267 réponses à ce sujet

[nategator]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

At some point the player has to be willing to turn off that part of the brain that can distinguish between reality and fantasy in order to enjoy the story.  It is the writer's job to provide enough to let the reader/player engage in that activity.  Obviously, for most folks Bioware didn't get the job done.  

I'm not sure if you arguing synthesis is believable or not, but you're right about a good writer being able to make the unbeleivable believable. Bioware definitely failed in this case.

I tend to nitpick about correctness. I absolutely cannot watch medical dramas because it's all nonsense. Show me an evisceration in a movie and I'll laugh because if that was a real section of gut, it's obviously necrotic. I cringe when someone writes that a character snapped their "medial cruciate ligament". But I didn't bat an eyelash at anything in Mass Effect because it didn't go into enough detail to violate what I know to be truth in everyday life.

Synthesis goes into enough detail that it destroys my suspension of disbelief. The sad thing is that I would have been okay with synthesis (even with the whole "apex of evolution" silliness) except that everyone/everything gets an immediate systemic change to their DNA and doesn't die. Bioware went into too much detail trying to sound techy and threw it phrases like 'evolution' and 'DNA' and completely ignored how we know those things actually work.

I guess for me my first playthrough, I chose synthesis.  In large part this was because I bootstrapped on my experiences from watching BSG (taking the cues I've mentioned like Battlestar News, Tricial Helfer voicing an android, the entire synthetics killing organics argument, the cylon sort of look of the geth, and the memorial wall) and thought this was what the writers were trying to go for.

Then, I went to the forums (dissatisfied like many about the ending and especially the lack of explanation or closure with my squadmates) and ran across IT.  I thought IT failed because it explained too much, but did like the video arguments of someone who argued that Destruction was the only choice.  I thought "interesting, was Bioware actually making a counterargument to Ronald D Moore's argument and adopting the posture that some compromises for peace are inexcusible, that some enemies must be destroyed no matter the cost.  To put it in our reality, must we always reject peace against the Taliban and is Obama commiting a moral wrong for the purposes of expediency?"

So I tweeted an Associate Producer.  He replied back that "all choices are correct choices."  So, I revisited Synthesis and have used this opportunity with the community to explore whether if it had been properly written and explained, Bioware could have made Synthesis a "correct" or morally justified choice.  I'm still on the fence but tilting towards yes, Synthesis could have been an ok choice for Shepard.  I've already put down the logic behind that conclusion in this thread if you're interested, although others have done a better job at this. 

Modifié par nategator, 07 mai 2012 - 03:48 .

[paxbanana3915]

Kroguard wrote...

So you had no problem with all the laws of physics broken throughout the series? This isn't a debate on the scientific veracity of the narrative, only the morality of the three endings presented so far. As a physicist, I can tell you I have NO problem going through the series, it is my favorite to date. I don't expect science from a science fiction series (not to say science fiction hasn't inspired many scientists, including myself). Thank you for your input though

I feel like you missed the entire point of my (and several other) posts about this. A law can be broken, something can be entirely false as long as the author is good enough to write it off. As a student in the medical field, I hardly batted an eyelash at Shepard's resurrection; the way it was presented did not break my suspension of disbelief. (I'll also point out the excellent author Alastair Reynolds as a prime example of how to write science fiction.)

In a sense, you're right; it definitely helps I'm not a physicist. I know enough, however, to be shocked if they were to say "gravity doesn't exist" (or that you can fly across the solar system without the Mass Relays in a couple of years and see your planetary friends on the other side) in the same way I was shocked when they basically said "evolution won't exist".

And I do expect fundamental science in a science fiction series. That's why it's science fiction and not fantasy in space.

I'm sorry if this seemed like an off-topic debate, but I thought it was pertinent. It's hard to debate the morality of a laughably presented ending for me, but here's my input for that:

The entire series is about people (organics and synthetics) working together despite their diversity--and that their diversity itself gives the galactic forces strength. Bioware took that common theme and turned it over on itself, stating that diversity only brings war and the only way to stop war is to make everything uniform. You can debate that races will remain as they are and so on, but the Catalyst says, by using the "apex of evolution" phrase, that everything will stop changing, diversity will be lost, and that's the only way to have peace.

Might as well be dead, in my opinion.

[Ericus]

I'll take your Synthesis and raise you a synthesized Krogan army kicking the crap out of a synthesized Salarian homeworld (for trying to sabotage the genophage cure). Synthesis does not equal peace.

[nategator]

fr33stylez wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Deepo78 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

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

Agreed, also why would Synthesis even matter for the Geth considering they exist primarily as software and perceive their physical bodies as mere platforms. Other than being pretty dumb, Synthesis seems pretty hollow to me.

No one who paid any attention to what The Catalyst said is claiming that there will be peace, only that it will end The Cycle which is peace between synthetics and organics, not peace among the Synthesized.

As for The Geth, it's either a new hardware platform with the proper interface routines or being non-existent or controled.

Well, you didn't address the question at all in how it related to this alleged 'war' between Synthetics and ORganics as the Starchild presents.


WHY would a forced rewrite of organic and synthetic 'DNA' result in peace between ORGANICS and SYNTHETICS?

When has it ever been argued in ME that organics and synthetics fight on the motive of their 'DNAs' being different? Are the Quarians fighting the Geth because their 'DNA' differs? Has any Synthetics gone to war with Organics based on this reason or vice versa?

When is this reason ever been presented in the ME trilogy as the basis for war?

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting or collaborating with the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

Then, once the evil other was eliminated, the galactic unity quickly broke down and there was war between the Krogan and the rest of civilization.  Also war between the Quarians and the Geth, which it is revealed to us in ME3 was pretty much do to Quarian and Geth hostility.  Yet it seemed that the galaxy could have a degree of peace through a 3-species counsel, notably led by a species that could "mate" with all other species. 

The starchild's view was that the differences or inherent otherness between organic and synthetic would mean that eventually, regardless of the resolution of the Quarian/Geth conflict and signs of peace, that there would be conflict resulting in synthetic victory.  The means for the starchild's viewpoint are never explained and the player is being clumsily asked to believe it 100%.  Therein lies the problem with defending Synthesis.  You either choose to believe this point of view or reject it on faith alone because you lack the context for the starchild's information.

Now here are some reasons why the starchild's viewpoint may be right.  First, the viewpoint could itself be a product of an infinite number of cycles of synthetic killing organic life.  Imagine a synthetic or organic species that figured out a way to look back in history and instead of discover a reaper cycle discovered a synthetic killing organic cycle.  Imagine that they also looked at many other attempts to break the cycle, which all failed.  In that horrorible discovery, that cycle decided to become the first Reapers and impose their own cycle of harvest while clearing the way for younger species to have their own opportunity at life.

A more troubling reason, however, is that we don't know what is going on in other galaxies.  Imagine instead of history, the species that created the reapers figured out a way to look at every other visible galaxy.  Further imagine that in every other visible galaxy they saw not organic life, but synthetic life.  Since I believe that you can use the laws of physics to essentially look back in time, imagine in every one they saw the cycle of organic makes synthetic who kills organic, regardless of variation.  What if in the Mass Effect 3 universe Shepard's galaxy is surrounded by only inorganic life looking for a way to come in and exterminate all organics/synthetic hybrids?

It would provide more stuff to kill.  It also happens to sort of be somewhat similar to the Dark Energy ending thrown around.  

Going back to how Synthesis would work: Shepard by combining the DNA and whatever the equivalent is with synthetics has created an opportunity to bridge that otherness, much in the same way the asari's ability to mate with other species has provided a bridge between those species. 

Modifié par nategator, 07 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[Kroguard]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

So you had no problem with all the laws of physics broken throughout the series? This isn't a debate on the scientific veracity of the narrative, only the morality of the three endings presented so far. As a physicist, I can tell you I have NO problem going through the series, it is my favorite to date. I don't expect science from a science fiction series (not to say science fiction hasn't inspired many scientists, including myself). Thank you for your input though

I feel like you missed the entire point of my (and several other) posts about this. A law can be broken, something can be entirely false as long as the author is good enough to write it off. As a student in the medical field, I hardly batted an eyelash at Shepard's resurrection; the way it was presented did not break my suspension of disbelief. (I'll also point out the excellent author Alastair Reynolds as a prime example of how to write science fiction.)

In a sense, you're right; it definitely helps I'm not a physicist. I know enough, however, to be shocked if they were to say "gravity doesn't exist" (or that you can fly across the solar system without the Mass Relays in a couple of years and see your planetary friends on the other side) in the same way I was shocked when they basically said "evolution won't exist".

And I do expect fundamental science in a science fiction series. That's why it's science fiction and not fantasy in space.

I'm sorry if this seemed like an off-topic debate, but I thought it was pertinent. It's hard to debate the morality of a laughably presented ending for me, but here's my input for that:

The entire series is about people (organics and synthetics) working together despite their diversity--and that their diversity itself gives the galactic forces strength. Bioware took that common theme and turned it over on itself, stating that diversity only brings war and the only way to stop war is to make everything uniform. You can debate that races will remain as they are and so on, but the Catalyst says, by using the "apex of evolution" phrase, that everything will stop changing, diversity will be lost, and that's the only way to have peace.

Might as well be dead, in my opinion.

Everyone expects fundamental science from a science fiction series. All I'm saying is that this isn't a scientific debate. The three endings are all equally as wrong from the standpoint of physics (won't even get into other elements of the game, namely FTL, misuse of quantum mechanics, pulse weaponry, visible lasers, etc.) You are saying the writing should be descript, yet not too much so am I correct? 

[paxbanana3915]

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

(Do you mean the rachni? 'Cause I honestly don't mind squishing spiders.)

Coming from a society that celebrates diversity, I cannot stomach this. Saying that everything must be the same for peace hits the MORALLY-WRONG button in me. Certainly diversity can spark war and conflict. But what's the point of galactic peace if it's brought about by complete uniformity?

[paxbanana3915]

Kroguard wrote...

Everyone expects fundamental science from a science fiction series. All I'm saying is that this isn't a scientific debate. The three endings are all equally as wrong from the standpoint of physics (won't even get into other elements of the game, namely FTL, misuse of quantum mechanics, pulse weaponry, visible lasers, etc.) You are saying the writing should be descript, yet not too much so am I correct? 

I get the feeling either you didn't read my entire post or you just don't want to put any thought into what I said. I did enjoy the discussion, but it's time to go to bed.

[Kroguard]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

(Do you mean the rachni? 'Cause I honestly don't mind squishing spiders.)

Coming from a society that celebrates diversity, I cannot stomach this. Saying that everything must be the same for peace hits the MORALLY-WRONG button in me. Certainly diversity can spark war and conflict. But what's the point of galactic peace if it's brought about by complete uniformity?

There is nothing in synthesis that suggests uniformity. Being a student in the medical field, you should know how DNA works. We share 96% similarity with chimps, yet many things separate us. Yet even with such genetic similarity, great diversity exists among individuals of both species. Being more genetically related does not imply uniformity and the ending cinematics clearly show this.

[nategator]

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

(Do you mean the rachni? 'Cause I honestly don't mind squishing spiders.)

Coming from a society that celebrates diversity, I cannot stomach this. Saying that everything must be the same for peace hits the MORALLY-WRONG button in me. Certainly diversity can spark war and conflict. But what's the point of galactic peace if it's brought about by complete uniformity?

Sorry, yeah I meant the rachni.  I would imagine that most of Mass Effect's species had no problem squishing spiders as well.

I disagree that Synthesis = uniformity.  Instead, it creates a new common element that all life in the galaxy possesses.  But diversity is also preserved.  Joker is still Joker, EDI is still EDI, but now they have something new in common that hopefully will break the organic vs. synthetic cycle.   The imposition of uniformity first while allowing just a smidge of diversity was the Reaper's solution, which did seem to work for countless cycles but ultimately proved a failure by Shepard. 

[Johcande XX]

I've seen a lot of these "Defend Synthesis" threads pop up the last few days, what's up with that?

I thought that a literal consensus had been reached that it was probably the worst choice you could make. But I guess not, . . . well, here we go:

Synthesis, or the "happy" ending, is the choice that people were supposed to gravitate toward; however, it truly baffles me that the devs thought they could showcase a dark gritty space opera filled with war, death, and sacrifice, and go out with a kumbaya everyone's cool with everyone cuz everyone is the same now ending. wtf?

As fans of the scifi genre, I feel that most people are realists, although I admit I could be wrong with that belief. As a realist, does anyone really believe that just because DNA is the same that we still won't kill the s*** out of each other? And beyond that, there is a huge problem with the synthesis premise; the combination of 'X' species and 'Y' species into 'Z' species may work out if a reversal is impossible, but there's nothing that stops the new 'Z' species from just rebuilding species 'Y'. Thus the problem would still occur, the ending is a big green waste of time.

And what about the end result? What does synthesis look like, aside from the green veins and eyes. We were shown what 'Reaper' synthesis looked like in the form of Collectors, Brutes, Husks. Is this the same type? I don't think so, but it's only logical to look to evidence of related circumstances before you make up your own.

These was just logical problems, there are still moral arguments like deciding what's best for everything in the galaxy without any kind of hope for remedy, assurance that it's a good idea, or even an "ok" from someone you trust. Most people, from what I've seen, on the BSN are going to have problems with the moral side more so.

[nategator]

Kroguard wrote...

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

(Do you mean the rachni? 'Cause I honestly don't mind squishing spiders.)

Coming from a society that celebrates diversity, I cannot stomach this. Saying that everything must be the same for peace hits the MORALLY-WRONG button in me. Certainly diversity can spark war and conflict. But what's the point of galactic peace if it's brought about by complete uniformity?

There is nothing in synthesis that suggests uniformity. Being a student in the medical field, you should know how DNA works. We share 96% similarity with chimps, yet many things separate us. Yet even with such genetic similarity, great diversity exists among individuals of both species. Being more genetically related does not imply uniformity and the ending cinematics clearly show this.

A much better explanation then mine!  Thanks for that insight.

[frylock23]

Kroguard wrote...

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

(Do you mean the rachni? 'Cause I honestly don't mind squishing spiders.)

Coming from a society that celebrates diversity, I cannot stomach this. Saying that everything must be the same for peace hits the MORALLY-WRONG button in me. Certainly diversity can spark war and conflict. But what's the point of galactic peace if it's brought about by complete uniformity?

There is nothing in synthesis that suggests uniformity. Being a student in the medical field, you should know how DNA works. We share 96% similarity with chimps, yet many things separate us. Yet even with such genetic similarity, great diversity exists among individuals of both species. Being more genetically related does not imply uniformity and the ending cinematics clearly show this.

All righ then we come back to square one. If Synthesis doesn't enforce conformity for the sake of attempting to enforce understanding between organic and synthetic, what's the reason it must happen? Star Brat's logic implies that it must happen because otherwise one is utterly doomed to kill the other. Why? Again basic logic asserts that the root of all conflict is difference. If we're all still different after synthesis, then we're all still capable of wiping each other and hence all life out.

There is simply no point to it.

[richard_rider]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the "lack of diversity" argument.

What it means is, since it's "the final evolution", there is no more evolution, therefore diversity will eventually die, synthesis doesn't kill diversity directly, but it does kill it, by killing the need to evolve.

Evolution isn't an alien concept, it is present in life, and in the ME universe, and to destroy that force is to kill diversity.

[nategator]

frylock23 wrote...

Kroguard wrote...

paxbanana3915 wrote...

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

(Do you mean the rachni? 'Cause I honestly don't mind squishing spiders.)

Coming from a society that celebrates diversity, I cannot stomach this. Saying that everything must be the same for peace hits the MORALLY-WRONG button in me. Certainly diversity can spark war and conflict. But what's the point of galactic peace if it's brought about by complete uniformity?

There is nothing in synthesis that suggests uniformity. Being a student in the medical field, you should know how DNA works. We share 96% similarity with chimps, yet many things separate us. Yet even with such genetic similarity, great diversity exists among individuals of both species. Being more genetically related does not imply uniformity and the ending cinematics clearly show this.

All righ then we come back to square one. If Synthesis doesn't enforce conformity for the sake of attempting to enforce understanding between organic and synthetic, what's the reason it must happen? Star Brat's logic implies that it must happen because otherwise one is utterly doomed to kill the other. Why? Again basic logic asserts that the root of all conflict is difference. If we're all still different after synthesis, then we're all still capable of wiping each other and hence all life out.

There is simply no point to it.

Because diversity does not always result in conflict.  Again, I can point to the asari forging a inter-species galactic civilization.  Its just as you increase diversity, conflict becomes more likely.  Starchild's viewpoint is that organic and synthetic life is too diverse that it always results in conflict and organic life loses.  Every time.  They tried to solve this problem by giving a childhood to organic life of 50k years and then imposing a reaper conformity before the synthetic life could develop enough to obliterate the species.  This solution proved to work for a very long time but ultimately was flawed.  So Starchild proposes a new solution that requires Shepard's sacrifice: allow greater diversity but provide a common element between organic and synthetic life.  You, as the player, can accept or reject this solution.  Bioware's intent was there to be no true answer on whether this solution was the "correct" one or not because there are no "correct" choices.  

[Sisterofshane]

richard_rider wrote...

I think a lot of people misunderstand the "lack of diversity" argument.

What it means is, since it's "the final evolution", there is no more evolution, therefore diversity will eventually die, synthesis doesn't kill diversity directly, but it does kill it, by killing the need to evolve.

Evolution isn't an alien concept, it is present in life, and in the ME universe, and to destroy that force is to kill diversity.

It's all a part of the bigger issue, which many people believe to be "uniformity", which is what the Catalyst sells with the synthesis option.  I do, however, agree with you about evolution and the ability to adapt being a very important concept in a universe that is ever-shifting and changing.

[KosakNZ]

Kroguard wrote...

This isn't a debate on the scientific veracity of the narrative, only the morality of the three endings presented so far.

You seem to be picking and choosing quite a bit, so I'm not sure what the bounds you actually want on this debate are. I almost get the feeling you want the debate to be like follows.

Assume:
1) The starchild can be trusted completely
1a) this means red destroys all synthetic life
2) green resolves the "cycle", for no discernable reason, despite not changing the fundamental nature of the entities being "rewritten" apart from a bit purely cosmetic synthetic or organic paint.

Now discuss the morality of the endings

If so I'll bow out. Because it doesn't seem like a very useful discussion if that is the case.

[Mass effect 2 forever]

nategator wrote...

Because diversity does not always result in conflict.  Bioware's intent was there to be no true answer on whether this solution was the "correct" one or not because there are no "correct" choices.  

But Bioware TELL you via the Starchild that diversity DOES result in conflict. Thats unequivocle if the narrator of your game series tells you this in no uncertain terms then that evidently is Biowares view and they make it clear you are a tool if you pick anything different. If you go against the narrator you have made the wrong choice because you've solved nothing; its that simple. Whats worse is that the idea diversity causes conflict ultimately means things like the citadel council, incorporating the Krogan, your relationships with your squadmates is all rubbish since if diversity causes conflict then humanity should be wiping out other races to ensure its dominence. Synthesis ultimately justifies Cerberus and all of the other things the game series has been going to some length to discredit.  

[fr33stylez]

nategator wrote...

Bioware may have been trying to explain it like this: there is always a tension between fighting or collaborating with the "other": whether it be an other tribe, national, species, or type of life.  Notably, the first big galactic war in the present cycle was the war between the bipedal species and the arachnids.  Do you think it was an accident that the arachnids are one of the few species completely different from the bipedial norm?

Then, once the evil other was eliminated, the galactic unity quickly broke down and there was war between the Krogan and the rest of civilization.  Also war between the Quarians and the Geth, which it is revealed to us in ME3 was pretty much do to Quarian and Geth hostility.  Yet it seemed that the galaxy could have a degree of peace through a 3-species counsel, notably led by a species that could "mate" with all other species. 

That's an arbitrary cut-off you're setting. The fact the Arachni Wars occurs wasn't because they had 8 legs as opposed to 2. It's because of their aggressive behavior that threatened other species. The Hanar look nothing like any of the bipedal species but it hasn't resulted in war. Again, Bioware hasn't presented any conflict in ME where the basis for war is simply because  'we are different'. Not in the Quarian-Geth conflict, not in the Rachni War, not in the Krogan rebellion, not in the First Contact War.

I also don't agree there's 'peace' between the main concil races because the Asari are similar/can reproduce with most races. If the Asari were able to trace their roots at one point to a place onEarth and wanted to claim Europe as their own, there would be war. All humans can mate with each other, but this doesn't stop conflict and war.

The starchild's view was that the differences or inherent otherness between organic and synthetic would mean that eventually, regardless of the resolution of the Quarian/Geth conflict and signs of peace, that there would be conflict resulting in synthetic victory.  The means for the starchild's viewpoint are never explained and the player is being clumsily asked to believe it 100%.  Therein lies the problem with defending Synthesis.  You either choose to believe this point of view or reject it on faith alone because you lack the context for the starchild's information.

Agreed. We are not given any explanation how Starchild came to this conclusion, why Starchild even cares, and how the Reaper solution necessarily solves the said problem.

Now here are some reasons why the starchild's viewpoint may be right.  First, the viewpoint could itself be a product of an infinite number of cycles of synthetic killing organic life.  Imagine a synthetic or organic species that figured out a way to look back in history and instead of discover a reaper cycle discovered a synthetic killing organic cycle.  Imagine that they also looked at many other attempts to break the cycle, which all failed.  In that horrorible discovery, that cycle decided to become the first Reapers and impose their own cycle of harvest while clearing the way for younger species to have their own opportunity at life.

A more troubling reason, however, is that we don't know what is going on in other galaxies.  Imagine instead of history, the species that created the reapers figured out a way to look at every other visible galaxy.  Further imagine that in every other visible galaxy they saw not organic life, but synthetic life.  Since I believe that you can use the laws of physics to essentially look back in time, imagine in every one they saw the cycle of organic makes synthetic who kills organic, regardless of variation.  What if in the Mass Effect 3 universe Shepard's galaxy is surrounded by only inorganic life looking for a way to come in and exterminate all organics/synthetic hybrids?

It would provide more stuff to kill.  It also happens to sort of be somewhat similar to the Dark Energy ending thrown around.  

Personally, this is one of my biggest problems with 'Synthesis'. Do Synthetics kill all Organics or not? If they do, why do Organics still exist?

Is the Starchild saying that Synthetics eventually kill all sentient Organics if left unchecked, and they it would take million of years of evolutionary history to create new sentient organic species? If this is the case, then isn't what Synthetics do in every cycle the exact same as the Reapers solution just in longer intervals? That would suggest than rather culling organics every 50K years like the Reapers do, the Synthetics wipe out all sentient organic life every few million/billion years. In this case, the entire Reaper solution doesn't make sense as it doesn't address the problem of Synthetics killing Organics, but instead perpetuates the same cycle in shorter intervals.

Going back to how Synthesis would work: Shepard by combining the DNA and whatever the equivalent is with synthetics has created an opportunity to bridge that otherness, much in the same way the asari's ability to mate with other species has provided a bridge between those species. 

Again, I have to reject the implication that peace is somehow more attainable because of an ability to reproduce/mate. Differing in idealology, goals, or thirst for power or resources cause the majority of out conflicts, regardless of whether one can mate or not. The Asari and Korgan weren't on friendly terms during the Rebellion just because they could mate. Humans and other species wage Intra-species war against each other all the time. Joining DNA in no way means that peace is more attainable - this isn't support by the ME story nor by examples in real life.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 07 mai 2012 - 01:06 .

[Ieldra]

While I'm a promoter of Synthesis (see this thread and this thread), there are several problems with it that may be the cause of rejection without going into the morality of the matter at all:

(1) There cannot be a "final evolution of life". As long as life exists, it can change, because of environmental pressure (natural evolution) or because of deliberate change (artificial evolution) or both. The very concept of life implies that change is always possible. "Final evolution of life" is an oxymoron.

(2) While Synthesis does not destroy diversity, makes everyone the same, destroys individualty or any other such nonsense, as it is written it sends the message that in this special case, physically unifying two opposing domains of consciousness is the only hope for a permanent solution to the conflict, which is a message we just spent three games to disprove. I suspect the writers actually meant something else with Synthesis, but it got lost in fear of being too controversial, the desire to be as vague as possible and the misapplication of the KISS principle. Some things are just too complex to simplify into two sentences. Even though it is only one special case this applies to, the message hits home. The result is a conflict with the main theme of the trilogy "Unity in diversity".

(3) The "new DNA" has to be taken metaphorically. Unfortunately, it fails even as a metaphor, since the basic difference between synthetic and organic life is (a) not physical and ( digital - combining them into something in-between is as impossible as combining 0 and 1 (understood as bits) into something in-between in a digital computer. You can mix organic and synthetic elements in a lifeform to get a hybrid. But you cannot make something with fundamentally in-between basic building blocks.

I choose Synthesis because I have certain associations with the idea of combining organic and synthetic life, associations informed by my transhumanism. I can choose Synthesis based on these associations because the descriptions that would make them invalid make no logical sense and are thus irrelevant. While this is a fortunate circumstance from one viewpoint, it is a far from satisfying state of things. The description of Synthesis is insulting to players' intelligence. I can make something from what remains, but I do not like that the writers expected me to swallow their bullsh*t.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I choose Synthesis because I have certain associations with the idea of combining organic and synthetic life, associations informed by my transhumanism. I can choose Synthesis based on these associations because the descriptions that would make them invalid make no logical sense and are thus irrelevant.

I am pretty much a transhumanist, and I do not understand this viewpoint at all.
I believe that an important part of this is choice. If you deny choice, it is pointless. I would never impose this on all life forms in the galaxy without their knowledge or consent, it is something I only have the right to decide for myself.

Hell, Shepard themselves protests that the Reapers are taking away self-determination from everyone in that very scene, only to do just that?

[Mass effect 2 forever]

Ieldra2 wrote...

While I'm a promoter of Synthesis (see this thread and this thread), there are several problems with it that may be the cause of rejection without going into the morality of the matter at all:

(1) There cannot be a "final evolution of life". As long as life exists, it can change, because of environmental pressure (natural evolution) or because of deliberate change (artificial evolution) or both. The very concept of life implies that change is always possible. "Final evolution of life" is an oxymoron.

(2) While Synthesis does not destroy diversity, makes everyone the same, destroys individualty or any other such nonsense, as it is written it sends the message that in this special case, physically unifying two opposing domains of consciousness is the only hope for a permanent solution to the conflict, which is a message we just spent three games to disprove. I suspect the writers actually meant something else with Synthesis, but it got lost in fear of being too controversial, the desire to be as vague as possible and the misapplication of the KISS principle. Some things are just too complex to simplify into two sentences. Even though it is only one special case this applies to, the message hits home. The result is a conflict with the main theme of the trilogy "Unity in diversity".

(3) The "new DNA" has to be taken metaphorically. Unfortunately, it fails even as a metaphor, since the basic difference between synthetic and organic life is (a) not physical and ( digital - combining them into something in-between is as impossible as combining 0 and 1 (understood as bits) into something in-between in a digital computer. You can mix organic and synthetic elements in a lifeform to get a hybrid. But you cannot make something with fundamentally in-between basic building blocks.

I choose Synthesis because I have certain associations with the idea of combining organic and synthetic life, associations informed by my transhumanism. I can choose Synthesis based on these associations because the descriptions that would make them invalid make no logical sense and are thus irrelevant. While this is a fortunate circumstance from one viewpoint, it is a far from satisfying state of things. The description of Synthesis is insulting to players' intelligence. I can make something from what remains, but I do not like that the writers expected me to swallow their bullsh*t.

Those are severe and crippling limitations; why else would so many people have burned the idea on sight? Point 3 is part of why the concept is particualarly gaulling to me since it is so obviously space magic.

Also, Bioware NEVER portrayed synthetics as having a different mind-set. Units like the Geth and EDI behaved like the terminator in judgement day, they were fully capable of adapting and learning to socialize n form identities from the get go. If the result of two different systems of thought org/syn ultimately result in personalities and individuals no different from organics then it makes no sense to argue that they are in some way incompatable. Thematic assertions at the end do not detract from peoples impressions since ME2.

[Ieldra]

@The Angry One:
I wouldn't make such a choice sitting at home with a button "global synthesis" in front of me. But Shepard stands at a fulcrum of events. Every one of the decisions you make affects the whole galaxy, and the changes you make if you choose Synthesis are all but invisible. All you add is potential - which people can use or not. It may even be reversible if it is - as it can only be - a mix of organic and synthetic instead of unity. I don't think the Catalyst would be concerned with the possibility of a few dropouts.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 mai 2012 - 03:02 .

[goofyomnivore]

I've always wondered what happened to the Catalyst/Citadel in synthesis, if it is only damaged and not destroyed. Does it still exist? If so are the Reapers still under its control? What if the Catalyst decides this solution isn't working and wages war again? How does it react when the species discover its existence and want to study/question it? Does it still try to influence the course of the galaxy? Etc.

As for Synthesis its self, morally I don't think it is any worse than the other endings. However I just can't get over how horrible the logic/presentation behind it is.

Modifié par strive, 07 mai 2012 - 03:08 .

[Ieldra]

strive wrote...
I've always wondered what happened to the Catalyst/Citadel in synthesis, if it is only damaged and not destroyed. Does it still exist? If so are the Reapers still under its control? What if the Catalyst decides this solution isn't working and wages war again? How does it react when the species discover its existence and want to study/question it? Does it still try to influence the course of the galaxy? Etc.

The Crucible firing sequence suggests that the Citadel is destroyed in Synthesis, possibly with some ward arms broken off as a whole. It's the same scene as in Destroy except for the color. The Control scene is very different. I think we're safe from the Catalyst's influence because it is implied that it's gone.

As for Synthesis its self, morally I don't think it is any worse than the other endings. However I just can't get over how horrible the logic/presentation behind it is.

I'm far from over it, but I choose it anyway in the hope the EC will change the description.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 mai 2012 - 03:13 .

[PsyrenY]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You can mix organic and synthetic elements in a lifeform to get a hybrid. But you cannot make something with fundamentally in-between basic building blocks.

Actually, we DO have "fundamentally in-between basic building blocks" - atoms. To quote Adams: "We're all machines, carbon or silicon. Is there really a difference?"

And Shepard's response if you side with him: "Genetics don't make us alive. It's our self-awareness, curiosity, and capacity to evolve." Couldn't have put it any better myself.