528 réponses à ce sujet

[frylock23]

MattFini wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

MattFini wrote...

It's a pretentious cop-out that has no place at the end of this story.

"Oh, wouldn't it be beautiful if we all got along?"

It's anticlimactic and silly.

It's not so much that. It would indeed be beautiful if we could all get along, but the idea that forcing everyone to be the same at some fundamental level is going to achieve that is only going to work if it takes away all freewill. Our differences do not come so much just from our DNA as they do from our nurture.

We're all individuals and even genetically identical individuals are different as evidenced from their different experiences -> their nuture.

Difference is the root of conflict.

So the only way that Star Brat's synthesis works is if it also removes freewill by forcing everyone to be the same in more than just the fundamental but also in the behavioral.

I agree with you.  But fundamentally, I feel like it has no basis in what ME has been up to that point.  

I find it pretentious becuase, taken at face value (ie - not part of IT) it pretends that it's the "ultimate" solution.  But why would this be?  Couldn't the Krogan still go to war with the Turians, etc?  That was as much a part of ME's lore as organics vs. synthetics, but Synthesis somehow suggests that everything will work out right. 

Speaking strictly within the confines of the narrative, I completely agree with you. I think BioWare tried to present synthesis as their unicorn and rainbows ending, and it failed dismally precisely because most of us thought about it.

[Patchwork]

In a different setting Synthesis would be the evil plot the hero sets out to thwart for the reasons already explained.

In fact up until the last 10 minutes of the game it was the evil plot Shepard and co were fighting against.

[Zix13]

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.

I'll give you a list and happily explain if you require me to elaborate.
1)No explantion for how it works or what the result is. For all we know when making the choice, it may just mean turning people into reapers and/or husks using the crucible.
2)Similar to what Saren was saying in me1. 
3)Reapers are still around. Reapers can decide to keep on reaping at any time. 
4)Doesn't stop synthetics from being created.
5)Unethical on so many levels. Have you played DX:HR? The reactions to augmentation vary from "Yes please" to "I'd die first". Synthesis appears to be far more invasive. Because you think it's a good thing doesn't mean others will. 
6)Why do you jump into a green deathray to activate it?
7)Reaper leader-boy wants you to pick it. 

[InHarmsWay]

Synthesis doesn't stop the possibility of people of the galaxy creating synthetics. Does synthesis forcible stops a person from making a synthetic? If so then you have created slavery with synthesis. People are just as capable of making synthetics as they did before. Being partially synthetic won't stop discrimination against synthetics. Humans discriminate against each other over skin colour and ideology. Turians hate bare-faces. Salarians have their own hated group (can't remember their name). Being similar to another life does not make one sympathetic to said life. Unity comes from mindset not genetics.

[Siansonea]

I'm not surprised that people don't get why Synthesis is horrible and unconscionable, because the WRITERS didn't understand those things either. They thought we'd all agree that the ideal future of humanity is a half-robot dude and his gynoid sex doll as the new Adam and Eve. It's like we're dealing with children.

[wantedman dan]

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.

You seriously have no problem with FORCED eugenics? The very nature of sentient, organic life is to make its own choices regarding its life, subsistence, and continued existence. 

[justafan]

YNation913 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

YNation913 wrote...

They wanted to unite against a common enemy. After that, co-existence would be pretty one-sided.

Wrong. The Geth have desired unity with the Quarians regardless of the Reapers.

The geth would pretty much be super heroes that their creators would depend on for help; restricting themselves to organic limitations purely out of the chivalrous desire to help and protect them. But like Superman, the geth wouldn't get much out of protecting "Metropolis", except perhaps the opportunity to have personal relationships. And what if, like Tali said, the geth decide to stop helping because of personal bias against guys like Gerrel? What would their relationship with organics be then? Isolation.

The Geth gain the unity they desire, and new perspectives by uploading into Quarian suits.
They are not limiting themselves, they are doing what they want to do, and both gain from this.

This argument is absurd anyway. How does synthesis make it any better? What possible advantage do the Geth gain by being part organic? They use hardware platforms and remotely hop to and from servers. Making their platforms part organic is not only useless, but possibly dangerous. To say nothing if their servers are affected too.

If you believe that the geth gain no advantage in being part organic, why would you think that gaining perspective on organic behavior helps in any way other than to support the geth's efforts in helping their creators? They end up either being restricted to a support role, or choosing to isolate themselves for organic society all together.

Organics still one-up the Geth on several fronts.  Quarians, Humans, and Salarians all developed stealth ships, something the Geth have not achieved.  The Quarians also pretty much decimated the geth fleets (before reaper intervention) so the Geth have plenty of flaws that Organics can take advantage of.  The only unique thing the geth have contributed to the galaxy are heat sinks.  All that is from a military standpoint.  

From a social view though they have much to gain.  Individuality for the Geth is brand new.  Coexisting with organics would give them a new perspective on what it means to be an individual.  Specifically interacting with the Quarians would also give them a cultural identity, since they both share a history and a homeworld.  This in the long run would greatly benefit the Geth.  This can all be achieved without synthesis.

Synthesis just takes away the chance for cooperation to exist on its own terms.  It is forced upon both sides, with unknown consequences to perspective and attitudes.

Modifié par justafan, 09 mai 2012 - 03:16 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Zix13 wrote...

7)Reaper leader-boy wants you to pick it. 

That kid has killed so many people, I don't even know what you'd call that number.  Take the words of the galaxy's greatest mass muderer with a grain of salt.

[tilusN7]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Synthesis doesn't stop the possibility of people of the galaxy creating synthetics. Does synthesis forcible stops a person from making a synthetic? If so then you have created slavery with synthesis. People are just as capable of making synthetics as they did before. Being partially synthetic won't stop discrimination against synthetics. Humans discriminate against each other over skin colour and ideology. Turians hate bare-faces. Salarians have their own hated group (can't remember their name). Being similar to another life does not make one sympathetic to said life. Unity comes from mindset not genetics.

I think the point of synthesis is that being part synthetic, the newly hybridised organics wouldn't require synthetics. 

Even besides the things I mentioned on the first page, synthesis just goes against some of the core themes of the game in my opinion. 

One thing that's drummed into us from the start of ME3, especially with Javik, is that the diversity of our galaxy is one of it's greatest strengths. By accepting synthesis, we basically deny something that's been prevalent through the entire third arc of the series in its closing minutes.

My biggest problem with it however is the physical process of synthesis. Even as contrived as the endings are, I can come up with a logical explanation for how destroy or control work. I can't do the same for synthesis. It's really where the 'space magic' bs came from. Mass Effect has always paid particular attention to physics, and at the end it just gets thrown out the window.

[tilusN7]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

That kid has killed so many people, I don't even know what you'd call that number.  Take the words of the galaxy's greatest mass muderer with a grain of salt.

20000 cycles, lets say at least 1 trillion per cycle. > 20 quadrillion lives. That's a pretty enormous number.

[The_Shootist]

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?

Sorry you don't like the 'forced' description. But it is the correct and overwhelming answer to Synthesis.

paragon Shep has been for individual Rights since the beginning. I don't expect him to change his core beliefs at the drop of a hat.  Forcing the galaxy to change/evolve/become something new, against their will, or without their permission, is as bad as killing them all and starting over again.

We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . all are created equally and have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (apologies to T. Jefferson). Paragon Shepard doesn't have the Right to choose for so many others, and he knows that to the bottom of his soul. Period.

Renegade Shep, not so much.

Modifié par The_Shootist, 09 mai 2012 - 03:29 .

[Siansonea]

Guys, somebody named "Evil Mind" doesn't understand why Synthesis is evil. We're being trolled.

[Ieldra]

NoSpin wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...
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." 

This is irrelevant as an argument. An idea is not bad just because it has been promoted by a villain. The idea sounds rather attractive to me once you disconnect it from the Reapers.

What? It is an idea being endorsed by someone who has been indoctrinated by the freaking Reapers. Thus the Reapers want it. Thus Shepard should NOT want it. The Reapers are the bad guys of the series, and a couple lines by a ghost child should not be able to convince otherwise. 

Bullsh*t. The Reapers subvert ideas you already have. That's how indoctrination works. That's why TIM still thinks he's protecting and advancing humanity even while handing the galaxy to the Reapers. Does that make protecting and advancing humanity a bad idea?

The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. Melding organics and synthetics may be good or bad, but that Saren wants it - even should the Reapers want it - is completely irrelevant to the merit of the idea. If the results are beneficial - and it is highly implied that they are - it doesn't matter one whit who else supports it or not.

Besides, the Reapers do not want it. It is completely unknown what the Reapers themselves want, since they're under the control of the Catalyst. The Catalyst has so far wanted the cycle, but the Catalyst, thanks to the Crucible, has just been reprogrammed.
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 mai 2012 - 03:38 .

[braisbr1]

Because it is space magic, which doesn't exist in our universe. Not that we know of.

[lordofdogtown19]

Ieldra2 wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...
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." 

This is irrelevant as an argument. An idea is not bad just because it has been promoted by a villain. The idea sounds rather attractive to me once you disconnect it from the Reapers.

What? It is an idea being endorsed by someone who has been indoctrinated by the freaking Reapers. Thus the Reapers want it. Thus Shepard should NOT want it. The Reapers are the bad guys of the series, and a couple lines by a ghost child should not be able to convince otherwise. 

Bullsh*t. The Reapers subvert ideas you already have. That's how indoctrination works. That's why TIM still thinks he's protecting and advancing humanity even while handing the galaxy to the Reapers. Does that make protecting and advancing humanity a bad idea?

The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. Melding organics and synthetics may be good or bad, but that Saren wants it - even should the Reapers want it - is completely irrelevant to the merit of the idea. If the results are beneficial - and it is highly implied that they are - it doesn't matter one whit who else supports it or not.

 

So what your telling me is that you would just side with Saren in ME1 if you could? Cause that's what it sounds like

Plus synthesis is obviously what the Catalyst wants and the Catalyst is a Reaper. He says it himself. And the whole reason for the Catalyst making the cycle is a logical fallacy. It's a text book slippery slope argument that is already been disproven in this cycle by the Geth and EDI. 

[stysiaq]

Synthesis is another way to betray your brobot friend, Legion, or rather what he stood for. He always said, that the Geth will make their own future, choose their own path. The heretics were the ones, who accepted Reapers' gift, the Reapers' future.

What is Synthesis? It is the ****ing same thing. You accept what that hologram kid offers you, you impose Reapers' definition of 'order' and 'harmony' on everyone, including Geth.

Bioshock quote comes to my mind: a man chooses, a slave obeys.

Also, I recently (spoiler alert) finished DX:HR. In the end you get to decide if you want to give the world 'your' version of truth, or if you'd rather let the world make their own 'truth'. Shep never says anything about having doubts on making the decision for the whole universe, despite saying pretty much this to TIM a minute earlier

[PsyrenY]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

So what your telling me is that you would just side with Saren in ME1 if you could? Cause that's what it sounds like

Saren was deluded. His vision of Synthesis (a) involved subservience to the Reapers, and ( did not include the Crucible at all. It was doomed from the start, and more importantly, it is not the same as what the Crucible presents.

lordofdogtown19 wrote...
Plus synthesis is obviously what the Catalyst wants and the Catalyst is a Reaper.

And Hitler ate sugar; your point? Should we throw out all the world's sugar?

Furthermore, EDI and the Geth prove nothing at all. A chunk of the Geth decided to kill all organics because of a math glitch (hell, I can't even call it a glitch); meanwhile EDI celebrated sentience by firing rockets at people. Had either of them been significantly more powerful, what would have stopped them, exactly?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 09 mai 2012 - 03:46 .

[Aiyie]

synthetic ending asks me to believe a beam of energy is not only able to create synthetic parts in organic beings, but also create dna in entirely synthetic beings... all at once.

im sorry, i don't like being asked to believe that the Starchild has the power of God and is able to create and destroy life at will.

Modifié par Aiyie, 09 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[PsyrenY]

Aiyie wrote...

im sorry, i don't like being asked to believe that the Starchild has the power of God and is able to create and destroy life at will.

He doesn't.

"The Crucible changed me... created new possibilities. But I can't make them happen."

[Aiyie]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

im sorry, i don't like being asked to believe that the Starchild has the power of God and is able to create and destroy life at will.

He doesn't.

"The Crucible changed me... created new possibilities. But I can't make them happen."

oh, im sorry, you're right.

let me amend that... i refuse to believe that the citadel/crucible has the power of God to create and destroy life at a whim.

[kookie28]

Reading through the reasoning for why Synthesis is "evil" is like watching Fox News about Obama.

I feel sorry for you Ieldra. It's gotta be like arguing with a wall.

[stysiaq]

kookie28 wrote...

Reading through the reasoning for why Synthesis is "evil" is like watching Fox News about Obama.

I feel sorry for you Ieldra. It's gotta be like arguing with a wall.

Yes, because having any kind of logic or coherence with the previous games, or even the very same game it appears in is SO 2010.

[Xellith]

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.

If synthesis was to make you grow an extra set of arms like that or an ape for better grip and power.  If your legs turned into those of a cheetah for faster running.  If you grew gils so you could breath underwater.

These wouldnt "hurt anyone".  They would be made "better".

Would you still pick synthesis?  Thats the moral dilemma here.  Would you totally be okay forcing monstrous changes on a galactic scale?  Synthesis no matter what you can say or how you justify it is exactly the same as the scenario I just listed.  You would have to change everyone on a case by case basis based on their choice.  Not force your will upon an unsuspecting population. 

Synthesis is disgusting and your justification for choosing it is basic and flawed.

Modifié par Xellith, 09 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[aj2070]

EvilMind wrote...

When we cure genophage, isn't that too 'genetic rape' and 'forced'? What if Synthesis also cured some diseases, would then it be okay? Draw a line for me please.

If anything, curing the genophage is correcting "genetic rape" commited by the salarians.  Mordin says so much in Mass Effect 2 and 3; more in 3.  This is Mordin's whole motivation.  In fact, I would argue the genophage is a microcosim of why synthesis is wrong.  It is a "solution" forced on a species from an outside source with no thought of what the consequences would be.  If Shepard in fact cures the genophage, it makes the synthesis option more repugnant in my opinion.

[Xellith]

aj2070 wrote...

EvilMind wrote...

When we cure genophage, isn't that too 'genetic rape' and 'forced'? What if Synthesis also cured some diseases, would then it be okay? Draw a line for me please.

If anything, curing the genophage is correcting "genetic rape" commited by the salarians.  Mordin says so much in Mass Effect 2 and 3; more in 3.  This is Mordin's whole motivation.  In fact, I would argue the genophage is a microcosim of why synthesis is wrong.  It is a "solution" forced on a species from an outside source with no thought of what the consequences would be.  If Shepard in fact cures the genophage, it makes the synthesis option more repugnant in my opinion.

I never thought about it like this.  I totally agree with you 100%.