196 réponses à ce sujet

[Flextt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Flextt wrote...
Maybe we all get Synthesis wrong and try to bring synthetic life into the equation.
Let's look at it from a diferent angle: What is the key advantage synthetics have over organic life? They can think and communicate at the speed of light. So what if, the giant space magic device just enables us to do exactly that? All other advantages then just become advances through science like longevity, resilience against external environmental factors and so on... scratch the part that synthesis become more organic though. That's simply bull.

I am no advocate for Synthesis, rather Destroy, but this would be a compromise I would be willing to fit my headcanon into.

As I see it, the problem is that synthetics can self-improve at a faster rate than organics, which will eventually lead to them surpassing organics. After a certain point, when the power difference has become too great, it only takes a single hostile synthetic to destroy all organics. The probability of that happening approaches certainty over time.

So, if Synthesis is to solve that problem it has to give organics tools for self-improvement akin to what synthetics have. I have proposed synthetic symbionts in the form of clusters of nano-machines for that. It would be possible to cast them out on an individual basis if you really don't care for the advantages they bring you, but that's ok since some individuals dropping out of the scheme won't make the whole invalid. As a "domain of consciousness", organics with synthetic symbionts would be on par with "pure" synthetics. There could still be war between them, but because there isn't such an inherent power difference any more, the extinction scenario becomes as unlikely as galactic extinctions of organics is at present in the ME universe.

This interpretation would also solve the "forced change" problem. It would stiull be forced, but it is reversible. No idea why anyone would want that, though.

Those nano-bots you proposed could also be achieved through science afterwards. It would have to be achieved quickly and it would need some suspending of disbelief (like my edit to ignore the basic principles of evolution, enabling us to evolve our interlect during our lifespan SIGNIFICANTLY), but I think it could be a viable solution to lift organics to level ground with synthetics.

[Linkenski]

 Even though i like what i've read in the OP's post, i still think the whole issue lies in the Catalyst's assumption that "without him to stop it, synthetics WILL destroy all organics" because it ruins everything that could've made the ending immersive.It's clear that the big baddie now is not the reapers nor the catalyst, but instead something that we can only speculate on. How does he know there will be synthetics to kill organics at all?

The big choice in the end, that will become the solution to every major problem that exists is based on uniting all spiecies, continuing the enslavement of the reapers by controlling them or destroying synthetics including the reapers all together (genocide)

Now there's been so much talk around the internet about which choice is better, with people being pro-destroy and pro-control and pro-synthesis with each one arguing about their favorited choice, but i think people simply forget that its a problem based on a wild and out-of-blue-sky assumption.

THE ENDING WILL NEVER MAKE SENSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR CLARITY!

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

This interpretation would also solve the "forced change" problem. It would still be forced, but it is reversible. No idea why anyone would want a reversal, though.

That doesn’t solve the problem, though :happy:

So long as there are pure organics, they can be wiped out. Therefore, the solution must be universal and permanent – or at least appear so to the Catalyst.


(Plus I still don’t think it’s possible for the reapers to be true gestalt intelligences of the base creatures.)

Modifié par lillitheris, 05 mai 2012 - 10:34 .

[Xandurpein]

I really think the three choices are a very bad attempt att making it pseudo-philosophical. The same organic/synthetic dilemma was handled much better, and philosophically more satisfying on Rannoch. The green beam has less to do with Hegelian synthesis and more with the chemistry synthesis. The philosophically satisfying resolution is when with greater understanding, learn to embrace a broader and more complex view of life; where synthetic and organic life can coexist. Not a melting pot where organic and synthetic life is forcefully mashed together to a cyborg grey.

[Ieldra]

@lilitheris:
That doesn't matter. If "pure organics" was what the Catalyst wanted to save, Synthesis wouldn't be a solution. What it wants to save is organic life as a "domain of consciousness", the killing of a number of individuals insignificant compared to the whole does not matter. Else the cycle wouldn't be a solution.
So, no, the solution need not be universal, though it must be permanent on the "domain of consciousness" level with a probability approaching certainty. Which it is, if it initially affects all intelligent life in the galaxy.

@Flexxt:
That wouldn't work because it would leave the implementation of the solution to the species of the galaxy.

@Linkenski:
I agree that we absolutely need more information. It is a thin line to walk on for Bioware, since they obviously want to keep it widely interpretable. But we need grounds for that speculation they want us to do. Speculation in a vacuum is like flying blind. Not fun.

[Flextt]

Xandurpein wrote...

I really think the three choices are a very bad attempt att making it pseudo-philosophical. The same organic/synthetic dilemma was handled much better, and philosophically more satisfying on Rannoch. The green beam has less to do with Hegelian synthesis and more with the chemistry synthesis. The philosophically satisfying resolution is when with greater understanding, learn to embrace a broader and more complex view of life; where synthetic and organic life can coexist. Not a melting pot where organic and synthetic life is forcefully mashed together to a cyborg grey.

I am not really familiar with the philosophic / anthroposophic concepts behind Synthesis and the conflict in general, but I think it's pretty out of place as the ending and its central theme for the end of ME 3. The game's own rhetoric in the ending is watered down by Paragon playthroughs on Rannoch and through EDI, leaving you with a massive "WTF?" in your face when you pay attention to what the Catalyst actually says.
It was a nice sentiment to think ending Mass Effect on an interlectual note was a good idea, but it didn't work out and they made themselves look like actual idiots or idiots, who failed to see the core virtues of their game. (which is not philosophical discourse, imho^^)

[SteJo6sic6]

Some interesting points but it just doesn't make sense to me to choose synthesis. When I was confronted with the choices I was thinking "but the Reapers are already a mesh of organic and synthetic material". Even if they are physically synthetic they still must have some organic make up (all that goo must still be part of them or what's the point of it). So my thinking was if I choose synthesis then am I not just turning the entire galaxy into a form of Reapers and basically letting them win without having to fire another shot.

I agree with the fact that more information is needed on these choices,

[ZombieChad]

Sorry I can't agree with you OP you make some an interesting case but I still find Synthesis horrific. The only source for decision making is Reaper-One who claims responsibility for the whole mess in the first place and all of it's decisions are based on the idea that Synthetics will destroy organics at the first opportunity. Its already stated that the Geth have outpaced organic species in several areas but by and large (except for the Heretics) chose isolation to avoid unnecessary conflict. It's case goes against existing evidence that points towards the fact that AI's can work (and work well) with Organics. It's not the merging of man and machines, if stable cyberware and bioware were available tomorrow I'd augment myself. I found it disgusting that I (well Shepard) would force my (their) choice upon all the species of the Galaxy regardless of any cultural, intellectual or personal beliefs. Then also there is nothing really to stop new synthetics being made anyway unless somehow non-organic materials become semi-alive structures with this new DNA and become sapient life when assembled in a particular way. I find that more than a little creepy.

Destroy breaks the cycle as the Reapers are dead. Whilst this also takes the Geth, EDI and Shep it imposes nothing upon the survivors of the Reaper War instead opening the way for life to truly continue it's evolution and isn't based on the flawed idea that synthetics WILL turn on Organics. Whilst the Organic/Synthetic relationship is hardly friendly at first it’s only like when the Humans and Turians first butted heads during the First Contact War where the Turian's though asteroid drops were fair play to kill a single fire team of Alliance Soldiers.

So sorry Synthesis is still far from attractive but is a horrific choice that makes me sick.

[Ieldra]

Bumping this because a question pertaining to it just came up somewhere else.

[JShepppp]

Great read. Finding threads that explore the possibility of disassociating the Reapers from the Catalyst and the philosophical, moral/ethical, and even practical implications that result are a somewhat rare find on BSN.

I do wish the nature of the Reapers was more explicitly explained in-game rather than a black/white kind of overall evil interpretation. The best evil characters/villains actually believe they're doing good, and we can even understand/respect (not agree with) their point of view. Of course, this is just my opinion - I know a lot of others prefer the Reapers were left unknown, which is cool - but getting a kind of mindless "we're your salvation thru destruction" and not really even fully showing the Reaper creation process makes it seem like there was a lot of missed out potential. Nothing will excuse the Reapers' past actions, but for aliens so supposedly smart, we should at least be able to understand where they're coming from without such massive speculating.

There was also that disconnect between organics fighting against Reapers then suddenly becoming Reaper-ized and working for them, something that is most easily explained away by (a) Catalyst control or ( Reapers don't preserve anything of past organics.

On a personal level, perhaps the idea/hope that those lost souls can find peace in a free existence away from the Catalyst would be a nice thing rather than them all being insane and not worth saving. Tens of thousands of cycles have occurred, and surely there are some great races in there that could have some knowledge to share. This is, of course, all wishful in-universe thinking.

Perhaps, as another note, under Control, Shepard could "selectively" release the "Reapers" and their "minds" by only releasing the peaceful/good ones and not the war-mongering ones. We're not given enough information to find out if this can happen, but if it can, control could also be just as good as synthesis maybe.

TL;DR: I wish this was explained in-game better because there's a lot of potential for a fairly unique backstory here.

[Jadebaby]

on the technological side of it, if the Catalyst was there when the Reapers were created then it could imply that the Catalyst's actual hardware is comprised of the of the base technology for the Reapers aswell, giving out basic things like Indoctrination to the other Reapers. Therefore when Sovereign and Harbinger say taunting and evil things it's the Catalyst exerting his control over them, kind of like Harbinger's "assuming direct control."

[Bill Casey]

The Catalyst is the Reapers...
He's the embodiment of their collective intelligence...

He's like a Katamari ball of brain slurry...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 18 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[Ieldra]

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

Yes, more people need to see this.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

Just to set this straight.  I am aware of the, shall we say unfortunate, side affects of destroy. I don't think the reaper ned to be set free or anything.  I kill them because it secrues organics the right to self determination wihtout the reaper's meddling. The geth are an unfortunate consequence of this.

EDiT:  my grammar is terrible:crying:

Modifié par Steelcan, 26 octobre 2012 - 10:52 .

[ziyon conqueror]

I still seek to destroy the Reapers. They committed crimes that both organics and synthetics would abhor. To do that, we need a DLC to modify the Crucible to do what we want

[rekn2]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

i said this in the other thread. in the context of the game their view is supported by the narrative. theres lots of examples like proj overlord. i keep bringing up bad writing and im right. the fact that EC makes synthesis all butterflies and rainbows is completely against what the writers have been telling us from the very first game.

[Mcfly616]

Steelcan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

I kill them because it secrues organics the right to self determination wihtout the reaper's meddling. The geth are an unfortunate consequence of this.

This...


And as the Catalyst said, the synthetics will come back. We will undoubtedly create them.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:11 .

[rekn2]

the fact that synthesis is a good ending, and it is a good ending, is completely left field. the fact that anyone likes it is because of the slides. people cite edi and the reapers helping rebuild as a justification yet those occurrences had no foreshadowing or lead up at all.


we sit in a position of privilege. if sheph were real he/she would have no idea that the reapers would help etc during the decision making process. in fact, my first play through i picked synthesis because i was pissed off at the ending and thought it would turn everyone and everything into husks. blew me away that it was a "good" ending.

synthesis is lore breaking in the narrative, it would be like me putting a gun to your head, pulling the trigger and you becoming Superman. realities narrative would suggest a different outcome ROFL.

Modifié par rekn2, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:36 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

rekn2 wrote...
the fact that synthesis is a good ending, and it is a good ending, is completely left field. the fact that anyone likes it is because of the slides. people cite edi and the reapers helping rebuild as a justification yet those occurrences had no foreshadowing or lead up at all.

we sit in a position of privilege. if sheph were real he/she would have no idea that the reapers would help etc during the decision making process. in fact, my first play through i picked synthesis because i was pissed off at the ending and thought it would turn everyone and everything into husks. blew me away that it was a "good" ending.

synthesis is lore breaking in the narrative, it would be like me putting a gun to your head, pulling the trigger and you becoming Superman. realities narrative would suggest a different outcome ROFL.

You probably have a point about the slides. I was firmly pro-Control before the EC was released. These days I waver back and forth between Control and Synthesis, mostly because I don't like the idea of keeping the Reapers as slaves and enforcers. If I headcanon it to assume that they are non-hostile once freed from the Catalyst and that AI-Shepard is leading them by consensus, then it seems better.

However, I don't think the narrative necessarily points towards something like Synthesis always being dangerous and destructive. Shepard is partly synthetic in ME2 and ME3, and if you broker peace between the quarians and the geth, Tali tells you later that geth subroutines have been integrated into quarian biosuits to speed the process of re-adapting to Rannoch.

Project Overlord went haywire, obviously, but I'm not sure if that was really a case of synthesis at the level of individual beings. And at least part of it is attributable to the fact that David really wasn't ready for it and lost control.

[Headcount]

Just a curious question. In regards to the synthesis ending, with everyone now having glowing green eyes and skin. Eventually they will travel to other galaxies and what the heck will happen if they meet other life forms (non-synthesis). Will they try to spread the joy of synthesis but what if the others races outright reject it? I mean, it seems it boils down to either you are with us or against us. Organics and non-organics can't co-exist and being different is very, very bad. Being one of us is good, you’ll see.   Now stand still and stop screaming while we hit you with this green beam. Oh, now you are shooting at us! Very bad, now we have to send in the Reapers.   Wars are messy and some worlds will be lost but it’s for a good purpose. We are your salvation after all.

[rekn2]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

rekn2 wrote...
the fact that synthesis is a good ending, and it is a good ending, is completely left field. the fact that anyone likes it is because of the slides. people cite edi and the reapers helping rebuild as a justification yet those occurrences had no foreshadowing or lead up at all.

we sit in a position of privilege. if sheph were real he/she would have no idea that the reapers would help etc during the decision making process. in fact, my first play through i picked synthesis because i was pissed off at the ending and thought it would turn everyone and everything into husks. blew me away that it was a "good" ending.

synthesis is lore breaking in the narrative, it would be like me putting a gun to your head, pulling the trigger and you becoming Superman. realities narrative would suggest a different outcome ROFL.

You probably have a point about the slides. I was firmly pro-Control before the EC was released. These days I waver back and forth between Control and Synthesis, mostly because I don't like the idea of keeping the Reapers as slaves and enforcers. If I headcanon it to assume that they are non-hostile once freed from the Catalyst and that AI-Shepard is leading them by consensus, then it seems better.

However, I don't think the narrative necessarily points towards something like Synthesis always being dangerous and destructive. Shepard is partly synthetic in ME2 and ME3, and if you broker peace between the quarians and the geth, Tali tells you later that geth subroutines have been integrated into quarian biosuits to speed the process of re-adapting to Rannoch.

Project Overlord went haywire, obviously, but I'm not sure if that was really a case of synthesis at the level of individual beings. And at least part of it is attributable to the fact that David really wasn't ready for it and lost control.

i didnt mean it as synthetics are bad i ment it as a joining of human and synthetic is written as bad

[Ieldra]

Headcount wrote...
Just a curious question. In regards to the synthesis ending, with everyone now having glowing green eyes and skin. Eventually they will travel to other galaxies and what the heck will happen if they meet other life forms (non-synthesis). Will they try to spread the joy of synthesis but what if the others races outright reject it? I mean, it seems it boils down to either you are with us or against us. Organics and non-organics can't co-exist and being different is very, very bad. Being one of us is good, you’ll see.   Now stand still and stop screaming while we hit you with this green beam. Oh, now you are shooting at us! Very bad, now we have to send in the Reapers.   Wars are messy and some worlds will be lost but it’s for a good purpose. We are your salvation after all.

First, travel of other galaxies is a long way in the future. I wouldn't worry about that for a considerable time. Take the distances in the galaxy and multiply them by 100.
Second, I don't see why Synthesis has to spread by violence. That's just silly. People will come into contact with others and maybe they'll try to convincve them, maybe not. I don't see why co-existence isn't possible.
Third, the green eyes and circuit patterns aren't real, they're an artistic representation of mostly invisible changes.

[Ticonderoga117]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm calling this old thread up because there appears to be a new wave of Synthesis hate out there, with people arguing that killing Reapers is "putting them out of their misery". This kind of thinking results in forced euthanasia. Nobody has the right to determine if another's life is worth living. I find the hypocrisy quite galling: on one hand people accuse Synthesis supporters of all kinds of atrocities, on the other they're blind to a mindset that results in their own...

Ok, so you have just been melted and then uploaded into a space squid body where your mind becomes meshed with thousands of others. You think you're going to stay sane? Hardly.

Plus, the Reapers are murders of untold billions and they need to go.