528 réponses à ce sujet

[Konfined]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I see Synthesis as a symbiosis. I just don't feel I have the right to make that choice for everyone. If Bioware can give a bit more info to understand it a bit better I might feel better about it.

Could I ever choose it?

I don't think so.

That is a valid reason not to choose it, unlike most others given here. It's not a valid reason to try and sour it for everyone else. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but there are people who do.

I know you don't and I am pleased to see it.

I don't really have a right to destroy the Reapers and Synthetics either......

You see, I really see nothing as "justified" in a war. What I do see in Destory is a way to start the Doomsday clock at zero in the organic/synthetic debate. But is killing thousands upon thousands better than rewriting every living things in the galaxy? I don't really know. No one dies in Synthesis but they are rewritten............something I don't think I could ever do.

Yeah, but Destroy also sets the clock of civilization back more than any other choice. That's the real, deep-down reason why I don't like it. Control maintains the status quo, and Synthesis ushers in a new age with new wonders.....and possibly new horrors. And I'd always risk the horrors to get the wonders. Must be the optimist in me.

Also I see Synthesis as symbiosis, so nobody is genetically rewritten or changed irreversibly. 

But I wonder what the writers thought when they wrote that nonsense about a new DNA and biosynthetic plants. I have read a lot of supersoft SF over the years, but never I came across something so stupid that I had to throw away most of the description to make sense of it. 

Then, quite frankly, you're doing it wrong.  It's established in game canon that synthesis completely combines organic and synthetic life and alters them down to the genetic level.  Starchild quote, verbatim: "Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out.  The chain reaction will combine all organic and sythetic life into a new framework.  A new DNA."  

That's pretty clear cut; cut and dry; no room for reinterpretation, or drawing a different meaning.  All life in the galaxy will be combined with synthetics, that is the established  Mass Effect lore.  If you choose synthesis, that is what will happen.  While blatantly ignoring this fact is your choice, your interpretation is directly at odds with the in game canon.  

Modifié par Konfined, 10 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

akenn312 wrote...
It really doesn't matter when he reveals the plan or even if you thought he ways lying at the time he still says the ultimate goal of the Reapers and that is to make man and machine merge, Sovereign even eludes to this motivation.

 
I've never seen what the Reapers are doing as representing a "merge." They seem to gain something from the races they harvest, but those individuals do indeed die in the process. At best, the Reapers' harvests might be equivalent to Borg assimilation on Star Trek - their victims may not be whisked out of existence, but they are completely dominated and controlled by the Collective. There's a huge difference between (a) continuing to exist as a free and conscious individual but with some weird cybernetic implants and ( maybe, at best, some small aspect of your consciousness surviving within a collective intelligence that has as its primary purpose wiping out and assimilating trillions of people every 50,000 years. I wouldn't relish either, but I'd still take (a) over ( in a heartbeat.

But Shepard still argues against this and that method is wrong and fights against it. Furthermore isn't Shepard by choosing synthesis taking away others chance to choose for themselves how to live and evolve? 

 
Yes, and as I said, I agree with that criticism, but it applies to the other endings as well - Destroy has you killing even sentient, benevolent synthetics, and all three of them have the Relays destroyed, which will have huge repercussions for every civilization.

Also if you don't think the Reapers would keep the end of the bargain with Saren in Mass Effect, why do you think they now are going to keep their end of the bargain?

But how exactly is Synthesis a bargain with the Reapers? The pulse comes from the Crucible, not the Reapers, and they are apparently affected by it simultaneously with everyone else. If the Reapers were going around and manually implanting people, or even if they were releasing the energy themselves, then sure, that would be a huge reason to suspect deception, but my impression is that the pulse simply does its thing once Shepard jumps into the beam and isn't under anybody's control at that point.

No mater how aggressive or dominating the Illusive Man is he still thinks the method of Control is the way to beat  the Reapers. Shepard is not arguing during the game that someone like him should control the Reapers instead, he is arguing that attempting this method is morally wrong and no one should attempt it. It the same as the Saren argument. Evein if  Shepard is good and strong willed the opportunity to be corrupted by that much power is too great to leave to chance. So again why is Shepard all of a sudden going against all he was fighting against with the Illusive Man?

I'd agree with you except for the fact that Shepard arguably doesn't retain any control over the Reapers (or perhaps even continue existing) after presumably giving them the command to stop the attacks. If Shepard as an individual is essentially dead at that point, or just gives up control once they've stopped the attacks, there's no real opportunity to become corrupted. The ending should have been written in a way to make all this clearer, but it does at least allow an interpretation that doesn't involve Shepard becoming the new Immortal Reaper Overlord (which I'm guessing TIM probably *does* want).

[antares_sublight]

I'll mention (again) that synthesis also puts a kill-switch into every living thing in the galaxy. The Destroy option shows that there exists some method of sending out some kind of energy/something to remotely destroy all synthetic or partly-synthetic life. Maybe it couldn't be replicated galaxy-wide at once without the citadel/crucible/mass relays, but it's just a matter of time before someone develops it into a weapon. Also, are EMPs true WMDs now?

And how does Harbinger feel about being (re-?/extra-?)synthesized by the way? Has his personality been altered sufficiently that he's a-ok with it all? Will reapers set up colony someplace? Participate in galactic politics?

Modifié par antares_sublight, 10 mai 2012 - 06:32 .

[Ieldra]

Konfined wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I see Synthesis as a symbiosis. I just don't feel I have the right to make that choice for everyone. If Bioware can give a bit more info to understand it a bit better I might feel better about it.

Could I ever choose it?

I don't think so.

That is a valid reason not to choose it, unlike most others given here. It's not a valid reason to try and sour it for everyone else. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but there are people who do.

I know you don't and I am pleased to see it.

I don't really have a right to destroy the Reapers and Synthetics either......

You see, I really see nothing as "justified" in a war. What I do see in Destory is a way to start the Doomsday clock at zero in the organic/synthetic debate. But is killing thousands upon thousands better than rewriting every living things in the galaxy? I don't really know. No one dies in Synthesis but they are rewritten............something I don't think I could ever do.

Yeah, but Destroy also sets the clock of civilization back more than any other choice. That's the real, deep-down reason why I don't like it. Control maintains the status quo, and Synthesis ushers in a new age with new wonders.....and possibly new horrors. And I'd always risk the horrors to get the wonders. Must be the optimist in me.

Also I see Synthesis as symbiosis, so nobody is genetically rewritten or changed irreversibly. 

But I wonder what the writers thought when they wrote that nonsense about a new DNA and biosynthetic plants. I have read a lot of supersoft SF over the years, but never I came across something so stupid that I had to throw away most of the description to make sense of it. 

Then, quite frankly, you're doing it wrong.  It's established in game canon that synthesis completely combines organic and synthetic life and alters them down to the genetic level.  Starchild quote, verbatim: "Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out.  The chain reaction will combine all organic and sythetic life into a new framework.  A new DNA."  

That's pretty clear cut; cut and dry; no room for reinterpretation, or drawing a different meaning.  All life in the galaxy will be combined with synthetics, that is the established  Mass Effect lore.  If you choose synthesis, that is what will happen.  While blatantly ignoring this fact is your choice, your interpretation is directly at odds with the in game canon.  

You think I should use the literal meaning even it makes no sense? I'm sorry, but that would be almost as stupid as the description is in the first place.

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Edit:
I am aware of the possibility that the writers might have pulled this out of their ass without much thinking. But that doesn't matter. If it makes no sense, if I cannot even make it make sense without rejecting the literal meaning altogether, then I am not obligated to accept it as written.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 mai 2012 - 07:06 .

[Taboo]

See this is the thing. In no way shape or form does the catalyst say that it will take everyone into a new dark age. It says synthetic life. This obviously means geth and reapers. But with EDI now confirmed by the writers to be surviving I don't know what to belive.

To be honest I think we were supposed to come up with our own answers depending on our EMS. In my version of a high EMS destroy the only thing disabled are the reapers. Shepard survives the beam in this scenario, so I'm going to imagine his synthetic implants didn't explode or something. Are we even sure how Destroy "destroys" synthetics? Does it simply shut them down? Is it like a large neural shock or something?

We need more info.....

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 10 mai 2012 - 07:08 .

[kookie28]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Konfined wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I see Synthesis as a symbiosis. I just don't feel I have the right to make that choice for everyone. If Bioware can give a bit more info to understand it a bit better I might feel better about it.

Could I ever choose it?

I don't think so.

That is a valid reason not to choose it, unlike most others given here. It's not a valid reason to try and sour it for everyone else. Not that I'm accusing you of that, but there are people who do.

I know you don't and I am pleased to see it.

I don't really have a right to destroy the Reapers and Synthetics either......

You see, I really see nothing as "justified" in a war. What I do see in Destory is a way to start the Doomsday clock at zero in the organic/synthetic debate. But is killing thousands upon thousands better than rewriting every living things in the galaxy? I don't really know. No one dies in Synthesis but they are rewritten............something I don't think I could ever do.

Yeah, but Destroy also sets the clock of civilization back more than any other choice. That's the real, deep-down reason why I don't like it. Control maintains the status quo, and Synthesis ushers in a new age with new wonders.....and possibly new horrors. And I'd always risk the horrors to get the wonders. Must be the optimist in me.

Also I see Synthesis as symbiosis, so nobody is genetically rewritten or changed irreversibly. 

But I wonder what the writers thought when they wrote that nonsense about a new DNA and biosynthetic plants. I have read a lot of supersoft SF over the years, but never I came across something so stupid that I had to throw away most of the description to make sense of it. 

Then, quite frankly, you're doing it wrong.  It's established in game canon that synthesis completely combines organic and synthetic life and alters them down to the genetic level.  Starchild quote, verbatim: "Everything you are will be absorbed, and then sent out.  The chain reaction will combine all organic and sythetic life into a new framework.  A new DNA."  

That's pretty clear cut; cut and dry; no room for reinterpretation, or drawing a different meaning.  All life in the galaxy will be combined with synthetics, that is the established  Mass Effect lore.  If you choose synthesis, that is what will happen.  While blatantly ignoring this fact is your choice, your interpretation is directly at odds with the in game canon.  

You think I should use the literal meaning even it makes no sense? I'm sorry, but that would be almost as stupid as the description is in the first place.

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Edit:
I am aware of the possibility that the writers might have pulled this out of their ass without much thinking. But that doesn't matter. If it makes no sense, if I cannot even make it make sense without rejecting the literal meaning altogether, then I am not obligated to accept it as written.

"A new DNA" is just an oversimplification of what is happening.  At least, I'd hope that's what Bioware was doing.

[Konfined]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You think I should use the literal meaning even it makes no sense? I'm sorry, but that would be almost as stupid as the description is in the first place.

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

There is nothing to get.  Of course I and everyone with even rudimentary knowledge of biology know that synthesis is completely impossible in reality.  Is synthesis as described completely stupid, absolutely.  Is the inception idiotic, of course.  Does it fly in the face of all science, no doubt.  But as far as Mass Effect is concerned, it is what it is- and what it is, is the fusing of synthetics and organics into a new lifeform.  

There is no indication that there is a deeper meaning beyond what it was described to be; synthesis is what was described by the illogical Staridiotkid.  Starmoronboy showed no sign or interest in metaphors or philosophy or such at any point during the conversation with him.  His descriptions of destroy and control were all in the literal sense.  Suddenly synthesis has a deeper, metaphorical meaning?  Don't think so.

So it doesn't *have* to be anything other than what it is.  You may wish your interpretation of it were so, and I feel for you, but what you see is what you get.  A retarded, non-sensical, impossible in reality, poorly written dose of space magic.

Modifié par Konfined, 10 mai 2012 - 07:29 .

[Taboo]

What Synthesis essentially proposes is adding something new to the "GTCA" DNA framework.

You cannot mess with that without changing the being.

It is nothing short of DIVINE.

[antares_sublight]

kookie28 wrote...
"A new DNA" is just an oversimplification of what is happening.  At least, I'd hope that's what Bioware was doing.

Ah, but look, if it's not a genetic change, then this "peace through synthesis" will only apply to organisms alive at the synthesis time. Assuming life can still procreate, if it wasn't a genetic change then any offspring would be back to normal and the whole thing wouldn't have been much of a solution at all.

The only way around this I can see would be if all the organic-synthetic life replicated in someway instead of procreating like they used to. But then that would end up being very reaper-like...

[Thaa_solon]

My thoughts on synthesis is as follows

www.youtube.com/watch

[akenn312]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
 
I've never seen what the Reapers are doing as representing a "merge." They seem to gain something from the races they harvest, but those individuals do indeed die in the process. At best, the Reapers' harvests might be equivalent to Borg assimilation on Star Trek - their victims may not be whisked out of existence, but they are completely dominated and controlled by the Collective. There's a huge difference between (a) continuing to exist as a free and conscious individual but with some weird cybernetic implants and ( maybe, at best, some small aspect of your consciousness surviving within a collective intelligence that has as its primary purpose wiping out and assimilating trillions of people every 50,000 years. I wouldn't relish either, but I'd still take (a) over ( in a heartbeat.

The reapers trying to get man an machine to merge has been an ongoing theme throughout the series. Thats why you have husks, The Collectors, the human Reaper, Banshee's Saren ..ect. The collective individuals do not die they live on in Reaper form. That's why you have to "Kill" Husks and ect. They are still alive. The Reapers are not completely machines either. If they were then explain how harvesting organics makes a Reaper a complete machine? They consider themselves the pinnacle of evolution because they are the combination of a harvested organic race and synthetic mind and body. You say the lesser of two evils is the way to go but that was not Shepard's message to defeat the Reapers. Shepard has always argued compromise is wrong and Saren's beliefs can be considered the lesser of two evils as well. Remember to the Catalyst Shepard says "We would like to keep our own form." Why say that then do the exact opposite?

Yes, and as I said, I agree with that criticism, but it applies to the other endings as well - Destroy has you killing even sentient, benevolent synthetics, and all three of them have the Relays destroyed, which will have huge repercussions for every civilization.

I hate all three, so no argument there.

But how exactly is Synthesis a bargain with the Reapers? The pulse comes from the Crucible, not the Reapers, and they are apparently affected by it simultaneously with everyone else. If the Reapers were going around and manually implanting people, or even if they were releasing the energy themselves, then sure, that would be a huge reason to suspect deception, but my impression is that the pulse simply does its thing once Shepard jumps into the beam and isn't under anybody's control at that point.

Don't let the somber music and child's form fool you. This concept is still coming from the creator of the Reaper threat that still makes him a Reaper he still believes that he must control the natural evolution of organics and synthetics. So a bargain with evil is not a compromise if the Reapers allows us to choose thier ultimate goal with free will? It's still a choice that follows the basic goal they have been trying to achieve to get man & machine to join. What does it matter if it's done with a pulse of energy or a impalement spike? It's still forcing man and machine to join into a new framework. A Husk could be considered a new DNA. So to me that's still working with the Reapers if you change everyones DNA.

I'd agree with you except for the fact that Shepard arguably doesn't retain any control over the Reapers (or perhaps even continue existing) after presumably giving them the command to stop the attacks. If Shepard as an individual is essentially dead at that point, or just gives up control once they've stopped the attacks, there's no real opportunity to become corrupted. The ending should have been written in a way to make all this clearer, but it does at least allow an interpretation that doesn't involve Shepard becoming the new Immortal Reaper Overlord (which I'm guessing TIM probably *does* want).

Again you are making that up in your mind because you want Shepard's choices to be successful and noble. But Shepard argued against the Illusive Man because absolute power corrupts and any human trying to control the Reapers would be corrupted even Shepard believed he would as well. That's why he never said "I'll control the Reapers instead of you. Or was trying to find ways himself to control the Reapers. Him being dead has nothing to do with it, again you are letting wording throw you off of the main problem. Shepard is choosing exactly what he is against to end this game.

Just because we look at Shepard is a good guy does not mean he can change everyones DNA in the Galaxy, sentence a entire species to destruction or take control of the Reapers. Those were not good ideas to end the threat of the Reapers, and Bioware should know that. They are the ones that made them bad ideas for us to fight against in the first place. Think about the Krogan and the Genophage &  tampering with thier DNA, That was wrong to stop the Krogan threat with the Genophage. How is it right now to stop the Reapers with Sythesis?

Modifié par akenn312, 10 mai 2012 - 09:23 .

[frylock23]

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Well, why do you think the term "space magic" has been thrown around so derisively? Of course it makes absolutely no sense and neither does the Normandy scene at the end although that one actually is less nonsensical (if that's possible).

However, since you seem so bent on taking the Catalyst at face value for everything else, then it makes no sense for you suddenly throw out the bit that suddenly doesn't make sense to you. If he makes no sense on the "new DNA" bit, then what else is he not being exaclty straight on? Hmmm?

Maybe destroy doesn't kill EDI or the Geth after all. If he's not straight about the way synthesis works because he's throwing you a line of BS there, then maybe he's not being exactly straight about this too ...

Ah, speculations, speculations ... 

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Like I said, if it's not genetic then the change won't continue to the next generation and the solution wasn't much of a solution at all, unless all normal procreation stops and reproduction is done via reaper-like absorption of organics for replication...

Modifié par antares_sublight, 10 mai 2012 - 07:59 .

[Silpheed58]

The ghost kid is a reaper.
The last time I saw a reaper solution was in ME2.
No sir, I don't like it.

[Ieldra]

frylock23 wrote...

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Well, why do you think the term "space magic" has been thrown around so derisively? Of course it makes absolutely no sense and neither does the Normandy scene at the end although that one actually is less nonsensical (if that's possible).

However, since you seem so bent on taking the Catalyst at face value for everything else, then it makes no sense for you suddenly throw out the bit that suddenly doesn't make sense to you. If he makes no sense on the "new DNA" bit, then what else is he not being exaclty straight on? Hmmm?

Maybe destroy doesn't kill EDI or the Geth after all. If he's not straight about the way synthesis works because he's throwing you a line of BS there, then maybe he's not being exactly straight about this too ...

Ah, speculations, speculations ... 

I'm using out-of-universe reasoning here. If the writers present me with nonsense, I don't have to take it at face value. The thing is, the leaked script has a better description, so I think the Catalyst meant that and the writers were just deliberately obtuse about it. I think Walters and Hudson deliberately added nonsense to the ending after the script was leaked, for whatever crazy reason. Perhaps to ****** the fans off. I wouldn't put it beyond them after this ending. 

However, since I have an alternative I am not obligated to buy the nonsense. How does this read in comparison? This is by the same writers who brought us the nonsense, if you can believe that:

"You may combine the synthetic and the organic."
"Add your energy, your essence, with that of Crucible. The resulting chain reaction will transform both of our kind."
"We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us."
"It is a very elegant solution. And a path you have already started down."
"The harvesting will cease. It will be a new ascension, for synthetic and organic life."

Why the hell did they throw it out?




 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 mai 2012 - 08:13 .

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Well, why do you think the term "space magic" has been thrown around so derisively? Of course it makes absolutely no sense and neither does the Normandy scene at the end although that one actually is less nonsensical (if that's possible).

However, since you seem so bent on taking the Catalyst at face value for everything else, then it makes no sense for you suddenly throw out the bit that suddenly doesn't make sense to you. If he makes no sense on the "new DNA" bit, then what else is he not being exaclty straight on? Hmmm?

Maybe destroy doesn't kill EDI or the Geth after all. If he's not straight about the way synthesis works because he's throwing you a line of BS there, then maybe he's not being exactly straight about this too ...

Ah, speculations, speculations ... 

I'm using out-of-universe reasoning here. If the writers present me with nonsense, I don't have to take it at face value. The thing is, the leaked script has a better description, so I think the Catalyst meant that and the writers were just deliberately obtuse about it. I think Walters and Hudson deliberately added nonsense to the ending after the script was leaked, for whatever crazy reason. Perhaps to ****** the fans off. I wouldn't put it beyond them after this ending. 

However, since I have an alternative I am not obligated to buy the nonsense. How does this read in comparison? This is by the same writers who brought us the nonsense, if you can believe that:

"You may combine the synthetic and the organic."
"Add your energy, your essence, with that of Crucible. The resulting chain reaction will transform both of our kind."
"We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us."
"It is a very elegant solution. And a path you have already started down."
"The harvesting will cease. It will be a new ascension, for synthetic and organic life."

Why the hell did they throw it out?

I gotta tell you that it would still be abhorrent to me for the same reason -> I'm forcing all extant life in the galaxy down this path with no assurances of anything. If anything, this is worse in that it makes no attempt to offer any explanation of how it works which is what they attempted to do and it backfired horribly because they chose such a nonsensical explanation. Of course, there really isn't any good one. You're basically choosing to alter the fabric of reality and that's outside the realm of any known technology in the ME universe. Not even the Reapers are capable of it because they've even more of less explained them technologically.

[Ieldra]

Alter the fabric of reality? Now you're going off the deep end. I get that you still don't like it, and I understand why, but don't try to make it worse than it is. I have made a few suggestions in my synthesis threads about how things might work, and there is nothing magical about it except the process that leads there so suddenly.

BTW, not trying to make things appear worse than they are would be a good guideline when talking about the endings. I am seeing too much talking that looks like "It must be extremely horrible because I have an unexplained aversion to it".

[antares_sublight]

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Like I said, if it's not genetic then the change won't continue to the next generation and the solution wasn't much of a solution at all, unless all normal procreation stops and reproduction is done via reaper-like absorption of organics for replication...

No response?

[Konfined]

Ieldra2 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

Don't you get it? There cannot be a hybrid DNA. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally organic. The difference between organics and synthetics, the one that creates the extinction scenario the Catalyst wants to prevent, cannot be reduced to a mere difference of biochemistry, whichever definition of organic and synthetic life you are using. And even were it possible. then the whole conflict would make no sense since we've proven again and again that coexistence with species with a different biochemistry is possible.

So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Well, why do you think the term "space magic" has been thrown around so derisively? Of course it makes absolutely no sense and neither does the Normandy scene at the end although that one actually is less nonsensical (if that's possible).

However, since you seem so bent on taking the Catalyst at face value for everything else, then it makes no sense for you suddenly throw out the bit that suddenly doesn't make sense to you. If he makes no sense on the "new DNA" bit, then what else is he not being exaclty straight on? Hmmm?

Maybe destroy doesn't kill EDI or the Geth after all. If he's not straight about the way synthesis works because he's throwing you a line of BS there, then maybe he's not being exactly straight about this too ...

Ah, speculations, speculations ... 

I'm using out-of-universe reasoning here. If the writers present me with nonsense, I don't have to take it at face value. The thing is, the leaked script has a better description, so I think the Catalyst meant that and the writers were just deliberately obtuse about it. I think Walters and Hudson deliberately added nonsense to the ending after the script was leaked, for whatever crazy reason. Perhaps to ****** the fans off. I wouldn't put it beyond them after this ending. 

However, since I have an alternative I am not obligated to buy the nonsense. How does this read in comparison? This is by the same writers who brought us the nonsense, if you can believe that:

"You may combine the synthetic and the organic."
"Add your energy, your essence, with that of Crucible. The resulting chain reaction will transform both of our kind."
"We synthetics will become more like you, and organic life will become like us."
"It is a very elegant solution. And a path you have already started down."
"The harvesting will cease. It will be a new ascension, for synthetic and organic life."

Why the hell did they throw it out?




 

Arguing for or against a topic, whilst using an alternate, or in this context, completely false variation of the subject is completely asinine.  You're arguing for something that doesn't exist; you might as well be arguing aboutt a lava lamp for all the sense that makes.  The version we've got in game, is the version we've got in game; what was, or what could have been is completely irrelevant.  There is no other scenario that can possibly be considered- the synthesis presently in game, is the subject at hand.  How can you possibly argue against the topic, when your version doesn't even track with what everyone else is arguing about?  

Your headcanon and fanfic version of synthesis is perfectly fine, except you're here trying to argue for the merits of a synthesis that doesn't actually exist in game.  So your out-of-universe interpretation is completely irrelevant to the topic, because it is in direct contradiction to what's considered in game lore now- not on paper, not on an alternate script that was discarded, but right now in game, as of release.  You don't want to take it at its literal sense, that's your choice.  But to try and argue for it in this discussion is just ridiculous.  Your version is invalid.

Modifié par Konfined, 10 mai 2012 - 09:01 .

[Vasirr]

I thought it was good, I slowly accepted my Shepards death.

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Alter the fabric of reality? Now you're going off the deep end. I get that you still don't like it, and I understand why, but don't try to make it worse than it is. I have made a few suggestions in my synthesis threads about how things might work, and there is nothing magical about it except the process that leads there so suddenly.

BTW, not trying to make things appear worse than they are would be a good guideline when talking about the endings. I am seeing too much talking that looks like "It must be extremely horrible because I have an unexplained aversion to it".

Look, I'm not the one that said the solution of synthesis as presented contains nonsense (i.e. new DNA). The only possible way to do it is to alter the fabric of reality which remains the only way to make nonsense real. You agree with that don't you?

And who says that altering the fabric of reality always has to end up bad? I certainly haven't. Ijust think that in this case what you're doing it for isn't the best of reasons.

I also think that it's off that you can suddenly alter reality in a universe where everything else, including the Lovecraftian horrors we're fighting, has at least some kind of technological explanation that falls within the mythos. The Crucible does not, for any of its endings which is another reason why the ending is so poor no matter which one you pick. There is no way to explain what it does withing the context of the established lore of the ME world.

[WYLDMAXX]

Fusion of organic material is not possible without DNA or Space...wait for it..Magic.    Very thought of synthesis reminds of  the ending to the 1985 movie version of The Fly when Brundlefly and the telepod fused. 

[TheClonesLegacy]

Hey you guys are missing the big Picture so I'll Restate it Synthesis Is Screwing With the Natural Order of the Universe No one has the right to do that, because You don't F**k with the Natural order of the Universe.
so yeah I hope you all like Destroying the Natural Progression of Evolution.
But whatever not like evolution gave anyone anything.

Modifié par TheClonesLegacy, 11 mai 2012 - 04:24 .

[Bill Casey]

Horrible ethical implications aside for a second...

We've spent three games fighting the forcible combination of organics and synthetics...

Organics and Synthetics are working together right now to stop the forcible combination of Organics and Synthetics by the Reapers and Cerberus...

And Shepard is going to cut a back room deal with the Reaper King at the last minute...

It's completely and utterly thematically concurrent...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 11 mai 2012 - 04:42 .

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
So it *has* to be something else, and the Synthesis *has* to be something else than a genetic rewrite. Ever heard of metaphors? The hesitation of the Catalyst before it pronounces it: "A new....DNA" should be indication enough that you shouldn't take it literally. Insisting that it must be is stupid.

Like I said, if it's not genetic then the change won't continue to the next generation and the solution wasn't much of a solution at all, unless all normal procreation stops and reproduction is done via reaper-like absorption of organics for replication...

No response?

I'm not in your timezone. As for your objection, I have already outlined how that might work (scroll down to the last third). The solution is nanite clusters which reproduce themselves and pass on to the offspring.