528 réponses à ce sujet

[Gen Petitt]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Navasha wrote...
For one thing anything that is FORCED upon someone if by very definition NOT good for them.

That is wrong. It happens often that people are too stupid or ideologically prejudiced to see what's good for them. Do they have the right to reject it anyway? We tend to say "yes" in our culture, but I don't think the answer is as easy as that.

Quit spreading your propaganda. Hitler thought that killing Jews, Aspies, and anyone who fit thier ideas for a "master race" was for the best what is good for them like synthesis is doing.

[Jayleia]

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.

Is it the next step?  What evolutionary process dictates that it is the next step?  (Hint:  Evolutionary processes do not wear N7 armor)

Yes its forced.

Broccoli is good for you...pardon me while I pump liquid broccoli down your throat.   Don't like broccoli?  Too bad, its good for you.  Colonoscopies are good for you...yeah...THAT'll go over well.

Noone is hurt?  Imagine that you're something like a Luddite, or the Amish, someone with strong anti-technology beliefs.  Now you've been upgraded, there's no off-switch, and you can't get it out of you...there's only one way to turn it off...and if suicide is against your religion then you're hosed.

If it were a legitimate evolutionary process (ie selection pressures dictating that survival favors upgrading), or by choice, I'd see no problem.  But its not a legitimate evolutionary process, its a choice made by one person, without caring what you feel about it.  It's also made with inadequate, and clearly asymmetric information, provided by the LAST person in the entire universe that you should trust

Never mind that all Shepards, paragon/renegade/other have spent the last 2 . 995 games trying NOT to become part of a synthesis imposed on us.

[tvman099]

EvilMind wrote...

The short versions like "Its genetical rape" "Its forced" are not welcomed,.

Translation: "Please do not bring good reasons for why it's completely immoral and unacceptable in here, I want to believe in my silly fantasy that forcibly restructuring the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy is a good thing".

[d-boy15]

while I not consider synthesis as "bad" ending, I not call it a "best" ending either.

[Joe Del Toro]

tvman099 wrote...

EvilMind wrote...

The short versions like "Its genetical rape" "Its forced" are not welcomed,.

Translation: "Please do not bring good reasons for why it's completely immoral and unacceptable in here, I want to believe in my silly fantasy that forcibly restructuring the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy is a good thing".

God, this. Sometimes the short responses are the best ones.

[goofyomnivore]

Synthesis is explained so poorly, so it becomes so polarizing. The way it is explained it could be a traumatizing experience were many people could resent the Crucbile/Shepard for it. Or it could be a subtle change like organics have tiny nanobots inside them, that clean up their heart/organs, 'overclock' the organic's chemicals in its brain to increase intelligence, etc. While the synthetics get true sentience, emotions, empathy, etc in their 'code'. Stuff EDI and the Geth are still struggling with right now.

I'm going to wait to the EC before I decide which one I like the best, personally but I don't think synthesis is doomed to genetic rape. Because that is impossible. You can't meld them like the Catalyst says, it has to be a metaphor.

Modifié par strive, 09 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[Ieldra]

Karrie788 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Navasha wrote...
For one thing anything that is FORCED upon someone if by very definition NOT good for them.

That is wrong. It happens often that people are too stupid or ideologically prejudiced to see what's good for them. Do they have the right to reject it anyway? We tend to say "yes" in our culture, but I don't think the answer is as easy as that.

Maybe, but you would have to make sure the person taking the decision for everybody "for their own good" is extremely wise at the very least and ideally all-knowing.
I'm not sure anybody, and certainly not Shepard, are fit to take such decisions for the rest of the galaxy regarding their genetic... "destiny".

While the results should convince most people, In my interpretation the effects are reversible. The Catalyst wouldn't be concerned about a few dropouts in the scheme.

I do not take the "genetic rewrite" literally - because that makes no sense. There can't be a hybrid DNA-analogue. If synthetics gained a DNA-analogue, they would be functionally identical to organics. I see it more as a symbiosis.

[arathor_87]

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.

Next step in evolution? It's like saying that the Illusive Mans research is the next step in evolution, when he's playing god trying to evolve the human race by experiments.

And how do you know that this has no flaws? A weak organic mind could make the synthetic part of that person go rogue? Only because it's a mix of both it doesn't mean this race only gets the good sides, and it doesn't matter that it's Shepard jumping into the beam, he is still a human with flaws.

Modifié par arathor_87, 09 mai 2012 - 12:31 .

[lordofdogtown19]

 Because that's exactly what Saren wanted in ME1. Listen to him yourself: 
 (skip to 1:54)

"Organic machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weakness of niether. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of organic life." 

Modifié par lordofdogtown19, 09 mai 2012 - 12:34 .

[ediskrad327]

synthesis, it's immoral, complicated, it's forced, it's nightmare stuff, and IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!

[JBPBRC]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

tvman099 wrote...

EvilMind wrote...

The short versions like "Its genetical rape" "Its forced" are not welcomed,.

Translation: "Please do not bring good reasons for why it's completely immoral and unacceptable in here, I want to believe in my silly fantasy that forcibly restructuring the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy is a good thing".

God, this. Sometimes the short responses are the best ones.

[YNation913]

I watched X-men the other day, couldn't help but draw parallels between synthesis and what happened to senator Kelly, and Magneto's plan.

[jtav]

I don't think the "force" argument is compelling. We force infants to have vaccines. In-utero genetic engineering is common in ME. Should we stop that because the fetus can't consent? We force people not to use cocaine. There's a history of paternalism, and it isn't always bad. It depends entirely on the nature of what you're forcing.

[cogsandcurls]

Because, aside from the non-consensual aspect and the fact that it makes no sense on a practical level, there IS no "next step" or "pinnacle" in evolution. Evolution doesn't have a direction, evolution is random changes, some of which survive if they happen to be beneficial to the survival of the species in the environment in which they live. Synthesising primeval slime does not make it the pinnacle of evolution, it makes it some primeval slime with some circuitry in it, which, given the somewhat static nature of sythetics, might actually HINDER the slime's evolution into something more advanced rather than help it at all.

[d-boy15]

jtav wrote...

I don't think the "force" argument is compelling. We force infants to have vaccines. In-utero genetic engineering is common in ME. Should we stop that because the fetus can't consent? We force people not to use cocaine. There's a history of paternalism, and it isn't always bad. It depends entirely on the nature of what you're forcing.

because those force are not consider from one people, the civilization and nation agree for it. synthesis is different
you force everyone to change against their will and worst it's offer by the enemy leader.

the scale also diffrent and it's not change thing like synthesis does.

[Oldbones2]

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.

http://social.biowar.../index/11152094

[jtav]

And society has handed its responsibility to Shep. If he doesn't have the moral authority for Synthesis, he doesn't have it to wipe out the geth via Destroy.

[Linkenski]

Because we didn't need it. There was no synthetics vs. organics conflict except for Reapers vs. organics, for me because i alligned the Quarians and the Geth. I ended up choosing synthesis anyway, because i didn't want to destroy the friends i made (EDI and the Geth)
But that's my reason for not liking the ending. There is no problem anymore so the reapers have no reason for reaping. Everyone learned from the Geth/Quarian conflict, so it wont happen again.

Its not like World War 2 or holocaust have started over since it ended... IT'S because people learned from their mistakes.

[vixvicco]

Imagine if someone woke your up in the morning and said, "Hi, I replaced your fully-functioning organic arm with a biotic one, just because I thought I should and I think it'll be fantastic!"  Does that answer your question?

Modifié par vixvicco, 09 mai 2012 - 01:19 .

[savionen]

Assuming there is no moral dilemma, it's still nonsense and foolish.

Either everything becomes a living creature in some form, possibly sentient, or, it's still possible to create synthetics. Joker also is still seen limping at the end, and EDI is completely fine (even though her brain is inside the Normandy.) So did Synthesis actually DO anything?

Modifié par savionen, 09 mai 2012 - 01:24 .

[comrade gando]

I'd rather die than live as a reaper slave. that's why I dont like it

[YNation913]

Linkenski wrote...

Because we didn't need it. There was no synthetics vs. organics conflict except for Reapers vs. organics, for me because i alligned the Quarians and the Geth. I ended up choosing synthesis anyway, because i didn't want to destroy the friends i made (EDI and the Geth)
But that's my reason for not liking the ending. There is no problem anymore so the reapers have no reason for reaping. Everyone learned from the Geth/Quarian conflict, so it wont happen again.

Its not like World War 2 or holocaust have started over since it ended... IT'S because people learned from their mistakes.

But the Geth aren't really getting anything out of helping the quarians. EDI even said in her Shadow Broker files that she had to restrict herself to help organics.

[d-boy15]

jtav wrote...

And society has handed its responsibility to Shep. If he doesn't have the moral authority for Synthesis, he doesn't have it to wipe out the geth via Destroy.

they doesn't give the responsibility to him, he just the only one to make it that far. the whole galaxy build the
crucible to defeat reaper not to alter their DNA to pleased the catalyst so, the reaper will leave them alone.

there are diffrent between synthesis and destroy, in destroy shepard didn't intend to destroy the geth the only
thing he ask is "the reaper will be destroy?" so, in this case the geth is more like collateral damage than an
intended genocide. does this make it good? no. in synthesis you about to change all thing in the galaxy without
knowing the effect and without asking them. worst, the reaper are still exist. so, the moral in this choice is a
little more complex because you had to ask youself, is one man have right to choose for the whole galaxy?
if you answer is yes, go for it. it's the best choice for you.

also, if you tell that shepard doesn't had right to choose destroy with geth as colleteral damage, I had to say
that it's no right for allied to bomb japan either.

Modifié par d-boy15, 09 mai 2012 - 01:36 .

[ZombieChad]

Of course, logically speaking, the extinction of one race is preferable to the extinction of every species. I am not arguing that (I don't have a problem with being a person that 'sacrifices 10 million people here, to save 20 million there')

But we were talking about having the right to do something. No matter how you look at it, you kill all the geth if you pick Destroy. That means you are responsible for that. Just that it is the lesser of three evils does not mean it's suddenly a right decision. You still commit genocide (or atleast mass synthetic-cide). Which is an action you don't have the right to do.

Sorry it took so long to reply, lost connection then accidentally my original reply without posting like a muppet.

What source says the Geth and EDI are all dead? The Catalyst or a source I've missed? If it's The Catalyst, why do you trust it? It started the entire mess in the first place. As two of its apparent victims are still around. (Shep and EDI) Why should the Geth be any different?

The point on Ruthless Calculus should be intrinsically tied to your decision, as it isn't made in a little bubble devoid from the rest of the plot. The galaxy is burning as a race of AI dreadnoughts slaughter and corrupt everything they can get their grubby little mits on. This war is unprecedented (at least in our cycle) in scale and level of deaths. Instead of armies mobilising species are mobilising, it's the Total War concept taken to the next level. The Geth like everyone else joined Shepard as they are prepared to die rather than submit to the Old Machines. Turian's and Krogan are allies (WTF!), even the Asari are getting off their asses. The Salarian Dalatresses are begrudgingly helping whilst STG are flooding in droves... and so on and so on....

So what right does Shepard have? The right of the chief opponent of the Reapers and a military officer. The scale is horrifically different but ultimately it's ordering a unit's (read: species) death so that more unit's (read: species) survive. War doesn't allow for normal moral choices as it is far from a normal situation and even further from morals.

I would say then that she is is more empowered to destroy the Reapers regardless of cost than she is to choose Control or Synthesis. Each and every ally signed up to kill the Reapers. None signed up to give Control to Shepard or suddenly sprout metal bits or organic bits.  They all wanted their own future. The Geth are the price tag on that goal and it's bloody high, but they have already stated they want nothing to do with the Reapers. I reckon teleporting bits into them and surgically/mechanically grafting them onto them is liable to ****** them off. Personally, though the Geth are AI they are still logic driven and I think that any Geth would've happily flipped the Destroy switch/shot tube despite their own death as they would recognise that their sacrifice gives the galaxy back to it's surviving inhabitants as well as disproving the Catalyst's logic.  The deaths of the Geth are tragic casualties of war just like every other species the Reaper's have claimed through countless cycles and every other individual in this cycle. I think a fundamental difference in our thoughts behind the endings is that I feel the responsibility for every death and extinction, including the geth, belongs not with Shepard nor anyone else but the Catalyst and Reapers for it's flawed assumptions about all AI and it's even more broken plan to fix it.

So that leaves us at Synthesis where you're relying on their good will not to change their mind (and ties into the point that new synthetics can be made anyway)   Destroy on the other hand ends the threat very permanently unless the long hinted at stuff from Bioware is "Mass Effect: Reaper Zombie Multiplayer Mode".

You are right that the choice is the lesser of 3 evils but I'll choose the death of the Geth to get the better future for those who come afterwards without any chance of Reaper influence thanks.

[The Angry One]

YNation913 wrote...

But the Geth aren't really getting anything out of helping the quarians. EDI even said in her Shadow Broker files that she had to restrict herself to help organics.

The Geth gain acceptance and co-existance, what they've wanted all along.
Remember the consensus mission? The Geth try to hide it, but they want to work with organics, and specifically they want to be with their creators.

The first thing the Prime does after peace is ask the Quarians to settle on Rannoch "with us". Why would it specifally add "with us"?
Why not "Look have this part of the planet and stay out of our way."

There's also the cut Geth Prime dialogue where it sounds quite pleased to be fighting alongside the Quarians.

Modifié par The Angry One, 09 mai 2012 - 01:36 .