250 réponses à ce sujet

[Obeded the 2nd]

frylock23 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

the flaw in your explanation is that synthesis doesn't make any damn sense A, and B it doesn't stop the reapers "problem". In the post game cinematic you see joker get off the ship still limping with the only visible change being his eyes now glow green. We know NOTHING of what actually changes in organic life. So there is nothing that will stop them from saying "man this farming stuff is bull****, tali go build us some robots to do this for us."

No, we do know one very important thing - there are no more organics.

Synthesis is the end of all organic life. Tech singularity wins!

What the hell is tech singularity???

[Obeded the 2nd]

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

The Edge wrote...

Apathy1989 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

Apathy1989 wrote...

Synthesis: Rape every person in the galaxy, forcing homogenization and betraying the ideas of unity despite diversity laid out in the series.

Control: Accept TIMs ideas as right despite shooting him a few seconds before. Betray the idea of self-determination and choice laid out in the series.

Destroy: Do what I set out to do from day 1 in this damn series. Accept the loss of EDI and Geth with some tears.

The situation changed with the reason for the reapers being revealed.

Not for me it didn't. Starchilds reasoning was flawed.

Agreed. Organics can cause the same amount of destruction to other species and to themselves, yet synthetics are singled out to be the ONLY threat to organic life.

Because, as of now, Star-Child's logic is flawed, what does that say about the solutions it proposes?

No, your missing the point.
Synthetics are not the only threat to organic life however they are the only threat that can destroy all organics.

And, thanks to the synthesis solution, they DO destroy all organics. Congratulations!

How did you get to that?

How do you not?

If you fuse all organic and all synthetic life. There will be no more organic life. It ceases to exist. It is something other.

So your saing if i mix flour and sugar, sugar comes out?

Just so you know that was an example of the thing ecause flour mixed with sugar makes well flour mixed with sugar not just sugar or flour

Modifié par Obeded the 2nd, 01 mai 2012 - 03:04 .

[savionen]

They're all bad.

Dominate and enslave an entire species.
OR
Genocide towards specific species who are innocent.
OR
Destroy all diversity and force your will on the entire galaxy.

All three are terribly against Mass Effect's themes.

Modifié par savionen, 01 mai 2012 - 03:02 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

savionen wrote...

They're all bad.

Dominate and enslave an entire species.
OR
Genocide towards specific species who are innocent.
OR
Destroy all diversity and force your will on the entire galaxy.

All three are terribly against Mass Effect's themes.

No because mass effect, or at least paragon shep has always thought long-term which some of the endings do well in.

[frylock23]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

the flaw in your explanation is that synthesis doesn't make any damn sense A, and B it doesn't stop the reapers "problem". In the post game cinematic you see joker get off the ship still limping with the only visible change being his eyes now glow green. We know NOTHING of what actually changes in organic life. So there is nothing that will stop them from saying "man this farming stuff is bull****, tali go build us some robots to do this for us."

No, we do know one very important thing - there are no more organics.

Synthesis is the end of all organic life. Tech singularity wins!

What the hell is tech singularity???

The tech singularity is what the Star Brat warns you against. It's what his so-called solution is set up to avoid. It's when the organics create synthetics who inevitably wipe them all out but not just wipe out their creators, but wipe out ALL organic life as being unnecessary.

My problem with the Star Brat is as follows:

If tech singularities are inevitable once organic life reaches a certain stage of advancement as he claims (which is why he "harvests" advanced organic races with the Reapers), then there must have been one before or many such tech singularities for there to have been an established pattern for him to have set up his cycle and solution. However, if there has or had been a tech singularity, there would be no organic life. The tech singularity would have wiped it all out as being unnecessary by the definition us. And yet, there is still organic life.

So, either the Star Brat is lying -or- the Star Brat is a tech singularity who has been on the brink of wiping out all organic life for untold numbers of years now, and thanks to Shepard and the Catalyst, we've just pushed him over the edge to deciding to go for Synthesis. Of course, I also think he's a wee bit insane after all these untold trillions of years (he is gambling with his life), but that's beside the point.

The point is that if you go for synthesis, you are rewriting organic DNA to make no longer organic. It becomes something else entirely. It's no longer organic. No one knows what it is, but if it were organic, you would still have the same problems making the cycle of the Reapers necessary and leading to the same dangers of the tech singularity - organics creating cynthetics who will eventually wipe out not only those specific organics but all others as well.

[fr33stylez]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Ah, you drank the kool-aid.

Your entire premise for valuing the endings is that the Catalyst is correct in it's assumption that the organic-synthetic conflict will end with organic extinction (or even, that there is an inherent organic-synthetic conflict to begin with).

Personally, I like to think that the Catalyst created it's Reaper Solution with a false premise as it's basis.

Correct. Why should I believe that Starchild saying about synthetics kiling all organics is true? The same Starchild that thought of a solution to liquify all advanced civilization, a solution Shepard has been fighting against all 3 games.

Starchild: We must kill/harvest all advanced organic species by using the Reapers
Shepard (ME1-end of ME3): i disagree

Starchild: Peace won't last between organics and synthetics, because I say so.
Shepard (ME3 end): OK.

[Obeded the 2nd]

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Bantz wrote...

the flaw in your explanation is that synthesis doesn't make any damn sense A, and B it doesn't stop the reapers "problem". In the post game cinematic you see joker get off the ship still limping with the only visible change being his eyes now glow green. We know NOTHING of what actually changes in organic life. So there is nothing that will stop them from saying "man this farming stuff is bull****, tali go build us some robots to do this for us."

No, we do know one very important thing - there are no more organics.

Synthesis is the end of all organic life. Tech singularity wins!

What the hell is tech singularity???

The tech singularity is what the Star Brat warns you against. It's what his so-called solution is set up to avoid. It's when the organics create synthetics who inevitably wipe them all out but not just wipe out their creators, but wipe out ALL organic life as being unnecessary.

My problem with the Star Brat is as follows:

If tech singularities are inevitable once organic life reaches a certain stage of advancement as he claims (which is why he "harvests" advanced organic races with the Reapers), then there must have been one before or many such tech singularities for there to have been an established pattern for him to have set up his cycle and solution. However, if there has or had been a tech singularity, there would be no organic life. The tech singularity would have wiped it all out as being unnecessary by the definition us. And yet, there is still organic life.

So, either the Star Brat is lying -or- the Star Brat is a tech singularity who has been on the brink of wiping out all organic life for untold numbers of years now, and thanks to Shepard and the Catalyst, we've just pushed him over the edge to deciding to go for Synthesis. Of course, I also think he's a wee bit insane after all these untold trillions of years (he is gambling with his life), but that's beside the point.

The point is that if you go for synthesis, you are rewriting organic DNA to make no longer organic. It becomes something else entirely. It's no longer organic. No one knows what it is, but if it were organic, you would still have the same problems making the cycle of the Reapers necessary and leading to the same dangers of the tech singularity - organics creating cynthetics who will eventually wipe out not only those specific organics but all others as well.

He is an AI, he can make accurate predicitions

[Obeded the 2nd]

fr33stylez wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Ah, you drank the kool-aid.

Your entire premise for valuing the endings is that the Catalyst is correct in it's assumption that the organic-synthetic conflict will end with organic extinction (or even, that there is an inherent organic-synthetic conflict to begin with).

Personally, I like to think that the Catalyst created it's Reaper Solution with a false premise as it's basis.

Correct. Why should I believe that Starchild saying about synthetics kiling all organics is true? The same Starchild that thought of a solution to liquify all advanced civilization, a solution Shepard has been fighting against all 3 games.

Starchild: We must kill/harvest all advanced organic species by using the Reapers
Shepard (ME1-end of ME3): i disagree

Starchild: Peace won't last between organics and synthetics, because I say so.
Shepard (ME3 end): OK.

He did what the catalyst wanted as he was now aware why the reapears did what they did and it is sort of impotrtant, even though the soultion is stupid.

As for why should you belive star kid he was more than likly created to stop this by someone/thing which was most likly organics or he just saw the pattern reemerging that at some point it would happen, he is an AI remeber he can make very accurate predictions that this will happen.

[frylock23]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

{snip for space}

He is an AI, he can make accurate predicitions

Except you don't really know what he is. Is he an AI? Is he a "Being of Light? Is he a VI? Is he merely manifestation of Harbinger? Do you really know? Is he just a hallucination of your subconscious?

He might even be some ancient insane alien who got offered the same choice as you and took control and is now imprisoned in the Citadel and doesn't even really know or remember who or what he's supposed to be doing.

Basically you have a lot of faith and very little actual evidence of anything. As a person of great faith in real life, I won't argue with that, but you need to see and admit it for what it is.

[Obeded the 2nd]

frylock23 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

{snip for space}

He is an AI, he can make accurate predicitions

Except you don't really know what he is. Is he an AI? Is he a "Being of Light? Is he a VI? Is he merely manifestation of Harbinger? Do you really know? Is he just a hallucination of your subconscious?

He might even be some ancient insane alien who got offered the same choice as you and took control and is now imprisoned in the Citadel and doesn't even really know or remember who or what he's supposed to be doing.

Basically you have a lot of faith and very little actual evidence of anything. As a person of great faith in real life, I won't argue with that, but you need to see and admit it for what it is.

Well there isn't really any evidence to strongly suggest otherwise, you could pick up stuff that may HINT but other than that...

However you are correct in we don't really know hopefully EC will clear it up.

[Obeded the 2nd]

This is a BUMPy thread

[BABEik52092]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...


None of the endings show the "future" of what happens beyond the normandy crash, therefore you have NO PROOF that the synthesis choice has the best future and is the best option.

No, but from evidence gathered ingame this is the only logiccal explanation.

If by "evidence" you mean that Starchild says its the "final evolution of life" and that its his ultimate goal, thats great for him. But the "final evolution of life" doesn't mean the best future. There is little other evidence to show that synthesis is the "best or most logical" choice.

No, imean destroy dooms the glaxy and control ether lets the cycle be continued or the galaxy can be doomed and the reapers have a tough task ahead of them, see OP for futher info if you haven't already,

Ok destroy doesn't "doom" the galaxy in any worse way than the other two endings. Yeah the geth are destroyed which kinda sucks but its a blank slate for everyone. We can choose our own path without the Reapers "protection" and we can create new synthetics and be careful knowing what we do now and make sure we treat them so that we don't want them to "rebel", like the quarians did to the geth. And yes the relays are destroyed but that happens in the synthesis ending too. So by your logic we would be "doomed" in the synthesis ending as well.

You need to clarify as to what "dooms" the galaxy.

In all three endings the "cycle" of synthetics rebeling and killing organics can continue, so like I said there is no "best option." Just what you THINK is the best for your galaxy and your character's values.

My OP sated why destroy dooms the galaxy.

As I said above, the cycle of synthetics killing all organic continuing is not just limited to destroy. It can continue in all three choices.
-In control, Shepard tells the Reapers to leave. Cool, but the geth are still around and more synthetics will be built that can rebel.
-In synthesis, even these new organic/synthetic hybrids can create pure synthetics and nothing is stopping them from doing so.The synthetics will be created, will rebel, and will kill the creators.

[Obeded the 2nd]

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...


None of the endings show the "future" of what happens beyond the normandy crash, therefore you have NO PROOF that the synthesis choice has the best future and is the best option.

No, but from evidence gathered ingame this is the only logiccal explanation.

If by "evidence" you mean that Starchild says its the "final evolution of life" and that its his ultimate goal, thats great for him. But the "final evolution of life" doesn't mean the best future. There is little other evidence to show that synthesis is the "best or most logical" choice.

No, imean destroy dooms the glaxy and control ether lets the cycle be continued or the galaxy can be doomed and the reapers have a tough task ahead of them, see OP for futher info if you haven't already,

Ok destroy doesn't "doom" the galaxy in any worse way than the other two endings. Yeah the geth are destroyed which kinda sucks but its a blank slate for everyone. We can choose our own path without the Reapers "protection" and we can create new synthetics and be careful knowing what we do now and make sure we treat them so that we don't want them to "rebel", like the quarians did to the geth. And yes the relays are destroyed but that happens in the synthesis ending too. So by your logic we would be "doomed" in the synthesis ending as well.

You need to clarify as to what "dooms" the galaxy.

In all three endings the "cycle" of synthetics rebeling and killing organics can continue, so like I said there is no "best option." Just what you THINK is the best for your galaxy and your character's values.

My OP sated why destroy dooms the galaxy.

As I said above, the cycle of synthetics killing all organic continuing is not just limited to destroy. It can continue in all three choices.
-In control, Shepard tells the Reapers to leave. Cool, but the geth are still around and more synthetics will be built that can rebel.
-In synthesis, even these new organic/synthetic hybrids can create pure synthetics and nothing is stopping them from doing so.The synthetics will be created, will rebel, and will kill the creators.

The created one is explained in OP so read that because I'm to lazy to write it out again. If you do and can't understand it just say so and I will explain it again.

As for synthesis I belive all materials that make synthetics have been changed, I mean synthetics even changed plants and so on so I believe it is possible.

But since synthesis is explained so poorly ingame  you could be right or I could hard to tell without extra clarification which hopefully EC will provide.

Modifié par Obeded the 2nd, 01 mai 2012 - 03:58 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

I see alot of resistance to this odea, which is intresting

Modifié par Obeded the 2nd, 01 mai 2012 - 06:06 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

Any more thoguhts on this?

[Ieldra]

OP, basically I agree with what you're saying in your OP, but I still think you're approaching the whole thing with some naiveté.

Those who choose the Destroy ending do not believe the Catalyst when it says the extinction of organics at the hand of synthetics is inevitable. And they have a point since the Catalyst explains this so insufficiently that it's easy to reject as a premise. Some of those who choose Destroy also think that organics should live or die on their own merit and that it's better to become extinct in the long run than to live under the guardianship of AI gods or combined with synthetics into a new life form.

I also think that Synthesis is the best ending, but here, too, the Catalyst does a poor job of explaining what happens. "A new DNA" is logical nonsense and there can be no "final evolution of life" because as long as there is life, it can change. Which means the only concrete pieces of information we have about it beyond "it will combine organics and synthetics" make no sense. I've tried to make sense of it in my Synthesis thread, but it's hard going.

The notion of a unified life form on DNA level is nonsense. If you analyze the differences the game give us between organics and synthetics, you get

(1) Synthetics are designed, organics shaped by environmental factors over millennia.
(2) Synthetics know that they were created and their purpose, organics don't.
(3) Synthetics have a different take on time, being immortal.

These are "digital" traits. You either know you're created or not, you know your purpose or not, you're immortal unless killed or not, you are designed or not. There is no middle ground and no way to "synthesize" these opposing traits. There cannot by a physically unified new life form, there can only be a symbiosis of the two. That would serve the purpose, but it's not what the Catalyst says.

Even more to the point: these are not physical traits. Imagine a human genetically designed from the ground up to be immortal, made for a purpose she knows about. This human would possibly have a synthetic-like perspective in (2) and (3), only her physical makeup would be "classical" organic. Still we wouldn't call her synthetic, right? Because her physical makeup would still follow the organic principle in (1), even if she was designed.

Which means, a physical change as such is no solution to the problem. The Synthesis needs to adjust perspectives so that they become understandable to the other side. Whatever physical change the Synthesis effects must be aimed at changing perspectives. What I outlined in my Synthesis thread is a first approach to solving that problem.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 mai 2012 - 06:09 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

OP, basically I agree with what you're saying in your OP, but I still think you're approaching the whole thing with some naiveté.

Those who choose the Destroy ending do not believe the Catalyst when it says the extinction of organics at the hand of synthetics is inevitable. And they have a point since the Catalyst explains this so insufficiently that it's easy to reject as a premise. Some of those who choose Destroy also think that organics should live or die on their own merit and that it's better to become extinct in the long run than to live under the guardianship of AI gods or combined with synthetics into a new life form.

I also think that Synthesis is the best ending, but here, too, the Catalyst does a poor job of explaining what happens. "A new DNA" is logical nonsense and there can be no "final evolution of life" because as long as there is life, it can change. Which means the only concrete pieces of information we have about it beyond "it will combine organics and synthetics" make no sense. I've tried to make sense of it in my Synthesis thread, but it's hard going.

The notion of a unified life form on DNA level is nonsense. If you analyze the differences the game give us between organics and synthetics, you get

(1) Synthetics are designed, organics shaped by environmental factors over millennia.
(2) Synthetics know that they were created and their purpose, organics don't.
(3) Synthetics have a different take on time, being immortal.

These are "digital" traits. You either know you're created or not, you know your purpose or not, you're immortal unless killed or not, you are designed or not. There is no middle ground and no way to "synthesize" these opposing traits.

Even more to the point: these are not physical traits. Imagine a human genetically designed from the ground up to be immortal, made for a purpose she knows about. This human would possibly have a synthetic-like perspective in (2) and (3), only her physical makeup would be "classical" organic. Still we wouldn't call her synthetic, right? Because her physical makeup would still follow the organic principle in (1), even if she was designed.

Which means, a physical change as such is no solution to the problem. The Synthesis needs to adjust perspectives so that they become understandable to the other side. Whatever physical change the Synthesis effects must be aimed at changing perspectives. What I outlined in my Synthesis thread is a first approach to solving that problem.

Having skimmed through this I think this is just poor writing/explaination by bioware rather the catalyst almost on purpose not explaining itself correctly.

[Ieldra]

Oh, yes. I fully agree. It's almost as if things were intentionally written to make no sense. I find that insulting. How the hell can I make an informed decision when all I have to base it on is nonsense? If it takes so much thought and interpretation something has gone seriously wrong.

[Obeded the 2nd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Oh, yes. I fully agree. It's almost as if things were intentionally written to make no sense. I find that insulting. How the hell can I make an informed decision when all I have to base it on is nonsense? If it takes so much thought and interpretation something has gone seriously wrong.

I don't believe they would do it intentionally because well that would be silly, but maybe you are right but I always assumed the ending was rushed and therefore couldn't really explain it to the player.
I think in mac and caseys head they get the endng put didn't have enough time to put it to the player, if that makes sense.
I do agree with the rest of what you're saying though there is far to much room for intepretation.

Modifié par Obeded the 2nd, 01 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[BABEik52092]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...


None of the endings show the "future" of what happens beyond the normandy crash, therefore you have NO PROOF that the synthesis choice has the best future and is the best option.

No, but from evidence gathered ingame this is the only logiccal explanation.

If by "evidence" you mean that Starchild says its the "final evolution of life" and that its his ultimate goal, thats great for him. But the "final evolution of life" doesn't mean the best future. There is little other evidence to show that synthesis is the "best or most logical" choice.

No, imean destroy dooms the glaxy and control ether lets the cycle be continued or the galaxy can be doomed and the reapers have a tough task ahead of them, see OP for futher info if you haven't already,

Ok destroy doesn't "doom" the galaxy in any worse way than the other two endings. Yeah the geth are destroyed which kinda sucks but its a blank slate for everyone. We can choose our own path without the Reapers "protection" and we can create new synthetics and be careful knowing what we do now and make sure we treat them so that we don't want them to "rebel", like the quarians did to the geth. And yes the relays are destroyed but that happens in the synthesis ending too. So by your logic we would be "doomed" in the synthesis ending as well.

You need to clarify as to what "dooms" the galaxy.

In all three endings the "cycle" of synthetics rebeling and killing organics can continue, so like I said there is no "best option." Just what you THINK is the best for your galaxy and your character's values.

My OP sated why destroy dooms the galaxy.

As I said above, the cycle of synthetics killing all organic continuing is not just limited to destroy. It can continue in all three choices.
-In control, Shepard tells the Reapers to leave. Cool, but the geth are still around and more synthetics will be built that can rebel.
-In synthesis, even these new organic/synthetic hybrids can create pure synthetics and nothing is stopping them from doing so.The synthetics will be created, will rebel, and will kill the creators.

The created one is explained in OP so read that because I'm to lazy to write it out again. If you do and can't understand it just say so and I will explain it again.

As for synthesis I belive all materials that make synthetics have been changed, I mean synthetics even changed plants and so on so I believe it is possible.

But since synthesis is explained so poorly ingame  you could be right or I could hard to tell without extra clarification which hopefully EC will provide.

But plants fit the definiton of organic life. It makes sense that the plants would become half synthetic in the synthesis ending.

However, a piece of metal that has had nothing done to it is not organic or synthetic. It is simply an element/object and it can not possibly have DNA. Synthesis can't change something that doesn't have DNA. The piece of metal is not alive and has no DNA. I don't even understand how synthetics can "merge" their DNA with organics, becuase I was never aware that synthetics had DNA to begin with.

Like you said, synthesis is explained poorly (to put it mildly) and maybe all materials were affected too. However, is this is the case, it makes me hate synthesis even more.

Modifié par BABEik52092, 01 mai 2012 - 07:25 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

BABEik52092 wrote...


None of the endings show the "future" of what happens beyond the normandy crash, therefore you have NO PROOF that the synthesis choice has the best future and is the best option.

No, but from evidence gathered ingame this is the only logiccal explanation.

If by "evidence" you mean that Starchild says its the "final evolution of life" and that its his ultimate goal, thats great for him. But the "final evolution of life" doesn't mean the best future. There is little other evidence to show that synthesis is the "best or most logical" choice.

No, imean destroy dooms the glaxy and control ether lets the cycle be continued or the galaxy can be doomed and the reapers have a tough task ahead of them, see OP for futher info if you haven't already,

Ok destroy doesn't "doom" the galaxy in any worse way than the other two endings. Yeah the geth are destroyed which kinda sucks but its a blank slate for everyone. We can choose our own path without the Reapers "protection" and we can create new synthetics and be careful knowing what we do now and make sure we treat them so that we don't want them to "rebel", like the quarians did to the geth. And yes the relays are destroyed but that happens in the synthesis ending too. So by your logic we would be "doomed" in the synthesis ending as well.

You need to clarify as to what "dooms" the galaxy.

In all three endings the "cycle" of synthetics rebeling and killing organics can continue, so like I said there is no "best option." Just what you THINK is the best for your galaxy and your character's values.

My OP sated why destroy dooms the galaxy.

As I said above, the cycle of synthetics killing all organic continuing is not just limited to destroy. It can continue in all three choices.
-In control, Shepard tells the Reapers to leave. Cool, but the geth are still around and more synthetics will be built that can rebel.
-In synthesis, even these new organic/synthetic hybrids can create pure synthetics and nothing is stopping them from doing so.The synthetics will be created, will rebel, and will kill the creators.

The created one is explained in OP so read that because I'm to lazy to write it out again. If you do and can't understand it just say so and I will explain it again.

As for synthesis I belive all materials that make synthetics have been changed, I mean synthetics even changed plants and so on so I believe it is possible.

But since synthesis is explained so poorly ingame  you could be right or I could hard to tell without extra clarification which hopefully EC will provide.

But plants fit the definiton of organic life. It makes sense that the plants would become half synthetic in the synthesis ending.

However, a piece of metal that has had nothing done to it is not organic or synthetic. It is simply an element/object and it can not possibly have DNA. Synthesis can't change something that doesn't have DNA. The piece of metal is not alive and has no DNA. I don't even understand how synthetics can "merge" their DNA with organics, becuase I was never aware that synthetics had DNA to begin with.

Like you said, synthesis is explained poorly (to put it mildly) and maybe all materials were affected too. However, is this is the case, it makes me hate synthesis even more.

Yeah, the problem is I could be right or you could be right but we lack the neccarcary evidence because this option and the ending in general was explained so poorly.

[BABEik52092]

[quote]Obeded the 2nd wrote...

[quote]BABEik52092 wrote...

The created one is explained in OP so read that because I'm to lazy to write it out again. If you do and can't understand it just say so and I will explain it again.

As for synthesis I belive all materials that make synthetics have been changed, I mean synthetics even changed plants and so on so I believe it is possible.

But since synthesis is explained so poorly ingame  you could be right or I could hard to tell without extra clarification which hopefully EC will provide.[/quote]

But plants fit the definiton of organic life. It makes sense that the plants would become half synthetic in the synthesis ending.

However, a piece of metal that has had nothing done to it is not organic or synthetic. It is simply an element/object and it can not possibly have DNA. Synthesis can't change something that doesn't have DNA. The piece of metal is not alive and has no DNA. I don't even understand how synthetics can "merge" their DNA with organics, becuase I was never aware that synthetics had DNA to begin with.

Like you said, synthesis is explained poorly (to put it mildly) and maybe all materials were affected too. However, is this is the case, it makes me hate synthesis even more.

[/quote]

Yeah, the problem is I could be right or you could be right but we lack the neccarcary evidence because this option and the ending in general was explained so poorly.[/quote]

Yeap, pretty much this.

[Obeded the 2nd]

[quote]BABEik52092 wrote...

[quote]Obeded the 2nd wrote...

[quote]BABEik52092 wrote...

The created one is explained in OP so read that because I'm to lazy to write it out again. If you do and can't understand it just say so and I will explain it again.

As for synthesis I belive all materials that make synthetics have been changed, I mean synthetics even changed plants and so on so I believe it is possible.

But since synthesis is explained so poorly ingame  you could be right or I could hard to tell without extra clarification which hopefully EC will provide.[/quote]

But plants fit the definiton of organic life. It makes sense that the plants would become half synthetic in the synthesis ending.

However, a piece of metal that has had nothing done to it is not organic or synthetic. It is simply an element/object and it can not possibly have DNA. Synthesis can't change something that doesn't have DNA. The piece of metal is not alive and has no DNA. I don't even understand how synthetics can "merge" their DNA with organics, becuase I was never aware that synthetics had DNA to begin with.

Like you said, synthesis is explained poorly (to put it mildly) and maybe all materials were affected too. However, is this is the case, it makes me hate synthesis even more.

[/quote]

Yeah, the problem is I could be right or you could be right but we lack the neccarcary evidence because this option and the ending in general was explained so poorly.[/quote]

Yeap, pretty much this.
[/quote]

I'm almost certain most people on BSN would agree with this as well

[Bill Casey]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

This bring us back to the creation of synthetics-it IS going to happen and they WILL kill all organics

That's ****ing racist...

[frylock23]

BABEik52092 wrote...
{snip to avoid massive quote pyramid}

But plants fit the definiton of organic life. It makes sense that the plants would become half synthetic in the synthesis ending.

However, a piece of metal that has had nothing done to it is not organic or synthetic. It is simply an element/object and it can not possibly have DNA. Synthesis can't change something that doesn't have DNA. The piece of metal is not alive and has no DNA. I don't even understand how synthetics can "merge" their DNA with organics, becuase I was never aware that synthetics had DNA to begin with.

Like you said, synthesis is explained poorly (to put it mildly) and maybe all materials were affected too. However, is this is the case, it makes me hate synthesis even more.

Well that's where the nonsense or
 comes from isn't it?

Space Brat says that synthetics will get stuff from organics so presumably, the space magic or synthesis gives them DNA and the new sytho-organic parts that they never had before. This is the part that really makes my brain hurt hard.

It's much easier to conceive of organic life suddenly receiving synthetic bits and pieces although suddenly altering our DNA to include sythetic base code stretches that somewhat, but asking me to suddenly believe that entirely synthetic beings made out of previously non-living and entirely synthetic components without DNA suddenly grew an entire DNA-like structure of some sort ...

What kind of horrific experience must that have been because that must have been even more of a violation of basic self that what organics suffered. At least they had the basic double helix to begin with ... the Geth and EDI ... they had none. Oh, and even more fun for EDI, she's half in her robot body and half the Normandy. How did that work?!