267 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

How does synthesis help? Organics become more synthetic, and synthetics become more organic. Any one race can still decide to wipe the other races out. In fact one of those races could even be the reapers. they do kinda have a head start. I spoke to Sovereign. He was not a nice guy.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Kroguard 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.

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?

Sorry but this sentence makes no sense what so ever - are you saying that killing the reapers would kill every man woman and child in the galaxy or..ermm what?
Sorry I'm clueless.

 

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. 

Yeah a rewrite.. how bad can it be, after all you're only changing all life in the galaxy, I mean it's not like living beings have any rights to live, have babies and die like the beings they were born as..hell let's go further lets just change all the generations coming after because why the hell not..

[Kroguard]

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. 
[/quote]

That isn't straightforward. Synthetics are not "immortal", evidence points to the idea that not even the universe itself will last forever. Synthetics are also subject to time... I don't exactly know what you meant there. You just did a great job of arguing for Synthesis by agreeing with the catalyst in that there are always points of contention between organics and synthetics. Sorry but nothing in that argument was valid. 

Modifié par Kroguard, 06 mai 2012 - 09:02 .

[savionen]

Synthesis's problem is that there's not enough information given from Bioware. Synthesis is like solving racism/sexism by turning everyone into a variation of a white male.

Aside from that, what do the Reapers do now? The Catalyst no longer controls them, and they seem to have some semblance of free will. Do they become your allies, do they fly off into the sunset never to return, or do they become your enemies once again since they still need to reproduce, etc.


Can pure-synthetics still be created? It seems possible to create dumb synthetic-organics or pure-synthetics, which completely defeats the purpose of merging.

Do synthetic-organics still need to eat and sleep? If so, is eating a plant now murder since it's sentient?

If synthetic-organics don't need to sleep or eat, it's possible that they don't age either, meaning that the population would become incredibly stagnant and never evolve.

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...
That isn't straightforward. Synthetics are not "immortal", evidence points to the idea that not even the universe itself will last forever. Synthetics are also subject to time... I don't exactly know what you meant there. You just did a great job of arguing for Synthesis by agreeing with the catalyst in that there are always points of contention between organics and synthetics. Sorry but nothing in that argument was valid. 

I pointed out that in the ME universe, there is a single argument made as to what the precise points of contention are between Synthetics and Organics that cause conflict - Javik's. And then, I pointed out what Synthesis would have to actually do to overcome those points of contention if Synthesis did indeed eliminate points of dissonence.

And, using Javik's logic as to the actual points of conflict, Synthesis must do one of two things:

(1) Make all organics immortal OR make all synthetics mortal

AND

(2) Brainwash/engineer all Organics into having a defined purpose OR eliminate all traces of knowledge relating to the origin and purpose of Synthetics

There are two places you can attack what I just did. You can say "Javik is an idiot, those reasons are no good; there's another particular point of conflict that I could identify that you're ignoring", and I would be very curious as to what it is. Or you can say "I'm okay with one of those two options, thus I like Synthesis" in which case I question your personal ethics.

Modifié par Helm505, 06 mai 2012 - 09:11 .

[xsdob]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

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

Incorrect because an even blend of the 2 with no dominating part of the mix is a lot different than a synthetic dominated organic whose organic parts are used as a resource.

Modifié par xsdob, 06 mai 2012 - 09:11 .

[Kroguard]

Sorry to say it Helm505, but I think you seriously misunderstood what I was trying to say...
You base your entire argument off of what the "I'm just a soldier" Prothean has to say? You know, the one who wanted to kill every synthetic from legion to your toaster? He seems like a nonbiased and believable source of information on synthesis...

Modifié par Kroguard, 06 mai 2012 - 09:18 .

[Spectre Impersonator]

I hate synthesis the worst because it makes the least sense and involves the most space magic. I will never choose it. Destroy is by far the best option.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I applaud you, OP, for not being a narrow-minded fool.

[Kroguard]

Thank you. 

Modifié par Kroguard, 06 mai 2012 - 09:17 .

[frylock23]

111987 wrote...


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...

So what? Yes, I am familiar with Rousseau's concept of the "general will" and I reject it. It's basically a justification for most of the worst that humanity's greatest monsters have forced upon society in the name of the nebulous concept of the "Greater Good." It all sounds very noble until you're the one that gets sacrificed by someone else for that concept.

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...

Sorry to say it Helm505, but I think you seriously misunderstood what I was trying to say...
You base your argument entirely on Javik then? The Prothean "I'm just a regular soldier" type of guy? What makes his opinion more valid than anyone elses? How does he all of beings know what must be done to secure peace between synthetics and organics? Oh I forgot... he wanted the destruction of all synthetics on the mere basis of their existence.

 

Okay.

So here's what I want to know: what is it about synthetics and organics that makes conflict at the level of genocide inevitable? And what would synthesis actually have to do to eliminate those problematic characteristics?

In all of Mass Effect, I see only one argument by any party as to what the real problem is, and that's Javik's argument. If his argument is no good, that's fine - personally, I think all arguments on this count are no good, including Javik's. So, if you don't subscribe to his, which do you subscribe to? 

[Kroguard]

frylock23 wrote...

111987 wrote...


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...

So what? Yes, I am familiar with Rousseau's concept of the "general will" and I reject it. It's basically a justification for most of the worst that humanity's greatest monsters have forced upon society in the name of the nebulous concept of the "Greater Good." It all sounds very noble until you're the one that gets sacrificed by someone else for that concept.

So you are are sacrificing the geth for everyone else? Hmm... and you don't believe in this concept? Your argument seems circular. 

Modifié par Kroguard, 06 mai 2012 - 09:24 .

[MeldarthX]

WOW - after its proven in BW's own saves codes - Syth and Control don't matter; save files don't care about thoses........

One it checkmarks - no matter what you do; what your ems is - is Destroy its the only one your saves cares about.......

Aka - syth and control - IT or some form of that.....Destroy is where its at; also already been also proven that casper is lieing.

One with EMS high enough Shep doesn't die; two no geth are ever seen to to die; not a single one. Three EDI's walk out on Destroy isn't a bug.........again proving Casper the Reaper ghost is a lieing little sob......

[Kroguard]

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Sorry to say it Helm505, but I think you seriously misunderstood what I was trying to say...
You base your argument entirely on Javik then? The Prothean "I'm just a regular soldier" type of guy? What makes his opinion more valid than anyone elses? How does he all of beings know what must be done to secure peace between synthetics and organics? Oh I forgot... he wanted the destruction of all synthetics on the mere basis of their existence.

 

Okay.

So here's what I want to know: what is it about synthetics and organics that makes conflict at the level of genocide inevitable? And what would synthesis actually have to do to eliminate those problematic characteristics?

In all of Mass Effect, I see only one argument by any party as to what the real problem is, and that's Javik's argument. If his argument is no good, that's fine - personally, I think all arguments on this count are no good, including Javik's. So, if you don't subscribe to his, which do you subscribe to? 

 I believe synthesis is the best ending based on the information presented to you the player. I base this idea off of evidence provided throughout Mass Effect, the two most important being Project Overlord and the Morning War. Either organics will fear synthetics and try to destroy them, or synthetics will not see a need for organics and will try to do away with them. You further evidence this belief in your willingness to so easily destroy synthetic life for organic life. Synthesis simply allowed me to merge features of the two together (although in a way which was not entirely well explained) instead of sacrificing an entire race. 

[matthewmi]

At least with synthesis you can look forward to deep conversations with your choice of headgear.

[frylock23]

Kroguard wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

111987 wrote...


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...

So what? Yes, I am familiar with Rousseau's concept of the "general will" and I reject it. It's basically a justification for most of the worst that humanity's greatest monsters have forced upon society in the name of the nebulous concept of the "Greater Good." It all sounds very noble until you're the one that gets sacrificed by someone else for that concept.

So you are are sacrificing the geth for everyone else? Hmm... and you don't believe in this concept? Your argument seems circular. 

Well, let's look at the scale of genocide here.

Synthesis -> Sacrifice ALL organic life in the galaxy right down to the smallest fragments of DNA/RNA, so that there is no more organic life and never will be. Funny how in saving everyone from the fear of the Star Brat, we bring about what he was worried about - the end/destruction of all organic life. Also, you can't forget that we will also be sacrificing all synthetic life in this option, too. EDI and the Geth? They won't exactly be EDI and the Geth when this is done. They'll be something else, and we have no way of knowing what. So, we're also sacrificing all synthetic life. So, we're really sacrificing ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT to do this without any idea of what it is we're doing. Oh, and the Reapers live.

Destroy -> Possible sacrifice all synthetic and partially synthetic life, including myself to destroy the Reapers and definitely end the cycle. The Reapers die but likely so will I and many others who may already be dead and who will certainly die if I don't end it now. So, I take a risk that Star Brat is lying.

And, yes, I consider synthesis to be a death for everyone even if they still walk around afterwards because you are effectively killing what they were before as unique organisms/constucts. They will never be that again, and that existence was exterminated by whatever synthesis does.

You can try to argue that synthesis brings about something better, but there is simply no good evidence of that except for a nonsensical cut scene. Unless the EC "shows me the money," synthesis is quite simply the end/death of everything and everyone as far as I am concerned. Your mileage obviously varies.

[nategator]

I think what Bioware was getting at was that the Reapers were one attempt at Synthesis, merging the organic and synthetic into singular god-like beings to preserve the organic component and prevent the inevitable rise and domination of synthetic life. Reapers = reaping = harvesting. Not just extermination.

Think of super-synthetic apocolypse as nuclear armageddon. If you believe that nuclear armageddon is inevitable, then the solution (and perhaps the only solution) is the elimination of nation-states and a singlular worldwide government and culture. The world would be less free and interesting, and a great deal of death would occur in the process, but hummanity would live.

Similarly, the consequence of reaper Synthesis is that individuality is sacrificed for the collective, making organics pseudo-synthetics or each reaper a "nation" without individuals.

Shepard's plotline was, however, demonstrating that synthetics and organics could collaborate together as individual entities voluntarily. In fact, this collaboration could prove to be more effective then the full strength of the Reapers concentrated in the Sol system. From the Catalyst's perspective, the fact that the organic/synthetic (or just organic) alliance achieved "victory" by merging the Crucible with the Catalyst demonstrated to the Catalyst that his solution was flawed.

Now, if you believe that the Catalyst is right in believing that regardless new synthetic life will, in all circumstances, eventually exterminate all organic life, a problem still remains. How to break that synthetic/organic cycle but not adopt the Reaper's cycle? The Catalyst's solution is to try to merge organic and synthetic life while preserving individuality and diversity.

The player, however, can either decide that the Catalyst is full of **** or just plain wrong. He can decide "we'll deal with these supposed super-synthetics our way (and get a head start)" by choosing Destruction or "we'll deal with these supposed super-synthetics by using you as cannon fodder" by choosing Control.

Modifié par nategator, 06 mai 2012 - 09:37 .

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Sorry to say it Helm505, but I think you seriously misunderstood what I was trying to say...
You base your argument entirely on Javik then? The Prothean "I'm just a regular soldier" type of guy? What makes his opinion more valid than anyone elses? How does he all of beings know what must be done to secure peace between synthetics and organics? Oh I forgot... he wanted the destruction of all synthetics on the mere basis of their existence.

 

Okay.

So here's what I want to know: what is it about synthetics and organics that makes conflict at the level of genocide inevitable? And what would synthesis actually have to do to eliminate those problematic characteristics?

In all of Mass Effect, I see only one argument by any party as to what the real problem is, and that's Javik's argument. If his argument is no good, that's fine - personally, I think all arguments on this count are no good, including Javik's. So, if you don't subscribe to his, which do you subscribe to? 

 I believe synthesis is the best ending based on the information presented to you the player. I base this idea off of evidence provided throughout Mass Effect, the two most important being Project Overlord and the Morning War. Either organics will fear synthetics and try to destroy them, or synthetics will not see a need for organics and will try to do away with them. You further evidence this belief in your willingness to so easily destroy synthetic life for organic life. Synthesis simply allowed me to merge features of the two together (although in a way which was not entirely well explained) instead of sacrificing an entire race. 

Okay, so the way you argue it here, the problem isn't that one is organic and the other is synthetic, it's that each one tends to believe something that they shouldn't. So, to succeed in its end goal of avoiding war between organics and synthetics that could lead to genocide, synthesis needs to essentially tamper with the beliefs of each side.

I don't pick destroy at the end to "save organic life over synthetic life." I pick destroy in order to destroy the belief that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. In choosing destroy, after having saved the Geth, I achieve the following:

(1) Proven that war between Organics and Synthetics is not inevitable (by creating a short but productive peace between the Geth and Quarians), thus demonstrating to Organics that Synthetics do not need to be feared merely on the basis of the methods of their construction and intelligence
(2) Killed the Reapers, thus destroying the prime motivating factor behind Synthetics killing Organics once the relationship has passed the initial creator remorse stage, which hopefully is averted by step one.

I sacrifice the Geth not for the sake of Humans or Turians or Asari. But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide.

[Kroguard]

frylock23 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

111987 wrote...


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...

So what? Yes, I am familiar with Rousseau's concept of the "general will" and I reject it. It's basically a justification for most of the worst that humanity's greatest monsters have forced upon society in the name of the nebulous concept of the "Greater Good." It all sounds very noble until you're the one that gets sacrificed by someone else for that concept.

So you are are sacrificing the geth for everyone else? Hmm... and you don't believe in this concept? Your argument seems circular. 

Well, let's look at the scale of genocide here.

Synthesis -> Sacrifice ALL organic life in the galaxy right down to the smallest fragments of DNA/RNA, so that there is no more organic life and never will be. Funny how in saving everyone from the fear of the Star Brat, we bring about what he was worried about - the end/destruction of all organic life. Also, you can't forget that we will also be sacrificing all synthetic life in this option, too. EDI and the Geth? They won't exactly be EDI and the Geth when this is done. They'll be something else, and we have no way of knowing what. So, we're also sacrificing all synthetic life. So, we're really sacrificing ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT to do this without any idea of what it is we're doing. Oh, and the Reapers live.

Destroy -> Possible sacrifice all synthetic and partially synthetic life, including myself to destroy the Reapers and definitely end the cycle. The Reapers die but likely so will I and many others who may already be dead and who will certainly die if I don't end it now. So, I take a risk that Star Brat is lying.

And, yes, I consider synthesis to be a death for everyone even if they still walk around afterwards because you are effectively killing what they were before as unique organisms/constucts. They will never be that again, and that existence was exterminated by whatever synthesis does.

You can try to argue that synthesis brings about something better, but there is simply no good evidence of that except for a nonsensical cut scene. Unless the EC "shows me the money," synthesis is quite simply the end/death of everything and everyone as far as I am concerned. Your mileage obviously varies.

Oh.. so now you are ok with that you so ardently opposed simply because the scale of life and death is changed? Given the cutscenes, I see no evidence that anyone (organic or synthetic) is fundamentally changed at all. You're going to have to do better than circular arguments. 

[jeweledleah]

1. I personally cannot take synthesis at face value. at face value, knowing how reapers are made, how synthetic/organic hybrids are made... I cannot chose to do that to the entire galaxy. ENTIRE GALAXY. not just council races, not just space fairing civilizations - everything.

I always liked prime directive. my biggest issue with Salarians is that they keep interfering, despite disastrous results every single time.

and if were not turned into husks.. how the hell does it even work?

i cannot accept synthesis symbolically either. because homogenization doesn't result in peace. its an illusion. peace needs to be earned. its not just genetically written. unless synthesis brainwashes every living being - peace will not last. and to me, its not just about synthetic/organic conflict. its about ALL conflict. peace is not something that just happens. it has to be worked towards. and no green beam of genetic code altering light can accomlish that. not without altering who we are as well. and THAT's the part that I find unethical.

you know at first i used to think that Geth should be rewritten, to have more allies, because Legion says that they are not organic and its not the same thing as brainwashing. but it sure feels like it. and what is preferable. have your head messed with? or die with your believes intact?

Destruction is a harsh option. but I find synthesis to be much worse. the only option that feels like heroic sacrifice to me - is control. and even then, I have no idea if it even works. because "everything that you are - will be destroyed" so even if intention is to take control of the reapers and then reason with them, getting them to coexist with organics if possible? there's no way of knowing if you get to keep that intention, follow through with it

Destruction... at least what you do is final. no more meddling. and the cost is so... very.... high. but it gives the rest of the galaxy a choice. it allows it to develop independently, at its own pace.

P.S.  given cutscenes, we know everything has synthetic overlay now.  but... if we're not utterly and completely metagaming,  if we are Shepard and as such - we won't get to see those cutscenes.  think about it.  and even with cutscenes, we don't hear them speak, all we see is silence.  and visual changes to appearance.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 06 mai 2012 - 09:42 .

[Kroguard]

Thank you for a well thought out post

Modifié par Kroguard, 06 mai 2012 - 09:45 .

[Kroguard]

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

[SerraAdvocate]

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505: "But for the sake of all the future Synthetic races that will eventually come to be, so that the realization of their existance is not automatically condemned as the first step on the road to genocide."


You sound A LOT like a reaper...

Oh? In what way?

[frylock23]

Kroguard wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

Sorry to say it Helm505, but I think you seriously misunderstood what I was trying to say...
You base your argument entirely on Javik then? The Prothean "I'm just a regular soldier" type of guy? What makes his opinion more valid than anyone elses? How does he all of beings know what must be done to secure peace between synthetics and organics? Oh I forgot... he wanted the destruction of all synthetics on the mere basis of their existence.

 

Okay.

So here's what I want to know: what is it about synthetics and organics that makes conflict at the level of genocide inevitable? And what would synthesis actually have to do to eliminate those problematic characteristics?

In all of Mass Effect, I see only one argument by any party as to what the real problem is, and that's Javik's argument. If his argument is no good, that's fine - personally, I think all arguments on this count are no good, including Javik's. So, if you don't subscribe to his, which do you subscribe to? 

 I believe synthesis is the best ending based on the information presented to you the player. I base this idea off of evidence provided throughout Mass Effect, the two most important being Project Overlord and the Morning War. Either organics will fear synthetics and try to destroy them, or synthetics will not see a need for organics and will try to do away with them. You further evidence this belief in your willingness to so easily destroy synthetic life for organic life. Synthesis simply allowed me to merge features of the two together (although in a way which was not entirely well explained) instead of sacrificing an entire race. 

Overlord was a bad example. You're talking about hooking an autistic individual into an environment that caused him sensory overload. If you know anything about autistic individuals, you know what a bad thing that is. You kind of have to discount David Archer as a rogue VI/AI hybrid because his experience certainly wasn't the norm.

EDI would be a much better example, and look how she turned out once she got past being disoriented.

As for easily destroying synthetic life, I didn't do it easily. In my first and only completed playthrough, I fully intended to side with the Geth against the Quarians even though I love Tali because I thought the Quarians were completely in the wrong and still do. However, when I realized that the Geth collective chose through consensus to ally willingly with the Reapers, for the second time. I went with the Quarians. Practically speaking, I couldn't take the chance that they'd do it again. It was the for the same reason that I didn't rescue the Rachni Queen for the second time.

So, at the end, I didn't have the Geth in the equation. It was only EDI, and EDI had clearly expressed her willingness to die if it meant saving Joker. It wasn't ideal, but I took the risk to opt for deatroy in the hopes that EDI would survive and so would I.