267 réponses à ce sujet

[Kroguard]

 On my first playthrough of Mass Effect 3, I chose what perhaps most players of all three games chose to do: destroy the reapers. When presented with the three options, I believed this to be a moral choice with the only downside being the destruction of the mass relay network. 

It was on my second playthrough where I chose synthesis. Many die-hard fans of the series see the synthesis ending as "immoral" and "disgusting" as it is akin to what Saren promoted. What makes destruction so much more moral? All of the advanced artificial intelligences throughout the galaxy (Geth, EDI, etc.) are wiped out, sacrificed to destroy the reapers. They were not given any choice in their destruction so what right does Shepard have to destroy them? With the reaper upgrades, individual Geth platforms were given all the capabilities and many features of their organic counterparts. 

Oh Synthesis... where to begin? What REALLY makes it so evil besides the nondescript rants of fans who label it so immoral? While it is a "forced" genetic rewrite of all organics in the galaxy is it not more acceptable than the only other real option which is destruction? No civilization (synthetic or organic) is entirely wiped out, organics and synthetics are merged together, which creates a "new DNA". This means that the reapers no longer have a reason to harvest advanced civilizations, AI like the Geth and EDI still get to exist, and no organic race is destroyed and (depending on EMS levels for individual players) earth is spared. 

Synthesis is the ending of peace. Organic civilizations would most likely develop advanced AI that would come to destroy them as evidenced by several things throughout the Mass Effect universe, the most obvious being the Morning War and Project Overlord. Synthetic and organic civilizations no longer have a reason to clash and the reapers have no further need to harvest advanced life. 

Many point out the Zha'til as prime evidence for why synthesis is wrong. But the Zha'til were organics combined with AIs which were exploited by the reapers upon their arrival. From what we can tell, those affected by Synthesis are not turned into genetic monsters as the zha'til were. 

I won't say that Synthesis is necessarily the best or the worst option out there... but I will say we should wait for that DLC on the truth to come out before commenting on its effects throughout the galaxy. 

Let the debate begin

UPDATE: "Respectfully, I think people are leaking their dislike of the style of how the endings were presented with the assumption that synthesis is "stagnation" or "destroying diversity". There is nothing in the game that suggests this. Instead, the Adam/Eve scene between Joker and EDI indicate that synthesis preserved individuality but seemed to tear down the barriers between organic and synthetic life (represented by EDI laying her head on Joker's shoulder) and thus possibly break the cycle of organic extinction by synthetics."

I couldn't have said it better myself, props to Nategator.

UPDATE #2 - Proponents of destroy, please use something other then "synthesis will turn everything into husks" - we clearly see this is not the case in the cutscene and that organics and synthetics appear to maintain most of their characteristics, including their free will. Also, this is not a debate on scientific believability, no three endings are in line with science at all and the work is a piece of science FICTION. I again stress that this is entirely focused on the morality of the three decisions presented the player based on evidence given throughout previous Mass Effect games. 

I hope everyone has enjoyed the debate!
Remember to keep it respectful though guys. 
I've seen some good points both for and against synthesis, keep it up!

Modifié par Kroguard, 08 mai 2012 - 04:17 .

[pro5]

You're so indoctrinated. 

You could have resisted, you could have fought! Instead you surrendered, you quit!

[Kroguard]

You seem to be going with the flow...
Your indoctrination is complete.

[Jere85]

We would have so many new races... the Refridgerators... the frigates.. Toaster ovens... and dont forget about Televisions.

[Kroguard]

Jere85 wrote...

We would have so many new races... the Refridgerators... the frigates.. Toaster ovens... and dont forget about Televisions.

Maybe somewhere in your mild criticism you forgot the proper spelling of refrigerator? 

[lordofdogtown19]

I just finished ME1 the other day and it was amazing to me how similar synthesis is to what Saren wanted.

[stysiaq]

With the power of the Gray Skull, I summon The Angry One to this thread!

[Mike 9987]

I chose synthesis on my first playthrough because i didn't understand how to choose and just walked forward and it started.

Modifié par Mike 9987, 06 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[DJBare]

Decide the fate of an entire galaxy or the fate of a single species, decisions decisions.

[fr33stylez]

WHY would a forced rewrite of all organic and synthetic 'DNA' result in peace? This is my first question.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Synthetics is the most repugnant vile ending to any game ever imagined, I can not imagine anything more outright evil than forcibly changing all life in a galaxy permanently.

With Synthetics you violate one of the absolute most basic rights of any kind of life - The right to attempt to sire the next generation - sure there will still be plants and bacteria, Krogan and thresher maws and they will still have offspring but it wont be theirs, Instead it will be the continuation of this new DNA that you as Shepard has forced upon them, Nothing the reapers did comes even close to this type of violation.

And Bioware states that it's the "best" ending..seriously have you had your morality checked lately?

[KosakNZ]

Kroguard wrote...

 On my first playthrough of Mass Effect 3, I chose what perhaps most players of all three games chose to do: destroy the reapers. When presented with the three options, I believed this to be a moral choice with the only downside being the destruction of the mass relay network. 

It was on my second playthrough where I chose synthesis. Many die-hard fans of the series see the synthesis ending as "immoral" and "disgusting" as it is akin to what Saren promoted. What makes destruction so much more moral? All of the advanced artificial intelligences throughout the galaxy (Geth, EDI, etc.) are wiped out, sacrificed to destroy the reapers. They were not given any choice in their destruction so what right does Shepard have to destroy them? With the reaper upgrades, individual Geth platforms were given all the capabilities and many features of their orgaic counterparts. 

Except are they? You're taking the word of someone who is essentially your enemy that all sythetic life is wiped out.

Kroguard wrote...
Oh Synthesis... where to begin? What REALLY makes it so evil besides the nondescript rants of fans who label it so immoral? While it is a "forced" genetic rewrite of all organics in the galaxy is it not more acceptable than the only other real option which is destruction? No civilization (synthetic or organic) is entirely wiped out, organics and synthetics are merged together, which creates a "new DNA". This means that the reapers no longer have a reason to harvest advanced civilizations, AI like the Geth and EDI still get to exist, and no organic race is destroyed and (depending on EMS levels for individual players) earth is spared.

Synthesis is the ending of peace. Organic civilizations would most likely develop advanced AI that would come to destroy them as evidenced by several things throughout the Mass Effect universe, the most obvious being the Morning War and Project Overlord. Synthetic and organic civilizations no longer have a reason to clash and the reapers have no further need to harvest advanced life. 

Really?
Lets Ignore the moral repugnancy of saying we should all be the same, rather than learning to accept our differences. Because you should already be aware of it.

How exactly does it solve anything? Why would the reapers stop attacking? Presumably new organic life can still arise, presumably we can still create pure synthetic life. Presumably the organogeth still consider the sythenoquarians to be their creators.

The synthetic and organic races never had any reason to clash in the first place on purely organic vs synthetic grounds, so if the points of contention are still there then there will still be war between the created and theirs creators.

[Vox Draco]

Kroguard wrote...
Synthesis is the ending of peace. Organic civilizations would most likely develop advanced AI that would come to destroy them as evidenced by several things throughout the Mass Effect universe, the most obvious being the Morning War and Project Overlord. Synthetic and organic civilizations no longer have a reason to clash and the reapers have no further need to harvest advanced life. 

Hmmm...you seem to be more convinced of this than...the catalyst? Just remember:

Shepard: "And...there will be peace?"

Catalyst: "The cycle will end, synthesis is the final evolution of life"

He seems to prefer to avoid a straightforward answer to this simple question...its better than outright lying, I guess. Especially when you want your main adversary to jump into a death-laser...

But a good point about organics don't need to fight any longer against synthetics. Because now the new half-synthetics finally have more time to fight each other! Guess the half-synthetic Krogans will wipte the floor with the half-synthetic Salarians!

And the Reapers just shut down or settle somewhere nice? Or maybe all half-synthetics could unite and wipe the Reapers out for good, you know, because they are responsible for the genetic violation and killed billions of lifes and families...

But how could we achieve all this? We newly-made half-synthetics might need an edge over the other blasphemic half-synthetics or the accursed Reapers...mabe artifical soldiers? Made of full organic DNA? Or an army of battle-robots...hmm...at least synthesis gave us a peaceful galaxy! *chuckles*

No...I don't think synthesis can bring peace to the galaxy, or even that it is a solution to this problem that only exists in the catalysts mind...

Modifié par Vox Draco, 06 mai 2012 - 08:14 .

[zambingo]

Control = Play God
Synthesis = Play God
Destroy = Kill the Villain who was Playing God

Shepard has one job, end the Reaper threat. Shepard isn't there to force Reaper DNA onto every organic. Shepard isn't there to become the new Starchild. Shepard is there to kick ass. People worry about EDI and Legion/The Geth... they are causalities of war (if they do in fact perish, that's open for debate). Starchild/The Reapers are an assassin's mark begging Shepard to not kill them and instead complete their plan. Shepard, the Ultimate Blunt Instrument, needs to complete the mission and destroy those SOBs. The united Galactic Fleets aren't fighting to be turned into toasters and they aren't fighting to prop Shepard up as the next Reaper "God". Life, capital L, is fighting for self determination... it is Shepard's job to give Life that chance.

[111987]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Synthetics is the most repugnant vile ending to any game ever imagined, I can not imagine anything more outright evil than forcibly changing all life in a galaxy permanently.

Nothing the reapers did comes even close to this type of violation.

Seriously? The Reapers did the same thing (forced species to change permanently), plus they also committed mass, galactic-wide genocide. What the Reapers did was way worse.

Anacronian Stryx wrote...
With Synthetics you violate one of the absolute most basic rights of any kind of life - The right to attempt to sire the next generation - sure there will still be plants and bacteria, Krogan and thresher maws and they will still have offspring but it wont be theirs, Instead it will be the continuation of this new DNA that you as Shepard has forced upon them.

And Bioware states that it's the "best" ending..seriously have you had your morality checked lately?

Have you ever heard of Rousseau's concept of the General Will? Basically he talks about how that sometimes, what is best for the community (or in this case, the galaxy) isn't always what the majority wants. Sometimes leaders (in this case, Shepard) have to make the decision that is best, rather than what is most morally acceptable, or what the majority wants, etc...

[Peranor]

I reject synthesis mostly on the grounds of it being utter nonsense and an insult to players intelligence. The whole thing is just silly and unrealistic within the laws of the Mass Effect universe. Unrealistic in a bad writing kind of way.
And if the nonsense alone wasn't reason enough for me to reject it there is always the moral aspect.

[Kroguard]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Synthetics is the most repugnant vile ending to any game ever imagined, I can not imagine anything more outright evil than forcibly changing all life in a galaxy permanently.

With Synthetics you violate one of the absolute most basic rights of any kind of life - The right to attempt to sire the next generation - sure there will still be plants and bacteria, Krogan and thresher maws and they will still have offspring but it wont be theirs, Instead it will be the continuation of this new DNA that you as Shepard has forced upon them, Nothing the reapers did comes even close to this type of violation.

And Bioware states that it's the "best" ending..seriously have you had your morality checked lately?

Don't resort to petty insults please, keep the debate clean for all and don't insult anyone. 

According to destroy, I am wiping out an entire species to do what exactly? Stop the reapers? Could you have so easily killed every human man, woman, and child in the galaxy to stop the reapers? 

Synthesis is another option. I am not destroying anything, only rewriting. This rewrite is "forced" but it isn't equivalent to the forced extinction of an entire race and many other fully self-aware AI throughout the galaxy. Peace is assured because synthetics and organics now share many features of the other, though Bioware is nondescript in what these features are. Until the DLC comes out, don't assume the worst and don't assume the best. Think objectively. 

[Vox Draco]

Kroguard wrote...

Until the DLC comes out, don't assume the worst and don't assume the best. Think objectively. 

Exactly what my Shepard does. With the amount of information and concernin their dubious source, the only obejctive way currently is to destroy the Reapers and don't take any risks with the galaxy at stake. Anything else, both control and synthesis, are based on mere wishful thinking, for both good or bad. Not the base to make a decision of this importance...at least not for my Shepards

But I still hope they rather concentrate on closure than clarification. I don't think the latter will work until you radically alter everything concerning starchild, the choices, and their reasons...but that's another topic...

[Kroguard]

KosakNZ wrote...
Really?
Lets Ignore the moral repugnancy of saying we should all be the same, rather than learning to accept our differences. Because you should already be aware of it.

Where exactly did I say we should all be the same? Because we would all share similar features of DNA? I fail to see how this makes everybody "the same". Do I need to explain the basics of how DNA works? Hopefully not, but keep in mind that humans share 96% of their DNA (slighty more or less depending on the study) with their closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. Genetic rewrite and the process of creating a "new DNA" does not make everyone the same, it simply gives the organics more features of synthetics and vice versa. 

[Anacronian Stryx]

111987 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Synthetics is the most repugnant vile ending to any game ever imagined, I can not imagine anything more outright evil than forcibly changing all life in a galaxy permanently.

Nothing the reapers did comes even close to this type of violation.

Seriously? The Reapers did the same thing (forced species to change permanently), plus they also committed mass, galactic-wide genocide. What the Reapers did was way worse.

The reapers only enforce their will on advanced species - Synthetics affect ALL life, From amoeba to thresher maws, plants bacteria plus also all the sentient life in the galaxy that haven't been discovered yet (In ME only 1% of the galaxy has been explored due to the rachni doctrine) - the reapers could do a million more harvest without affecting as much life as the Synthetics
does.

Anacronian Stryx wrote...
With Synthetics you violate one of the absolute most basic rights of any kind of life - The right to attempt to sire the next generation - sure there will still be plants and bacteria, Krogan and thresher maws and they will still have offspring but it wont be theirs, Instead it will be the continuation of this new DNA that you as Shepard has forced upon them.

And Bioware states that it's the "best" ending..seriously have you had your morality checked lately?

Have you ever heard of Rousseau's concept of the General Will? Basically he talks about how that sometimes, what is best for the community (or in this case, the galaxy) isn't always what the majority wants. Sometimes leaders (in this case, Shepard) have to make the decision that is best, rather than what is most morally acceptable, or what the majority wants, etc...

Perhaps you should reread Discourse on Political Economy because Rousseau's point is the exact opersite than what you line up here.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 06 mai 2012 - 08:37 .

[Iakus]

Kroguard wrote...

Oh Synthesis... where to begin? What REALLY makes it so evil besides the nondescript rants of fans who label it so immoral? While it is a "forced" genetic rewrite of all organics in the galaxy is it not more acceptable than the only other real option which is destruction? No civilization (synthetic or organic) is entirely wiped out, organics and synthetics are merged together, which creates a "new DNA". This means that the reapers no longer have a reason to harvest advanced civilizations, AI like the Geth and EDI still get to exist, and no organic race is destroyed and (depending on EMS levels for individual players) earth is spared. 

Is submission not preferable to extinction?  

Modifié par iakus, 06 mai 2012 - 08:43 .

[KosakNZ]

Kroguard wrote...

KosakNZ wrote...
Really?
Lets Ignore the moral repugnancy of saying we should all be the same, rather than learning to accept our differences. Because you should already be aware of it.

Where exactly did I say we should all be the same? Because we would all share similar features of DNA? I fail to see how this makes everybody "the same". Do I need to explain the basics of how DNA works? Hopefully not, but keep in mind that humans share 96% of their DNA (slighty more or less depending on the study) with their closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. Genetic rewrite and the process of creating a "new DNA" does not make everyone the same, it simply gives the organics more features of synthetics and vice versa. 

Great you missed the point, and apparently didn't read the rest of my post. Synthesis was supposed so remove enough differences to make everyone just get along, or at least that was the argument supplied by the enemy.

Your argument here merely states you agree with the latter portion of my post, you're saying it doesn't really change anything. So why are we doing it again? Why would the reapers stop attacking if we did it?

[Geneaux486]

The Crucible in and of itself is making the best of a bad situation. Synthesis presents a moral dilema, but so do the other two choices. I mean you either make one of three difficult choices or the Reapers kill everyone.

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...

KosakNZ wrote...
Really?
Lets Ignore the moral repugnancy of saying we should all be the same, rather than learning to accept our differences. Because you should already be aware of it.

Where exactly did I say we should all be the same? Because we would all share similar features of DNA? I fail to see how this makes everybody "the same". Do I need to explain the basics of how DNA works? Hopefully not, but keep in mind that humans share 96% of their DNA (slighty more or less depending on the study) with their closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. Genetic rewrite and the process of creating a "new DNA" does not make everyone the same, it simply gives the organics more features of synthetics and vice versa. 

Oh? And which features are the ones that, if they are changed, war stops?

What comes out of Javik's mouth is basically the closest thing to a coherent argument about why synthetics destroy organics that Mass Effect ever produced.



His argument is pretty straight forward: we create synthetics for reason X and reason Y. As a consequence, there are two major points of contention between synthetics and organics:

(1) Organics are mortal, while Synthetics are immortal (which is a flaw in Organics because they are subject to time)
(2) Synthetics exist for a purpose (by virtue of their creation) which they can be designed and perfected to pursue, while Organics don't know the purpose behind their existence. 

So, if you believe these two major points of contradiction are the ones that make conflict inevitable (make genocide inevitable), they're the ones that need to be overcome through change. How do you do that?

First, you must either make organics immortal, or make synthetics mortal (and force them to have some kind of reproductive mechanism). Either way this is a massive violation. If it's the first option, you've just suddenly changed all organic life irrevocably and without its permission. If it's the second option, you've just changed all synthetic life - and, in a sense, killed all of them, just more slowly than destroy.

Second, you must either brainwash the entire galaxy into being unable to recognize where synthetic life emerged from in the first place (which doesn't help if you later invent new synthetic life), in order to eliminate all knowledge of the purpose that Synthetics were originally designed for. Or, alternatively, you can modify all organic life to give it an inherent, obvious purpose.

For synthesis to even be able to begin to claim that it produces peace (a claim which is highly questionable regardless), it must make changes of these types. Are you okay with this?

Modifié par Helm505, 06 mai 2012 - 08:48 .

[jstme]

I am not trying to force my opinion onto you, you asked for debate so i present to you how i see this option:
/Rant on
Synthesis:
People/creatures in ME universe that i associate with it: Saren,reapers,husks. Look at Prothean "vision" - all that hardware going through the living tissue.
Connotation - negative.

Giant green wave that merges organics and AI. All over the galaxy. In a matter of seconds-minutes. Including leaves. And Joker's hat.
Presentation of the option: rediculous and offends my (limited ) intelligence.

How does it work? DNA as a complex is nothing more then interactive blueprint of individual, it is basically a code made of 4 types of different DNA molecules that are connected by specific pairs between each other. Sequence contains the info (among other things) for creation and "maintanence" of the organism. If you zoom in though, it is basically a complex chemical machine, there are specific proteins that package it, activate it, check for errors, unpack it, replicate it. Every protein connects to specific area of the strand using various physical/chemical means,change the area on the strand or on the protein enough, and it will all fall apart.
So green wave creates new DNA. And? How it will all function with extremely complex thing we allready got going on there? And do not forget ,there are numeorus living organisms with different basic mechanics of life.
Now go "up" to tissues --> organs ---> systems ---> individual. It is all extremely complex and function depends on correct interaction of it all. There is certain window for flexibility, but suddenly sticking part of geth platform instead of brain will not cut it.
Geth are software. They "live" in platform. As an experiment how this merge will work out, pull capacitor on the motherboard out and replace it with raw steak. Do it on your own risk though.
What wave consider a synthetic suitable for merge? Will very advanced computer will do?
So details of the option and its execution are crazy. It is impossible.

On a higher level, any organic organ/tissue is less suitable for any task then specifically designed artificial one. Always. In everything. This merger will eventually create synthetics and synthetics alone, without any organic part. Inevitable. And since it happens to every living organism (digital leaves) it basically kills nature and evolution and repalces it with order of machines.
Moral implications - brrrr awful.
/rant off

Modifié par jstme, 06 mai 2012 - 08:45 .