528 réponses à ce sujet

[DLClol]

Because basically you genetically rape the entire galaxy against they're will.

Plus Saren wanted it, Synthesis almost fits word for word with what he was talking about

[Someone With Mass]

Here's one reason: The amount of material needed to change every organic life-form in the galaxy far exceeds any amount the Citadel can store. You'd need a mass larger than entire star systems for that to happen.

Well, that and it goes completely against the "strength in diversity" notion the Reapers firmly believes in and thrives upon.

[Ieldra]

To those who say they dislike Synthesis because it makes no sense, a challenge:

Yes, "a new DNA" and "final evolution of life", that's abysmally retarded. So....make it make sense. Instead of bashing the literal meaning which can never be reality because it makes no sense, throw the literal meaning out of the window and think about how it could make sense! Be constructive.

I've done that in these threads:

http://social.biowar.../index/11863883
http://social.biowar.../index/10515916

As I see it, 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 post-Synthesis intelligent the same advantages that made it possible for synthetics to advance so fast. I have outlined how that might be possible, and why that may be desirable, in the above threads.

And yet again:

That Saren wanted it, that the Catalyst may have wanted it, that's completely irrelevant, because an idea is good or bad independently from those who support it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[mikelope]

I thought all three choices have their pros and cons, but I get why a lot of people don't like it. It's ambiguous, it's a leap-of-faith choice, it's playing god, it's possibly morally suspect, it represents the 'right' choice for the catalyst's highly questionable 'technological singularity' premise (and we hate the catalyst, don't we). The more I think about it though, the more I like it as a concept and wish the game explored it more.

Just a thought, is it possible that people are dumping on synthesis so much just to make Destroy more palatable in their minds as that's the only choice where the Reapers die and Shepard lives is a possibility (something most people in the threads want for their ending)?

[SetecAstronomy]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Here's one reason: The amount of material needed to change every organic life-form in the galaxy far exceeds any amount the Citadel can store. You'd need a mass larger than entire star systems for that to happen.

Well, that and it goes completely against the "strength in diversity" notion the Reapers firmly believes in and thrives upon.

Could that high mass requirement be aided by the Eezo from every relay in the galaxy?

[PsyrenY]

TygerHeart wrote...

Synthesis was always an option.

Surrender and you will be melted down into a Reaper (part organic, part synthetic) or turned into a Husk,

Synthesis turns the galaxy into the Reapers form of idealized life.

Because Joker and EDI were clearly melted down/turned into husks.

If the game wanted to present Synthesis that way it easily could have. They didn't, therefore your interpretation is totally wrong.

[Mims]

This is what I don't understand. How exactly will synthetics wipe out ALL organic life? They're going to stop evolution full stop? Just go planet by planet, destroying every ounce of bacteria until eternity?

...won't eventually, those synthetics find their own problems? Won't eventually, new life evolve where the previous 'organic' life was destroyed? You can't cleanse the galaxy of life. It isn't like, something you can just opt out of. "Oh, sorry guys. Organics no longer welcome."

Sure, they might kill all sentient life, they might kill every bacteria and proto-species. But nothing is forever, and eventually, the cycle would restart itself.

[Someone With Mass]

By the way, there's no such thing as a "final evolution", because it goes against the very reason evolution exists to begin with.

[LaZy i IS]

akenn312 wrote...

But now they are all destroyed and all that work that Shepard did to get EDI to reporgram & to have human feelings is gone. The Geth's history and all the work Legion did to get them to ally with humans is gone. Also Shepard was the only one with the persuasive ability to talk them down from destorying each other again anyway even after they knew the problem, who knows how many cycles it would take to get to someone like Shepard witht he charisma and bravery to be able to accomplish this feat again if another sythetic problem occurs.

I meant, the Geth and EDI had shown that synthetics aren't always going to be hostile towards organics, so in the future, organics are going to be less likely to be hostile towards synthetics. Hence, less chance of organic/synthetic conflict.

[Reorte]

Someone With Mass wrote...

By the way, there's no such thing as a "final evolution", because it goes against the very reason evolution exists to begin with.

It exists for a reason? Nah, it's just what happens to happen.

[PsyrenY]

Someone With Mass wrote...

By the way, there's no such thing as a "final evolution", because it goes against the very reason evolution exists to begin with.

Ieldra agrees with you, see above.

I personally interpret it as an end to natural evolution. Synthesized beings would evolve like synthetics do - modifying their "code" for deliberate purposes, rather than being subject to the slow machinations of external stimuli over a period of centuries.

[Belisarius09]

EvilMind wrote...

 I just dont get it, I think its great. Could someone tell me or give a link where it clearly explains why Synthesis is the worst thing ever?

The short versions like "Its genetical rape" "Its forced" are not welcomed, I heard most of those and i'm not fully convinced by them. It is forced, but its a good thing, noone is hurt, only made better. Its just killing me, I really want a good explanation why is it bad.

Its the next step in evolution, it has many benefits, its basically making every single organic better in some way. I'm not saying Synthesis makes everyone perfect and it may have its own flaws, but its presented as something that has no downsides - a race without flaws of organics and synthetics.

LOl throwing out two completely legitimate explanations from the start and then expect us to give you a reason that you'll approve of, how can we be sure you won't just "dismiss" these new reasons as well? not a good way to begin discussion of a topic.  "Explain why rape robbery are bad but don't say because its forced." derp OP, derp.

But I'll play your game.  Reasons why I believe Synthesis is bad...
Well lets look at what it does. 
1. Kills Shepard
2. Genetically alters every organic and synthetic being in the galaxy w/o asking them for permission
3. Doesn't accomplish the mission you set out from the first game in the series, to defeat the reapers
4. Not a good solution. Whats to stop new  non-hybrid organic life from developing, and in turn, building new non-hybrid synthetics, and as a result continuing the cycle?

Now, if you will, examine what the reapers do.  Reapers "Harvest"(commit mass geonocide) advanced species of organic life and process them so that they may "ascend"(liquify them, and turn them into new reapers, a combination of organic substance and synthetics).  We see this in ME2 with the human reaper.   You can agree that is a bad thing yes? Even if you think its a good outcome, for the organics to ascend, one can argue the ends don't justify the means. 

What does synthesis do? it alters genetic code of every being and makes them reach the pinnacle of evolution, every being becomes part organic, part synthetic.  Sounds a lot like everyone got turned into reapers, or husks.  So congrats you just accomplished the reapers mission for them.  Wait, thats not what we set out to do....
Thats why we think synthesis is bad.
Shepard plays god, alters everyone's dna w/o their ermission, betrays their trust by leaving reapers alive, fails his mission.  He rapes the galaxy and forces them to do something w/o their consent.  It violates free will.  Braveheart wouldn't be happy. 

Here's a link saying what I said but a bit more fluidly and a bit more eloquently.

[Reorte]

LaZy i IS wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

But now they are all destroyed and all that work that Shepard did to get EDI to reporgram & to have human feelings is gone. The Geth's history and all the work Legion did to get them to ally with humans is gone. Also Shepard was the only one with the persuasive ability to talk them down from destorying each other again anyway even after they knew the problem, who knows how many cycles it would take to get to someone like Shepard witht he charisma and bravery to be able to accomplish this feat again if another sythetic problem occurs.

I meant, the Geth and EDI had shown that synthetics aren't always going to be hostile towards organics, so in the future, organics are going to be less likely to be hostile towards synthetics. Hence, less chance of organic/synthetic conflict.

A billion years down the line?

It's pretty likely that there will be conflict but quite honestly if synthetic life is still life I see no funamental difference between that and organics fighting and one side getting wiped out.

[akenn312]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

Because of Mass Effect 1 and this statement about Saren Arterius. This is why Synthesis makes no sense to people that don't like the ending.

"But Shepard's words bred doubt in Saren's mind. Sovereign saw his conviction beginning to falter, and implanted Saren, making him cybernetic and completely devoted to the Reapers' cause. Saren thought of himself as "the future", a true cyborg, a fusion of both organics and technology, comprising "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither."

So if Sovereign implanting Saren with cybernetic parts is basically the same as synthesis and if Saren is right that is the true future of organics and synthetics. Why did we go through all the trouble to stop Saren at all again? Oh it's a different type of unnatural merge of man and machine..Oh I see now Casey...I see what your doing there....

Well, yes, I think it is different (and again, I don't even like synthesis, nor am I defending Saren in the least).

First of all, to me there was a strong implication in ME1 that Saren was being duped, and that if the Reapers did allow organics to continue existing, it would have been in a far more subservient state than Saren thought, and possibly full indoctrination. Second, I don't see anything in the synthesis ending that implies that the new organic-synthetic hybrids are under Reaper control or that the Reapers are even interacting with other species.

Saren's plan would have had everyone as, at best, clear "subjects" of the Reapers and possibly even full-blown slaves (and that's if the entire thing wasn't a lie - if it was, they probably intended to wipe out all the advanced organics anyway and would discard Saren once he ceased to be useful). The synthesis ending alters the nature of life, but it does not take away free will or appoint any one species as ruler of all the others.

That's the problem, even if it's a different synthesis the first game already made us(At least me) feel the idea of merging with machines is unnatural and in-line with the bad guys and the Reapers goal. Take out Saren's indoctrination. The basic premise of Mass Effect was Saren not going to give people a choice in the matter of how to save them and would possibly destroy them, and he was going to merge man and machine to do it.

Take the Illusive man, he believed in controlling the Reapers, so we might find that ideal less disgusting because he is still trying to defeat them but it's still considered an awful choice because the Illusive man came up with the idea. We consider his way of thinking evil and wrong. So control naturally feels evil and misguided.

That's why all the choices to me naturally feel wrong. People want different endings because all these choices are abhorrent and in line with the villains in Mass Effects thinking process and one is basically killing off the Geth who help you and EDI.

So now Reaper control is a different control and merging with machines is now different? No I can't buy that please try harder. Think up somehting that has no tbeen thought up already by a major vilian in the game please.

Modifié par akenn312, 09 mai 2012 - 08:22 .

[LaZy i IS]

mikelope wrote...

I thought all three choices have their pros and cons, but I get why a lot of people don't like it. It's ambiguous, it's a leap-of-faith choice, it's playing god, it's possibly morally suspect, it represents the 'right' choice for the catalyst's highly questionable 'technological singularity' premise (and we hate the catalyst, don't we). The more I think about it though, the more I like it as a concept and wish the game explored it more.

Just a thought, is it possible that people are dumping on synthesis so much just to make Destroy more palatable in their minds as that's the only choice where the Reapers die and Shepard lives is a possibility (something most people in the threads want for their ending)?

That's a possibility. Although, I hate synthesis because, after all that fighting, you just decide to help them. Why? They've commited innumerable genocides/mass extinctions, yet you help them then allow them to leave of their own accord?

[Someone With Mass]

SetecAstronomy wrote...
Could that high mass requirement be aided by the Eezo from every relay in the galaxy?

No, because the mass relays weren't supposed to be used like that.

Whatever material it is that makes the synthesis between organics and synthetics possible, there's simply not enough of it in the Citadel to cover the entire galaxy. Think about it. Just the distance between Earth and the sun is about 92,935,700 miles.

Which means at some point, there will be organics or perhaps entire planets that were unaffected by this change. They can still evolve and at one point create synthetics.

New planets can also be shaped and create organic life.

Synthesis is a temporary "solution" to the easily fixable problem at best.

[Tom Lehrer]

Synthesis is you deciding what everyone else should do with their bodies no matter what they think or believe. We have a word for such an action and to do it is a serious crime that can get you the death penalty in some places.

Do you think Javik wants to be part synthetic? What about people like the Amish or races like the Raloi?

[Reorte]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I personally interpret it as an end to natural evolution. Synthesized beings would evolve like synthetics do - modifying their "code" for deliberate purposes, rather than being subject to the slow machinations of external stimuli over a period of centuries.

What will happen on uncontacted and undeveloped worlds with no intelligent life? If synthesis makes DNA (or whatever it now is) impossible then those worlds won't evolve any further which would put them in great danger of having most of their life wiped out over a long enough timescale when it fails to adapt to cycles of ice ages or continents shifting around. Or perhaps they're not affected at all if they're a long way off the relay network (that's how the Space Magic signal seems to propagate after all), in which case if the "synthetics will destroy organics" argument is true then presumably so is "synthesised beings will destroy organics."

Or the Catalyst is just following flawed logic - synthesis means that synthetics won't destroy organics because there are no more organics to be destroyed. That's an acceptable solution to it because its only purpose was to stop organics from being destroyed by synthetics, not anything else.

Modifié par Reorte, 09 mai 2012 - 07:47 .

[ZombieChad]

Naerivar wrote...

Well, of course, for any endings to make sense we have to take the brat's word for granted. If we doubted his every word we'd be totally ****ed because we wouldn't even know which option would be destroy/control or synthesis. 

If Shepard has the right (or has been given the right) to choose for the extinction of an entire specie, then she also has the right to choose synthesis. Yes, there might be a ****load of problems with it. But unless it takes away your free will (which I don't elieve it does, husks and synthesized organics are two totally different things in my book) life is preferable to death.

We don't know what conclusion the Geth would reach. They may choose extinction above synthesis. But I personally wouldn't.This is the same problem I had with Garrus wanting to shoot Dr Saleon's shuttje way back in ME1. He states that he'd rather be dead than be a monster with extra organs growing in them. And I'd agree. But we can't actually make that decision for them, we don't have that right.

Now, all the other races trust shepard to make the right decisions, true. But preparing for a last ditch attempt, willing to die if it could help, that is one thing. But knowing, from the start, that you will not survive the fight, just because someone is going to take the destroy option... I don't think that would sit well with everybody, even geth.

Of course they don't know what would happen. It shows that while you could trust someone enough to take a chance to die for them, it's totally different if you know you will die, no matter what. And only because Shepard chose destroy rather than synthesis.

You can't really prepare for such a choice. And therefore you can't actually give your trust rightfully. And as such Shepard can't have the right to do it (destroy). Or you just waltz over everything I said, but then you have to accept that Synthesis is also an option which shepard has the right to choose.

in some sense the ultimate responsibility lays with the Catalys, true. If a murder tells me to choose whether person A or B has to die, or if I don't choose he chooses he'll kill an entire village. I am not responsible for any death. Except maybe the entire village because I could have prevented that.

And shepard can prevent the entire village, By picking synthesis.

Why take what it says for granted? The Starchild has more reason to lie than any other entity in the game at that point. I still actually stumbled then came to my senses and headed over to destroy as soon as it made the Reapers. I don’t need the option to argue flawed logic, it’s getting shutdown. This belief is then played out in the ending as has been shown Shepard can live, EDI can live so WHY are the Geth any different? They’re not. It was lying to try and save it’s sorry ass by subverting Shepard from his original cause.

Once again you’re right in a way... people do have a right to make their OWN choices regardless of how stupid I think they are, thank God for free will. However I have to add the addendum that if it affects others it should minimised where possible. As the result of Synthesis in the short term people glow a little green and the Reaper’s leave. Then we have unknown long term effects and the Reaper’s are very good at twisting flesh. I don’t see why that would change after synthesis, in fact synthesis probably helps. Then the fact that it doesn’t stop Synthetics being made anyway, why should this ending be given credit? Whereas the choices both long and short for Destroy are the Reaper’s really aren’t a threat anymore (they’re dead) and evolution which has been doing a good job for us so far gets to carry on working hard. So why choose an option of unknowns? So far the only defence of Synthesis boils down to “The Starchild was telling the truth” which seems more than a little naive.  We already know it doesn’t think rationally probably due to a programming glitch that’s screwed it’s ability to draw a sane conclusion and plan.

We don’t know about the Geth’s choice but just as you’re removing what the Starchild says that it’s intent is “Making a new DNA” in details to make Synthesis palatable (which contradicts your first point of having to take his word for the ends), I am making conclusions based around the content of the 3 games and part of that is that the Geth are coldly logical in everything they do and for a species of AI that has sworn no compromise, I really think  they would choose death, in the same way that they no doubt dealt with what they thought of as the “smaller Creator units” that were no doubt killed in the Morning War. I had no problem with Garrus’ idea either. I find it perplexing that you’d want to live on as a twisted freak with redundant twisted and atrophied or worse cancerous organs leeching at your system whilst some crazy salarian tests out who knows what on you. I think that concept is horrible. I’d rather die trying to bite/claw/beat him to death, failing that euthanise me. Any changes that I (or anyone) make should come from my (or their) own desire and not be enforced on me (them) by an external source. Let alone a poorly explained one. Both Control and Destroy are easily explained as an override or kill switch the third is domain of the bad guys. As you can’t trust what it’s saying why wouldn’t it be lying over long term effects? 
The extinction of the Geth is in my mind the true Catalyst that brings about the post-Reaper-Era.

In the end with so little to go on, we have to interpret each of these endings the best we can. As a result some of us continue with the themes of Mass Effect, hard choices and sacrifice to beat the insurmountable, others go for a God-Emperor Shepard style ending with Control about how their Shepard has enough will power to suppress the will of millions of species and finally others choose to build a fantasy around how nice the Reaper’s actually are now we’ve had our essence corrupted.   

To me Mass Effect has always been a grounded setting and up and until the end of the game the idea of Control is linked closely to “power corrupts...” and Synthesis is touted previously by the deluded/indoctrinated then by finally by the starchild. Destroy is linked to the overriding goal and themes of the game (sacrifice/killing the Reapers).

I’ve got a few questions for you if you don’t mind? I’m genuinely intrigued by the views of a Synthesis fan. As this is the first game I've actually felt this passionate about.

Why abandon the core motivation (kill the Reapers) of Shepard for that option?

If you didn’t think that was a core motivation what did you think Shepard’s core motivation was?

At what point did you decide that Reaper’s deserve to live? Was it before or after the Starchild?

**editted for formatting, my battle against machines continues...**

Modifié par ZombieChad, 09 mai 2012 - 07:36 .

[darthnick427]

Because it's a betrayal of everything you're fighting against. You think your squadmates are going to understand why you chose synthesis? Hell no. Javik would try to kill you if he ever saw you again.

[LaZy i IS]

Reorte wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

But now they are all destroyed and all that work that Shepard did to get EDI to reporgram & to have human feelings is gone. The Geth's history and all the work Legion did to get them to ally with humans is gone. Also Shepard was the only one with the persuasive ability to talk them down from destorying each other again anyway even after they knew the problem, who knows how many cycles it would take to get to someone like Shepard witht he charisma and bravery to be able to accomplish this feat again if another sythetic problem occurs.

I meant, the Geth and EDI had shown that synthetics aren't always going to be hostile towards organics, so in the future, organics are going to be less likely to be hostile towards synthetics. Hence, less chance of organic/synthetic conflict.

A billion years down the line?

It's pretty likely that there will be conflict but quite honestly if synthetic life is still life I see no funamental difference between that and organics fighting and one side getting wiped out.

LaZy i IS wrote... 
less chance of organic/synthetic conflict.

[Reorte]

LaZy i IS wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote... 
less chance of organic/synthetic conflict.

Yes, I know. You were basing that on the fact that EDI and the geth are friendly. My point is that the current situation is irrelevent when it'll probably be long forgotten in the very distant future.

[sveners]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

By the way, there's no such thing as a "final evolution", because it goes against the very reason evolution exists to begin with.

Ieldra agrees with you, see above.

I personally interpret it as an end to natural evolution. Synthesized beings would evolve like synthetics do - modifying their "code" for deliberate purposes, rather than being subject to the slow machinations of external stimuli over a period of centuries.

But shouldn't an interpretation have a basis to work from? I understand that it's your personal interpretation, and I think it is valid enough. But it has nothing, in the game, to add to it's validity. At least not yet.

Also natural evolution is a bit of a misnomer. All we "know" is how evolution works on earth. On our little blue ball in space. We have no idea how other spieces on other planets under different conditions will evolve. 

[LaZy i IS]

Reorte wrote...

Or the Catalyst is just following flawed logic - synthesis means that synthetics won't destroy organics because there are no more organics to be destroyed. That's an acceptable solution to it because it's only purpose was to stop organics from being destroyed by synthetics, not anything else.

^This.

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

By the way, there's no such thing as a "final evolution", because it goes against the very reason evolution exists to begin with.

Ieldra agrees with you, see above.

I personally interpret it as an end to natural evolution. Synthesized beings would evolve like synthetics do - modifying their "code" for deliberate purposes, rather than being subject to the slow machinations of external stimuli over a period of centuries.

So you're saying plants, fruits, vegetables and simple animated life like single-celled amoeba will now deliberately and intelligently modify their DNA to evolve? How much intelligence do these previously non-intelligent organic life forms have now? How many of them are obsolete in the new framework because their previous evolutionary niche is invalid now?