be a "final evolution of life" and there can't be hybrid DNA, because any life form with a DNA analogue would be functionally organic, regardless of biochemistry.

The problem of making a choice for everyone remains, but then, you are at the fulcrum of events, every choice you make will affect everyone in some way. I wouldn't push the Synthesis button were it placed in front of me right now, but in Shepard's situation at the end of ME3, I probably would.

You might be interested in my Synthesis scenario. That is, of course, a transhumanist's viewpoint, but I think I am not of the transcendentalist kind.

@Nimrodell:
Consider the differences: Synthetics are built for a purpose according to a desgin. Organics are self-grown. How the hell can that difference be removed with a DNA rewrite? That's a difference purely rooted in self-perception, not a physical one. I feel justified in throwing the DNA rewrite away as a concept because "hybrid DNA" makes no sense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[Fapmaster5000]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

I don't seen the distinction on how Shepard doesn't use force willingly in Destruction or potential force in Control against Synthesis. Please elaborate.

Alrighty.

Destruction ending, not willingly using force to destroy the geth: begin!  In this ending, Shepard believes that the Catalyst is lying to him, or simply wrong.  Shepard believes this because the Catalyst's statement of "Synthetics will always rise to destroy organics" has been immediately counter-example'd with the geth/Quarian peace, and/or the question "How do you know this?"  This question is important, because the Catalyst is a Synthetic, the oldest being in the known galaxy, and he has SPECIFICALLY chosen NOT to eradicate organics, but instead to "garden" them into Reaper forms and preserve them forever.  The Catalyst is either wrong, or lying.  This means that the Catalyst is likely wrong, or lying, in the present.  Shepard then dismisses this as attempted indoctrination (in character), and chooses to fight back.  He wagers that Destroy will kill the Reapers, but that the geth are essentially a fictional "hostage" taken by the Catalyst to dissuade him.  He bets that this is a bluff, and pulls the trigger.

In this case, Shepard did not WILLFULLY destroy the geth.  He may have actually killed them, but it was manslaughter, not murder.

ThinkIntegral wrote... 

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
Further, while in both Control and Destroy, Shepard chooses an ending, while in Synthesis, the Catalyst does. In effect, the Catalyst becomes the Protagonist in this ending, and Shepard merely the dramatic spear-carrier.

How does the Catalyst choose the ending in Synthesis?

Destroy and Control are both endings Shepard (and the player) and intuitively grasp.  Using an explosion to carry destruction (or a signal) is an understood thing, even if the scale is different.  Shepard can weight the options, take a gamble, and choose with reasonable confidence.  Synthesis, however, is so far beyond conception that it is basically "Space Magic".  Shepard would not have come to the crucible looking to do this, it is an option conceived of, offered by, and carried out by the Catalyst.  Shepard merely becomes a side character, albeit an important one, carrying out the Catalyst's newest final solution, by accepting the Catalyst's logic (which he/she cannot understand, hence the "I don't know" comment) and giving in to the star child.  (Giving in is not necessarily bad, for purposes of this post, but it is definately an, "I accept your solution".)

The first two options were goals set out by factions of the mortal races.  Synthesis is an option that originates from the master of the Reapers, and is carried out by methods Shepard cannot understand, with results he/she cannot predict.

It is the Catalyst's ending, not Shepards.

[Fapmaster5000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
As I stated in my lolLONGPOST, though, both of these can be better or worse depending on POV and reasoning.  I cannot yet find a reason or method by which Synthesis passes even the most basic "smell test".

I usually revert to the phrasing from the leaked script when describing the Synthesis: "We [synthetics] will become more like you, and you will become more like us". This means, the basic nature of synthetics and organics will be retained, they will just acquire desirable traits from each other. This will reduce the difference in thinking Javik mentions, so that both sides see enough of themselves in the other to prevent the kind of disregard that results in extinction.

I feel justified in going back to the phrasing from the leaked script because what the game gives us is complete nonsense. There can't be a "final evolution of life" and there can't be hybrid DNA, because any life form with a DNA analogue would be functionally organic, regardless of biochemistry.

The problem of making a choice for everyone remains, but then, you are at the fulcrum of events, every choice you make will affect everyone in some way. I wouldn't push the Synthesis button were it placed in front of me right now, but in Shepard's situation at the end of ME3, I probably would.

You might be interested in my Synthesis scenario. That is, of course, a transhumanist's viewpoint, but I think I am not of the transcendentalist kind.

Let me take a look at that.  Will post back later.

[xstripesonfire]

Forgive me for not reading through this entire topic but there is one thing I wanted to say (which many others have probably already stated, but I digress...)

The thing that really bothers me about "synthesis" being considered the "best" ending by BioWare is that ever since the beginning of this trilogy our entire goal has been to DESTROY the Reapers.  Then at the very end of the game they try to pass off two other choices on us as being better... well, sorry but I just don't buy that.

All I ever wanted to do was to destroy the Reapers and let the myriad races of the galaxy figure out their own evolution paths on their own terms.  Including the Geth.

[Necrotron]

Spoiler alert!

In every ending choice, the reapers win.

Modifié par Bathaius, 26 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[d-boy15]

xstripesonfire wrote...

Forgive me for not reading through this entire topic but there is one thing I wanted to say (which many others have probably already stated, but I digress...)

The thing that really bothers me about "synthesis" being considered the "best" ending by BioWare is that ever since the beginning of this trilogy our entire goal has been to DESTROY the Reapers.  Then at the very end of the game they try to pass off two other choices on us as being better... well, sorry but I just don't buy that.

All I ever wanted to do was to destroy the Reapers and let the myriad races of the galaxy figure out their own evolution paths on their own terms.  Including the Geth.

it's the best ending because only shepard sacrifice and joker can have his fun with sexbot (which is reference
to adam&eve)

you can still going to reap those reapers back but it will cost you the geth.

[N7Kopper]

xstripesonfire wrote...

Forgive me for not reading through this entire topic but there is one thing I wanted to say (which many others have probably already stated, but I digress...)

The thing that really bothers me about "synthesis" being considered the "best" ending by BioWare is that ever since the beginning of this trilogy our entire goal has been to DESTROY the Reapers.  Then at the very end of the game they try to pass off two other choices on us as being better... well, sorry but I just don't buy that.

All I ever wanted to do was to destroy the Reapers and let the myriad races of the galaxy figure out their own evolution paths on their own terms.  Including the Geth.

The funny thing is, Synthesis was meant to be the best end - but the highest EMS ending is the Destroy variant where Shepard survives.

It makes me wonder if Shepard surviving will cause the survival of other important sentient beings that use synthetic body parts.

[ThinkIntegral]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
Alrighty.

Destruction ending, not willingly using force to destroy the geth: begin!  In this ending, Shepard believes that the Catalyst is lying to him, or simply wrong.  Shepard believes this because the Catalyst's statement of "Synthetics will always rise to destroy organics" has been immediately counter-example'd with the geth/Quarian peace, and/or the question "How do you know this?"  This question is important, because the Catalyst is a Synthetic, the oldest being in the known galaxy, and he has SPECIFICALLY chosen NOT to eradicate organics, but instead to "garden" them into Reaper forms and preserve them forever.  The Catalyst is either wrong, or lying.  This means that the Catalyst is likely wrong, or lying, in the present.  Shepard then dismisses this as attempted indoctrination (in character), and chooses to fight back.  He wagers that Destroy will kill the Reapers, but that the geth are essentially a fictional "hostage" taken by the Catalyst to dissuade him.  He bets that this is a bluff, and pulls the trigger.

In this case, Shepard did not WILLFULLY destroy the geth.  He may have actually killed them, but it was manslaughter, not murder.

The fact that Shepard brokered peace between the Quarians and the Geth doesn't negate that all instances of synthetic life wiping out organic life is gone. It just means in that one little scenario there's peace.  Some other race might create another AI or an AI might create its own AI and the problem of synthetics rising up still exists.

The fact that the Catalyst either was created to prevent that uprising or has witnessed it to create the Reaper solution tends to demonstrate it as an eyewitness. I guess you can choose whether to believe it or not, but there's nothing definitive to suggest that it likely is lying.  Just because it creaed teh Reaper solution doesn't mean its "evil."  It may not be the best solution as we may think but it may think it's the best solution based on, who knows, 5 eons of watching it happen.

Nothing explicitly suggests indoctrination within that moment or that the Catalyst is bluffing; it's all interpretation. I still don't see how Shepard isn't using force willingly.  It may not be against the entire galaxy but it's against a species and EDI.  The energy is effectively killing them.

Also, it still could be willful and murder depending on the definition of murder whether at common law or by statute. 

Look, the fact that it created the Reaper solution tarnishes the Catalyst's credibility, but the fact that it not only admits the Crucible changed it and gives Shepard the ability to go against its own solution arguably shows that its telling the truth.

At that point you can either believe the Crucible worked or it didn't much like you can believe the Catalyst is lying or isn't.  Each belief elicits a different outcome.

So like I said at least two times already, I don't think you'll ever be satisified with Synthesis.

Fapmaster5000 wrote...


Destroy and Control are both endings Shepard (and the player) and intuitively grasp.  Using an explosion to carry destruction (or a signal) is an understood thing, even if the scale is different.  Shepard can weight the options, take a gamble, and choose with reasonable confidence.  Synthesis, however, is so far beyond conception that it is basically "Space Magic".  Shepard would not have come to the crucible looking to do this, it is an option conceived of, offered by, and carried out by the Catalyst.  Shepard merely becomes a side character, albeit an important one, carrying out the Catalyst's newest final solution, by accepting the Catalyst's logic (which he/she cannot understand, hence the "I don't know" comment) and giving in to the star child.  (Giving in is not necessarily bad, for purposes of this post, but it is definately an, "I accept your solution".)

The first two options were goals set out by factions of the mortal races.  Synthesis is an option that originates from the master of the Reapers, and is carried out by methods Shepard cannot understand, with results he/she cannot predict.

It is the Catalyst's ending, not Shepards.

I guess, but that's not the same as saying Shepard chooses the ending.  All you're telling me is that each choice has a differen origin, but so what?  The choice is still yours to make.

[Fapmaster5000]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You might be interested in my Synthesis scenario. That is, of course, a transhumanist's viewpoint, but I think I am not of the transcendentalist kind.

Let me take a look at that.  Will post back later.

Okay, I read it, thought over it, and I have a few comments.

First, I agree with much of what you did, but I think you changed the ending from ME3 Synthesis to an entirely different ending that embraced the themes of synthesis.  You're completely correct that the methods of synthesis presented, such as "machine DNA" and "apex of evolution" are utter nonsense, and I do much prefer your ideas on greyboxes, shared ideas, and self-directed evolution.  

Heck, I think there could have been a very good ending, indeed, had the option been created to allow the galaxy to choose Synthesis, as you described it.

The problem is, the choice wasn't given over to individuals, nor was it done by these means.  In ME3, green light shot out and Joker got circuitry on his hat.

I could totally back (and might even go with) a Synthesis ending that opened the avenue for collaboration, a way to rehabilitate the Reapers, and even encouraging the galaxy to expand across the organic-synthetic divide.  (I think these themes were expressed with Joker/EDI and the geth/Quarian resolution.  I even remember thinking, "Yup, about four generations, and we're gonna have a race of symbiotic suit people.  This could be interesting.") 

So no, your Synthesis wouldn't be a problem, but it's not the Synthesis presented.  The one shown by the ending is still impossible, illogical, and conducted by force.  (I really hope this ending gets some touch-up in the EC, bringing it more in line with what you were discussing.)  

Interestingly, when I was conducting my "Threading the Needle" expirement, I had some thoughts along the lines (but not to the depth) of what you went with, but I didn't pull the trigger on it because I decided it was simply too much of a change to pass muster with the "does not change events the endings, just the context" requirement I set for myself, as it requires a rather large amount of, "Oh, well, we said that, but we actually totally meant this related but different thing."

So I guess I can now safely say, after reading that, that my objection is not the act of synthesis, but the Synthesis ending, and how it is implemented, both in and out of character.  Don't know if that's an improvement, in your opinion, or not.  

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 26 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[Fapmaster5000]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

The fact that Shepard brokered peace between the Quarians and the Geth doesn't negate that all instances of synthetic life wiping out organic life is gone. It just means in that one little scenario there's peace.  Some other race might create another AI or an AI might create its own AI and the problem of synthetics rising up still exists.

 

You are correct in that this is the weaker argument.  It is also the argument most likely to pop up in the head of a man/woman bleeding to death in a war zone.  "Well, my friends say otherwise, so fack you, light brite."  Not saying it's the most valid, simply that it's the most likely to be believed by a person in that situation.

ThinkIntegral wrote... 

The fact that the Catalyst either was created to prevent that uprising or has witnessed it to create the Reaper solution tends to demonstrate it as an eyewitness. I guess you can choose whether to believe it or not, but there's nothing definitive to suggest that it likely is lying.  Just because it creaed teh Reaper solution doesn't mean its "evil."  It may not be the best solution as we may think but it may think it's the best solution based on, who knows, 5 eons of watching it happen.

  

You missed the point here.  His exact quote is, "The created will always rebel against the creators."   His position is that synthetics will always destroy organics.  Please note that he takes an "always" position here, which means that even ONE example where this did not occur proves him wrong.  With a person, I would call this hyperbole, but the Catalyst is a super-AI, which would gain nothing through overstatement if it is being forthright.

However, he has existed longer than any other lifeform in the galaxy.  He is the oldest synthetic in existance.  And he has chosen to preserve organic life.

His own existence shoots flaming holes in his argument.

Unless he's hiding his intentions.  In this scenario, he still does want to wipe out organic life (which makes his hypothesis true, since he IS the "always" that comes up cycle after cycle), and he is trying to trick you into choosing a different path.  He is either wrong, or he is lying.  In either case, Shepard has little cause to believe him.

ThinkIntegral wrote...  


Nothing explicitly suggests indoctrination within that moment or that the Catalyst is bluffing; it's all interpretation. I still don't see how Shepard isn't using force willingly.  It may not be against the entire galaxy but it's against a species and EDI.  The energy is effectively killing them.


Also, it still could be willful and murder depending on the definition of murder whether at common law or by statute.   

Nothing explicitly suggests anything within that moment.  You either have to take the Catalyst at his word or not, and there is plenty of reasons not to.  Maybe he is being truthful.  He could be being truthful and still be wrong.  His previous solution did not work, after all.  We don't know what to think, and, as you said, "it's all interpretation".  If Shepard interprets the Catalyst as a lyar or flat-out wrong, then Shepard could likewise dismiss the Catalysts other claims, such as "this will also destroy the geth".  

The only evidene we have that the geth will die come from an unreliable source.  Shepard could choose to destroy the Reapers, believing the Catalyst to be wrong/lying, only to have the geth die.  In this scenario, Shepard did not willfully destroy the geth.  He/She took actions that caused the geth to be destroyed, but had no intent to destroy them.

ThinkIntegral wrote... 

Look, the fact that it created the Reaper solution tarnishes the Catalyst's credibility, but the fact that it not only admits the Crucible changed it and gives Shepard the ability to go against its own solution arguably shows that its telling the truth. 

Or it could show that the Catalyst was wrong and is trying to devise another solution based on false premises of "the created will always destroy the created".  

Or it could show an immense intelligence which is recalculating a new solution to remove a persistant problem (Shepard).  The Reapers are not above being petty (See: Harbinger's hate-on for Shepard in ME2.  "THIS HURTS YOU!"), and with that knowledge, it is possible that the Catalyst has a desire to break Shepard truly, which means making Shepard freely choose to turn away from his/her path.

I'm not saying these scenarios are what's happening, simply that they are valid interpretations, especially given that it is possible for both Shepard and EDI to live in the Destroy ending, even after the Catalyst implies for one and outright promises for the other that they will die.

ThinkIntegral wrote... 

At that point you can either believe the Crucible worked or it didn't much like you can believe the Catalyst is lying or isn't.  Each belief elicits a different outcome.

Which is why an ending where Shepard did not willingly use violence on the geth is possible.  He/She did not believe that the Catalyst was correct, and chose a different path.

Synthesis, however, requires BELIEVING the Catalyst, and the Catalyst says that Shepard will be the blueprint of a new DNA imprinted on the galaxy.  Shepard cannot choose Synthesis without willfully changing the galaxy.  That is the difference.

ThinkIntegral wrote... 

I guess, but that's not the same as saying Shepard chooses the ending.  All you're telling me is that each choice has a differen origin, but so what?  The choice is still yours to make.

You still press the button, but in Synthesis, you only do as your told, accepting the Catalyst on faith, as opposed to enacting a solution you can grasp and understand.  It's rational decision making versus blind guesswork, when trillions of lives are at stake.

[Ieldra]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
The problem is, the choice wasn't given over to individuals, nor was it done by these means.  In ME3, green light shot out and Joker got circuitry on his hat.

That part remains in my scenario - everyone gets that synthetic symbiont. You still force a physical change on people. Individuals may, however, choose not to do anything with it and continue to live as they did before. Not that I think many would continue to do that as time progresses, but the choice is there.

So no, your Synthesis wouldn't be a problem, but it's not the Synthesis presented.  The one shown by the ending is still impossible, illogical, and conducted by force.  (I really hope this ending gets some touch-up in the EC, bringing it more in line with what you were discussing.)

The fact that the only descriptive elements ME3 presents us with are nonsense is the main reason why I feel justified in reinterpreting the Synthesis on the basis of its underlying themes. I don't think the EC will go into much detail, but I have proposed that it uses the phrasing from the leaked script, which is very vague but perfectyl in line with my interpretation.

So I guess I can now safely say, after reading that, that my objection is not the act of synthesis, but the Synthesis ending, and how it is implemented, both in and out of character.  Don't know if that's an improvement, in your opinion, or not.  

It certainly is. I really don't know what got into Mac Walters when he wrote the description. I can live with fantastic elements like green rays than transform life across the galaxy, but the description of the Synthesis seems like deliberately written to offend the sensibilities of SF fans and make no sense at all. Only the basic idea - combining organics and synthetics in some unspecified way - has merit. I blame Mac Walters' history as a writer of comic books.

[ThinkIntegral]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

You are correct in that this is the weaker argument.  It is also the argument most likely to pop up in the head of a man/woman bleeding to death in a war zone.  "Well, my friends say otherwise, so fack you, light brite."  Not saying it's the most valid, simply that it's the most likely to be believed by a person in that situation.

Okay, but so what? I have no qualms against the other endings.

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
You missed the point here.  His exact quote is, "The created will always rebel against the creators."   His position is that synthetics will always destroy organics.  Please note that he takes an "always" position here, which means that even ONE example where this did not occur proves him wrong.  With a person, I would call this hyperbole, but the Catalyst is a super-AI, which would gain nothing through overstatement if it is being forthright.

However, he has existed longer than any other lifeform in the galaxy.  He is the oldest synthetic in existance.  And he has chosen to preserve organic life.

His own existence shoots flaming holes in his argument.

Unless he's hiding his intentions.  In this scenario, he still does want to wipe out organic life (which makes his hypothesis true, since he IS the "always" that comes up cycle after cycle), and he is trying to trick you into choosing a different path.  He is either wrong, or he is lying.  In either case, Shepard has little cause to believe him.

I see your point and that does make sense, but since so little is known it doesn't render a jump to the conclusion that it's lying.  For all we know it could have software and hardware locks much like EDI and Legion had.  Shepard (you the player) has the same amount to believe or not believe it.

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
Nothing explicitly suggests anything within that moment.  You either have to take the Catalyst at his word or not, and there is plenty of reasons not to.  Maybe he is being truthful.  He could be being truthful and still be wrong.  His previous solution did not work, after all.  We don't know what to think, and, as you said, "it's all interpretation".  If Shepard interprets the Catalyst as a lyar or flat-out wrong, then Shepard could likewise dismiss the Catalysts other claims, such as "this will also destroy the geth".  

The only evidene we have that the geth will die come from an unreliable source.  Shepard could choose to destroy the Reapers, believing the Catalyst to be wrong/lying, only to have the geth die.  In this scenario, Shepard did not willfully destroy the geth.  He/She took actions that caused the geth to be destroyed, but had no intent to destroy them.

The reliability is, if anything, neutral.  The fact that it created the Reaper solution doesn't per se demonstrate that it's lying.  Unless something else can attest to the fact that the Catalyst is a pathological or casual liar you can't reasonably make that assumption.

Even in the case that Shepard believes it was lying, it's still willful because Shep can't know with reasonable certainty that the Geth and EDI won't die.

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
Or it could show that the Catalyst was wrong and is trying to devise another solution based on false premises of "the created will always destroy the created".  

Or it could show an immense intelligence which is recalculating a new solution to remove a persistant problem (Shepard).  The Reapers are not above being petty (See: Harbinger's hate-on for Shepard in ME2.  "THIS HURTS YOU!"), and with that knowledge, it is possible that the Catalyst has a desire to break Shepard truly, which means making Shepard freely choose to turn away from his/her path.

I'm not saying these scenarios are what's happening, simply that they are valid interpretations, especially given that it is possible for both Shepard and EDI to live in the Destroy ending, even after the Catalyst implies for one and outright promises for the other that they will die.

See above

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
Which is why an ending where Shepard did not willingly use violence on the geth is possible.  He/She did not believe that the Catalyst was correct, and chose a different path.

Sure

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
Synthesis, however, requires BELIEVING the Catalyst, and the Catalyst says that Shepard will be the blueprint of a new DNA imprinted on the galaxy.  Shepard cannot choose Synthesis without willfully changing the galaxy.  That is the difference.

See above.

Fapmaster5000 wrote...
You still press the button, but in Synthesis, you only do as your told, accepting the Catalyst on faith, as opposed to enacting a solution you can grasp and understand.  It's rational decision making versus blind guesswork, when trillions of lives are at stake.

That doesn't explain the supposed removal of choice. You just admitted you're the one that still gets to press the button. Whether a solution is rational or irrational to you or not doesn't take that action away from you. 

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Nimrodell:
Consider the differences: Synthetics are built for a purpose according to a desgin. Organics are self-grown. How the hell can that difference be removed with a DNA rewrite? That's a difference purely rooted in self-perception, not a physical one. I feel justified in throwing the DNA rewrite away as a concept because "hybrid DNA" makes no sense.

Ah, I just saw it as if it were carbon based life being merged with silica based life and thus loosing entirely DNA and getting something brand new. This is the thing I'm moving from Hypothetical types of biochemistry. At least that was my vague idea on how synthesis ending is even possible - but I had to include the fact that Catalyst is supposedly something like god-like (but not god itself, mind you, when presented with new equation and new unknowns like Shepard's cycle is, it can't actually change the order of universe by itself - so it's not all-knowing nor creator) entity that is not bound by our limitations of space and time, so indeed, what it offers is what we would perceive as 'space magic', just like concept of mere flying was a myth and fantasy once - something not conceivable for those who thought to hold firm grasp on reality and what 'science' or 'religion' thought them. Indeed, even in times when Georges Melies filmed From the Earth to Moon, travel to Moon was mere fantasy something that can't happen. One of the problems I see atm is that people are trying to rationalize too much and yet again, this is science fiction, not a science itself - mere existence of element zero and biotics is something that we should debate then as 'space magic' .

[Ieldra]

@Nimrodell:
We rationalize because taking things at face value makes no sense. The "obvious" variant of the synthetic/organic conflict is defused by making peace between the quarians and the geth. And, well, any other inter-species conflict we have resolved.

If the difference was just biochemisty, the Catalyst's rationale would make even less sense, since this would be nothing more but yet another permutation of a difference we already know, i.e. biochemical, and have often overcome, nothing more than yet another instance of Fantastic Racism. If it was just that.

I'm using the definition for "synthetic" Javik gives in the conversation quoted in the OP.

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Nimrodell:
We rationalize because taking things at face value makes no sense. The "obvious" variant of the synthetic/organic conflict is defused by making peace between the quarians and the geth. And, well, any other inter-species conflict we have resolved.

If the difference was just biochemisty, the Catalyst's rationale would make even less sense, since this would be nothing more but yet another permutation of a difference we already know, i.e. biochemical, and have often overcome, nothing more than yet another instance of Fantastic Racism. If it was just that.

I'm using the definition for "synthetic" Javik gives in the conversation quoted in the OP.

Many things in Mass Effect don't make sense on basic level - first of all is language, communication between two alien species, not to mention communication between specie that is extinct for 50000 years and current species (for instance how does Prothean VI even know what Shepard means when s/he says 'Catalyst', without even touching him/her like Javik does (though Javik's ability to instantly read linguistic code and all meanings is beyond any currently rational explanation) - Thessian VI doesn't even state like Vigil on Ilos that it has been monitoring our communications hehe and even if it did, plain Asari fighting on Thessia don't have such knowledge, they are mere soldiers, unless we go all that far, claiming it was eavesdropping Matriarchs). But we do except those things because it is story, it is fantasy... unless, we are hypochrites indeed and that tend to rationalize only when it's convenient to our own perception of what's logical and what's not. Nice link though, and Terry Pratchet did marvelous job on painting real life racism through his sometimes metaphor and sometimes alegory in Discworld. And the thing I just said was the very thing that inspired Tolkien to write down Lord of the Rings and then the entire History of the Middle Earth. I don't know if you're familiar with bet him and Lewis had b4 Narnia and Lord emerged?

Tolkien was actually very aware of this problem people nowadays have with stories like Mass Effect is - Lewis claimed that 'travel through space' story is plausible and Tolkien was firm in his belief that only story that covers 'travel through time' (not like time-machine, mind you, it's more history and reincarnation, repeating of the cycles but on the same space) has plausability when it comes to logic that complies to human perception of things. And before they made that bet and started writing their examples, Tolkien simply said to Lewis, I'm paraphrazing now, if I were to travel through space, how would I even communicate with an alien being that maybe doesn't even grasp the concept of breathing air, or what air is, or need to drink the water or what water is?

That's why I siad what I said - people are ratiolazing too much on something that doesn't even have true base for human type of rationalization. I hope I'm more clear now. I do understand that endings are stinging (hell, I was really shocked when I discovered for myself that leaks were actually true and that my belief in BW was misplaced indeed when it comes to this) - but it's scifi world, and I can actually swallow all endings, just like I swallowed Clarcke's concept on Monolith and the entire creation or Solaris by Lem, but I expected true clarification of things because the story itself wasn't consistent, it led to entire different direction until Javik started blabbering on the entire thing and even then, I didn't see that behind his words, major conflict between organic and synthetic beings is actually answer - because Reapers for two previous games didn't ring like that - they never even gave a hint on things to come as revelation.

[uecasm]

I haven't read all the pages so maybe someone's already said this; but I don't really have a problem with the quote in the OP and don't think it was meant to be interpreted like that. (After all, the key part of Synthesis is that afterwards there would be no created and creator -- everyone would be equal.)

A far more important quote of Jarvik's, though, is when he said that the primary reason they couldn't defend against the Reapers was that they were too homogenous -- everyone was fighting with the same technology and tactics -- and that as a result he thought that the current cycle was better off. And yet again, the core action of Synthesis is to remove differences and make everyone the same -- perfect targets for the next Big Bad after the Reapers, if not the Reapers themselves (if godkid was lying and they were immune).

[Goneaviking]

Bad King wrote...

But our technological advancement and cultural change over the last few thousand years has nothing to do with evolution. I'm not exactly sure what starchild meant by "the final stage of evolution" but if he meant that we can biologically evolve no further following synthesis, that in no way means that we cannot develop technologically.

As for war, yes, synthesis is apparently a way of preventing future war between organic and AI, but it's unclear that it prevents all conflict. Though I certainly wouldn't mind living comfortably as a hybrid demi-god in a universe where there is no war, even if it did mean that technological development slowed down a little.

Hell, if the reapers are now our palls, maybe they could teach us a thing or two about technology!

At the very least we should recognise that technological advancement and culture have had an enormous impact on our evolution. Evolution is a slow but constant process and isn't spread about over the entire species and it's only truly recognisable because we know that it's a constant process. The barely significant differences between the genetic makeup of mother and daughter are evolution in action.

Because of the developments we've made in the last thousands of years we can expect to live longer and stand taller than we ever could have before. We now have the ability, and often willingness, to screen out genetic defects in ourselves and our unborn offspring which can be expected over time to reduce the occurrence of such ailments among our population.

Culturally the once common tradition of eugenics that kept like breeding with like in order to prevent outsiders diluting the sacred blood of the group with their weaker seed no doubt had a significant impact on the physical development of a number of ethnic groups past and present. Similarly the breakdown of that implicitly racist tradition can be expected to have an equally significant impact on the continued development  of those groups in ways that can't reliably be predicted at this point.

Evolution isn't synonymous with advancement (either cultural or technological or even biological) but they are inextricably linked if we're honest in the discussion.

That's one of the things that make synthesis such a chilling option. It's a massive evolutionary leap that has no basis on the natural development of any of the beings that it will effect. It's unpredictable, and noone can ever expect to understand what happened to them or why. Some will suspect it had something to do with the Crucible project, but most beings don't know that such a thing existed and all they will know is that one day a green light descended from the heavens and violently altered their very nature in ways that they would never have consented to had they been offered the choice.

Another is that the catalyst kid envisages it as the final step in evolution. That prospect makes my blood run cold. The notion that some inexplicable entity and a half-dead marine with a martyr complex get to decide the final status of every entity in the galaxy that could be described as living is the stuff of nightmare.

[nuculerman]

I chose destroy. Here's why I'm morally superior to everyone who didn't and why Bioware is wrong in their claim synthesis is the "good choice."

/thread

[ElSuperGecko]

nuculerman wrote...
I chose destroy. Here's why I'm morally superior to everyone who didn't and why Bioware is wrong in their claim synthesis is the "good choice."

/thread

Finally!  Someone else who gets it! 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 26 avril 2012 - 01:18 .

[nuculerman]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
I chose destroy. Here's why I'm morally superior to everyone who didn't and why Bioware is wrong in their claim synthesis is the "good choice."

/thread

Finally!  Someone else who gets it! 

It's entertaining reading people who picked Destroy rationalize their choice by releasing all responsibility for mass genocide through the claim starchild is an evil liar, therefore, this button will do exactly what he says it will, except all the evil things.

Hint: if you need to spend 1,000 threads rationalizing your choice, it probably wasn't an ethical choice.

In the end, I don't see the point.  Every choice sucked.  The lesser of three evils is still evil, and typically it's impossible to quantify evil.  I chose synthesis on my pure paragon shepard.  He was a military man, sole survivor.  He'd lost so much he wasn't going to let more people die.  He'd save everyone, dammit.  My current playthrough is my mostly paragon, but militarily renegade Shepard.  He was in a gang in an Earth colony.  He chose to sacrifice his team for the good of the mission.  When he met Javik and heard his speech on being the totem of vengeance, if he had any reservations about destroy all Reapers no matter the cost, they evaporated.  He's about 3 hours away from choosing destroy.

My pure renegade Shepard, who agrees wholeheartedly with the Illusive Man and doesn't understand why he can't help Cerberus in ME3, will choose control.  All of them though (my Shepards) will know the choice they made may have very serious negative consequences, and will go to their grave cursing StarChild for making the Universe and everything Shepard fought for a joke.

[Jonathan Shepard]

Reposting this from another thread on similar anti-synthesis thoughts:

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

In Mass Effect, yeah, I could see it being about Synthetics versus Organics.
In Mass Effect 2, we see the horrors of combining those two life forms through husks, collectors, and the structure of the proto-reaper. We also see that Synthetics /can/ work together with Organics, proven by Legion.
In Mass Effect 3, our ship gets a body, Shepard pretty much is forced to trust that AI if none other, and can accelerate the geth's development towards sentience, along with learning that the Quarians started a genocidal war out of fear. Before the ending, Mass Effect 3 seems to have been about bringing Organics and Synthetics together to fight the horrific mess of blending them together into husks, banshees, marauders, cannibals, brutes, and ravagers. It was about using their differences against abominations that tried to be both. Javik even says that the diversity in this cycle is what may be its salvation.

The series thematically seems to suggest that by bringing synthetics to work together with organics, differences can be put aside to combat a dark mirror of what happens when diversity is eliminated, and technology invades organic tissue. Is that not what was so horrific about Shepard being rebuilt? He didn't even know who he was-- organic? synthetic? both?

It's a shame there wasn't more of an in-depth look with player input on the issue.

But yeah, the series isn't about synthetics versus organics.
It's about getting organics and synthetics to work together to defeat the abominable synthesis of two that eradicates diversity.

[matthewmi]

I love the game but agree all the choices were bad or at least presented in a really poor way.  I however will always choose destroy cause killing robots ain't that big a deal even if all the geth die.  I would feel bad at the outcome but woudn't linger over it oranics>synthetics.  I don't care if the computer has sentience it's still a computer and was created by an organic and could be recreated if you really wanted to do so.