267 réponses à ce sujet

[fr33stylez]

Another question: Why is there the assumption that if Synthetics for whatever dumb  reason Starchild gives, eventually decide to attempt to kill all organics, they would win?

Are we forgetting we are playing a game where we fight the most power synthetic race in the galaxy? Why is it some foregone conclusion that synthetics would kill all organics? The only potential scenario we see this playing out is with the Reapers, and apparently we defeat them. Now we're supposed to believe if we create synthetics, that for some reason have no conscious and are openly hostile, organics would just keel over and die?

Modifié par fr33stylez, 08 mai 2012 - 12:53 .

[paxbanana3915]

fr33stylez wrote...

Another question: Why is there the assumption that if Synthetics for whatever dumb  reason Starchild gives, eventually decide to attempt to kill all organics, they would win?

Are we forgetting we are playing a game where we fight the most power synthetic race in the galaxy? Why is it some foregone conclusion that synthetics would kill all organics? The only potential scenario we see this playing out is with the Reapers, and apparently we defeat them. Now we're supposed to believe if we create synthetics, that for some reason have no conscious and are openly hostile, organics would just keel over and die?

This is what happens when someone decides to be cutsey and have a "high-writing" ending. You get nonsense, hand-waving, and your creepy, omnipotent antagonists are reduced to nonsensical stupids. I know your quesitons are rhetorical, but the only way they can be answered is: because of awful writing.

[fr33stylez]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Another question: Why is there the assumption that if Synthetics for whatever dumb  reason Starchild gives, eventually decide to attempt to kill all organics, they would win?

Are we forgetting we are playing a game where we fight the most power synthetic race in the galaxy? Why is it some foregone conclusion that synthetics would kill all organics? The only potential scenario we see this playing out is with the Reapers, and apparently we defeat them. Now we're supposed to believe if we create synthetics, that for some reason have no conscious and are openly hostile, organics would just keel over and die?

This is what happens when someone decides to be cutsey and have a "high-writing" ending. You get nonsense, hand-waving, and your creepy, omnipotent antagonists are reduced to nonsensical stupids. I know your quesitons are rhetorical, but the only way they can be answered is: because of awful writing.

The sad part is that we're left to speculate what the writers were trying to communicate to us. I don't even feel like we can truly analyze the writing in depth because to date, I'm not even sure what was presented to me in the ending.

[paxbanana3915]

fr33stylez wrote...
The sad part is that we're left to speculate what the writers were trying to communicate to us. I don't even feel like we can truly analyze the writing in depth because to date, I'm not even sure what was presented to me in the ending.

What was presented to us at the end of ME3?

Must... Resist... Using... ohgawdIcan'tstopit:

SPACEMAGIC!

[feliciano2040]

vv238email wrote...

My point is that as long as you allow free will there will also be prejudice. Always. It is in the nature of organics to be prejudiced, its how we survive.
Saying that making everyone the same is the only way to end violence is racist beyond all belief and not even true.

First, you're contradicting yourself, if I am a racist (which I'm not, god knows what logic jump you took to get there) then by default you should be congratulating me, for I would be a prejudiced person.

Second, there's absolutely no sense in prejudice as a biological factor for survival, it's ridiculous, nobody lives by hating on others, the only thing prejudice creates is irrational violence, which serves no one.

AGAIN:

Synthesis --> Differences between organics and synthetics cease to exist, both evolve into a new form of life, and thus, THE REAL cycle of extinction is terminated, all living beings can move on and have a future of their own, without the interference of The Catalyst or The Reapers.

Modifié par feliciano2040, 08 mai 2012 - 01:33 .

[paxbanana3915]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Synthesis --> Differences between organics and synthetics cease to exist, both evolve into a new form of life, and thus, THE REAL cycle of extinction is terminated, all living beings can move on and have a future of their own, without the interference of The Catalyst or The Reapers.

This is a tangent, but:

What? Extinction...terminated?

So you're saying synthesis will stop poaching, deforestation, plagues, and natural disasters? I guess it would have to, since assuming the 'apex of evolution' means no more evolution, things are not gonna survive large-scale pressures like those I listed.

[Kroguard]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

feliciano2040 wrote...

Synthesis --> Differences between organics and synthetics cease to exist, both evolve into a new form of life, and thus, THE REAL cycle of extinction is terminated, all living beings can move on and have a future of their own, without the interference of The Catalyst or The Reapers.

This is a tangent, but:

What? Extinction...terminated?

So you're saying synthesis will stop poaching, deforestation, plagues, and natural disasters? I guess it would have to, since assuming the 'apex of evolution' means no more evolution, things are not gonna survive large-scale pressures like those I listed.

There can be no "apex" to evolution as evolution is not headed in one direction. Evolution is a process in which the "strongest" survive, strongest being determined as a reproductive measure. When people are saying "more evolved" they dont really understand the implications of what they are saying. When people today say such things, they often mean that humanity is the "most evolved" because of our brainpower and our technological capabilities. But there is no "apex" to evolution, the process goes on and on and does NOT aim for a specific high or low point. Those who acquire favorable traits survive to reproduce, those who do not die off. In many cases, even that isn't true. Sometimes, evolution can give organisms traits that are unnecessary or inadequate. It is solely determined by those who live to pass on their genes. The catalyst was most likely saying "apex" to point out that there could be no greater civilizations than organo-synthetic hybrids. Until the new DLC comes out, we simply don't know what he meant here. 

[nategator]

I think that people are getting confused by the concept of a ME3 ending.

Arguing that you have to prove Synthesis will 100% work for it to be a defensible choice is a straw man. That's because none of the choices will result in a perfect future. Why? Because then there would never be a ME4.

Instead, all you are told is that all 3 endings end the threat of the Reapers. Synthesis, even as a correct choice, will not end war or conflict. Otherwise there would be no ME4. And we know that there will be an ME4.

Instead, I think it makes sense to map out how the player probably should approach the Synthesis option.

First, they can make an ad hominem attack by stating that since the Godchild is of the reapers, any solution it provides is automatically wrong. This is an attractive conclusion as Shepard has been fighting against the Reapers for 3 games.

Next, the player can question the veracity of the facts the Godchild gives you. How can you trust what he says is true? That without the Reapers every attempt at organic life has resulted in a synthetic apocalypse. Again, the player can choose to reject these facts presented as untrustworthy without sufficient unbiased authority.

Finally, you can question the Godchild's conclusion. That without Synthesis, the most likely outcome will be a war between organic and synthetic life and the synthetics will win, exterminating all organic life. Instead the player can determine that this time will be different, based on personal experiences (Geth/Quarian & EDI). The player can also reject the Synthesis argument on moral grounds like free will and self-determination.

I've laid out the reasons, however, why a player can go through those steps and still choose Synthesis. The important thing to keep in mind is that Bioware intended for all three choices to be "correct" choices. Thus, you decide what your Shepard ultimately chooses while other players get to decide what their Shepard chooses to do.

[paxbanana3915]

Kroguard wrote...

There can be no "apex" to evolution as evolution is not headed in one direction. Evolution is a process in which the "strongest" survive, strongest being determined as a reproductive measure. When people are saying "more evolved" they dont really understand the implications of what they are saying. When people today say such things, they often mean that humanity is the "most evolved" because of our brainpower and our technological capabilities. But there is no "apex" to evolution, the process goes on and on and does NOT aim for a specific high or low point. Those who acquire favorable traits survive to reproduce, those who do not die off. In many cases, even that isn't true. Sometimes, evolution can give organisms traits that are unnecessary or inadequate. It is solely determined by those who live to pass on their genes. The catalyst was most likely saying "apex" to point out that there could be no greater civilizations than organo-synthetic hybrids. Until the new DLC comes out, we simply don't know what he meant here. 

Yeah. I know. But everyone seems to be taking the Catalyst's words at face-value. I was citing that example of how somehow stopping evolution would basically end the galaxy. I honestly think the writers intended "apex of evolution" and "better DNA" exactly as it was presented: pure stupidity.

[vixvicco]

Mike 9987 wrote...

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

LOL! I chose synthesis on my second playthrough of the mission just to see a different coloured explosion.

[Ieldra]

nategator wrote...
I've laid out the reasons, however, why a player can go through those steps and still choose Synthesis. The important thing to keep in mind is that Bioware intended for all three choices to be "correct" choices. Thus, you decide what your Shepard ultimately chooses while other players get to decide what their Shepard chooses to do.

Exactly. All three endings are good endings, as far as any one is good.

The problem is that they described Synthesis in terms that make no sense, so those who ask "but what does actually happen?" are left with nothing but a very vague "combination of synthetics and organics", and even that makes no sense if you try to apply it to all life, as if "synthetic" and "organic" were simple physical attributes.

There is no "final evolution of life", and evolution has no direction, so I have to interpret this as "taking a step forward on some arbitrary scale of artificial evolution" if I am to make anything of it, and the "new DNA" has to be thrown away completely. 

I like the concept of Synthesis, i.e. the idea of melding organic and synthetic life into something greater than the sum of its parts. But the description is insulting to players' intelligence.

BTW, I don't believe it's intentionally stupid. I think it's the result of Mac Walters playing fast and loose with science as has been done more and more often ever after the end of ME1.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mai 2012 - 12:19 .

[Ieldra]

calabazada wrote...
I really hope synthesis doesn't make organics too synthetic-y. After all the reapers could then just inject their code like they did the geth and have an entire galaxy of slaves....Yeah, great plan.

More to the point though, I looked at it like this: Synthesis is the forced genetic rewrite of the entire galaxy against their will without any possible thought of the repercussions. Synthesis destroys self-determinism without any guarantee that things will be better off in the future. As the sith would say, "peace is a lie." Just because synthetic v. organic is gone doesn't mean other wars of galactic proportion won't break out.

You must throw the genetic rewrite out. That's a metaphor for that "new framework" for which no name exists as yet.
Also, how would changing your body chemistry adversely affect your freedom to make choices about your life if your identity is unchanged and your body works as it did before, maybe even better?

The premise for the conflict is that synthetics will always advance faster than organics, surpassing organics, eventually making them obsolete, and when war occurs between them (which always will at some point), synthetics would win every time, eventually confining organics and causing their extinction. It isn't malice, just power dynamics. Synthesis is supposed to solve that problem, and the only way it can plausibly do that is by giving the new hybrids the same advantages that made it possible for synthetics to advance so fast. I have outlined how that may be possible.

BUT, more importantly, even if synthesis magically worked in a way to free the galaxy from future destruction because we are all the same n stuf, the fact remains: the reapers are still alive and kickin. The reapers DO NOT deserve to survive. After all those millenia of genocide, they do not get to just walk away. All of us newly minted hybrids out there want REVENGE!!! So yeah, there is still galactic war. Synthesis = fail

That's applying human notions of retribution to the Reapers. The Reapers are beyond such. It is misapplied and the weakest reason by far to choose Destroy. Also it is plausible to assume that the Reapers are mind-controlled by the Catalyst.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 mai 2012 - 12:37 .

[KosakNZ]

nategator wrote...

Arguing that you have to prove Synthesis will 100% work for it to be a defensible choice is a straw man. That's because none of the choices will result in a perfect future. Why? Because then there would never be a ME4.

(snip)

Finally, you can question the Godchild's conclusion. That without Synthesis, the most likely outcome will be a war between organic and synthetic life and the synthetics will win, exterminating all organic life. Instead the player can determine that this time will be different, based on personal experiences (Geth/Quarian & EDI). The player can also reject the Synthesis argument on moral grounds like free will and self-determination.

I've laid out the reasons, however, why a player can go through those steps and still choose Synthesis. The important thing to keep in mind is that Bioware intended for all three choices to be "correct" choices. Thus, you decide what your Shepard ultimately chooses while other players get to decide what their Shepard chooses to do.

This issue with sythesis is that it can only be a correct choice if the SC/Reapers believe it is sufficient to solve their supposed goal, otherwise they'll just keep on reaping. And since it seems to me the problems between the created and their creators has very little to do with how syntheticy and organicy the various parties are, this doesn't seem like it would change anything at all. There is also the issue of new organic and synthetic races arising.

So since synthesis can only be a solution to the reaper threat if it removes the motivation for the reapers attack, we have to believe that the SC actually thinks it solves his created vs creator war problem. I.E. we have to believe a being who can create a race of super-intelligent death robots is a complete idiot.

[ghost9191]

well my reason for not choosing synthesis has already been said by other people, so i will just put that we do not have enough info to make a right choice. Taking everything the brat says at face value still leaves questions unanswered. First play through i went with destroy, other 2 options just seem like you are playing god so eh. I for one wouldn't want to be changed against my will(say all you want that it doesn't change you but damn it joker didn't glow before) and there is a risk in control that and i wouldn't want to lose everything and be alive in some form of reaper master control unit. that would just be hell for me. to lose everything but still be alive as a reaper thing and never able to do the things you were fighting for.

but again we do not have enough info to argue defend any of the options, just opinoins

Modifié par ghost9191, 08 mai 2012 - 09:28 .

[calabazada]

Ieldra2,

I will tell you how changing body chemistry changes an individual's freedom. It is very simple. You. Have. Changed. Their. Body. Chemisty. Without. Their. Consent. Before you visit any doctor, dentist, etc. you have to sign a consent for treament form. You must agree to be treated. No one in the galaxy has said "uh yeah shep, go ahead. Lets do this." Synthesis is the forcible restructuring (change the verb all you want) of the fibers of every being in the galaxy without any knowledge about what would happen and without asking anyone if they were down for that. Therefore, your freedom to choose what will or will not happen to your body (generally understood as a basic right) is taken from you. Not cool.

Also, how are power dynamics removed by synthesis? It is not eliminated. New Krogans are still going to retain their overall physical prowess, and they are still going to hate the New Salarians. And they conceivably, still have technological capabilities and can devise new ways to affect power distributions.

Finally, I do not see how synthesis removes basic human or alien feelings of retribution. Again, some people might reject being transformed and still hate the reapers for the change being their only option. If you are suggesting that organics will all of a sudden see the wisdom of the reaper ways and be cool and just grab a beer with them, I have to wonder just how much of organic nature is removed during the synthesis process.

[MrAtomica]

DJBare wrote...

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

This.

Synthesis requires an incredibly idealistic imagination to be palatable. A cynic might just assume that the newly created hybrids, split between those who accept the change and those who are repulsed by it, would simply annihilate themselves in a deadly galactic civil war.

[frylock23]

calabazada wrote...

Ieldra2,

I will tell you how changing body chemistry changes an individual's freedom. It is very simple. You. Have. Changed. Their. Body. Chemisty. Without. Their. Consent. Before you visit any doctor, dentist, etc. you have to sign a consent for treament form. You must agree to be treated. No one in the galaxy has said "uh yeah shep, go ahead. Lets do this." Synthesis is the forcible restructuring (change the verb all you want) of the fibers of every being in the galaxy without any knowledge about what would happen and without asking anyone if they were down for that. Therefore, your freedom to choose what will or will not happen to your body (generally understood as a basic right) is taken from you. Not cool.

Also, how are power dynamics removed by synthesis? It is not eliminated. New Krogans are still going to retain their overall physical prowess, and they are still going to hate the New Salarians. And they conceivably, still have technological capabilities and can devise new ways to affect power distributions.

Finally, I do not see how synthesis removes basic human or alien feelings of retribution. Again, some people might reject being transformed and still hate the reapers for the change being their only option. If you are suggesting that organics will all of a sudden see the wisdom of the reaper ways and be cool and just grab a beer with them, I have to wonder just how much of organic nature is removed during the synthesis process.

Also, do you know how and why drugs work? They do it by changing your body chemistry. Psyoactive drugs like Paxil ... yeah, they help stabilize your moods by altering your brain chemistry. I have chronic migraine, and I take an anti-convulsant more commonly used by epileptics to alter my brain chemistry to help me avoid attacks. You know why it works -> It alters my brain chemistry!

What synthesis does alters more than just one aspect of our brain chemistry to tweak one aspect of our lives. So, you can't say that it's a simple thing and there don't seem to be any ill effects just by judging from the short cut scene you saw at the end.

[ZombieChad]

 Posted several times now so just copy/pasting it as from what I can see the argument for Synthesis hasn't changed. So my own hasn't.

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.