528 réponses à ce sujet

[dmonorato]

Synthesis sucks because there is no choice which is the selling point of the whole series your choices matter (well if you finished the game you know that's a lie). All this time you were busting your ass trying, and succeeding to get very *different* species to work together toward a common goal, defeating the reapers. Synthesis takes all that and throws it out the airlock. Now there is no diversity, everyone is the same, and to make it worse no one else has a say in it.

If Synthesis is Bioware's canon best ending, then any faith I've had in them, built up since the Baldur's gate days, went out that proverbial airlock also..

[LaZy i IS]

This is how I see it:

Giant killer machines have invaded, they have killed trillions of innocents in the past, used them to increase their own numbers and have come to resume the massacre. You have a super weapon that allows one of three solutions:
a)Destroy: Destroy them all, synthetics are lost, they will never come back. 
b)Synthesis: Help them get what they want, alter the genetic structure of everyone to turn them into an organic/synthetic combo without allowing them a choice, let the machines leave on their own terms.
c)Control: Attempt to take control of them, maybe their power/tech can be harnessed? No guarantee of duration/extent of control.

I choose destroy, every time. They earned it. Losing the Geth is definitely worth ending the Reapers. For good. Besides... Synthetics can be rebuilt, right?
Synthesis just... seems like a betrayal, of everything you fight for in the game; Choice, Free will, Individuality...

Modifié par LaZy i IS, 09 mai 2012 - 05:22 .

[WYLDMAXX]

I don't like the idea that organics would be related to their omni-tools in some fashion.

My first thoughts on a post-synthesis world.
Does my new synthesis body come with an owner’s manual?
How would procreation work?
Geth programs that downloaded into Quarians suits; did they merge with Quarians? Are they now Geuarians?
How are the Quarians going to react to now being partly synthetic?
Are the Reapers more or less what they were?

Modifié par WYLDMAXX, 09 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[Raiil]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Valentia_X
There are no absolute rights. Everything is context-dependent.

Perhaps I should have been more specific; I meant that by the thinking of the h+ movement, the ability to remain unmodified is an absolute right. Obviously otherwise, our rights are created and dependant on our social and political processes.

I personally (and by extention, my avatar Shepard) believes that the genetic rewriting/plundering offered by Synthesis is morally abhorrent and against the 'soul', which is clearly a subjective stance to take on the matter- much like whether you consider the Geth to be persons or intelligent toasters. (Editorial you, not you in particular.)

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Because people are narrow-minded fools.

[Konfined]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Because people are narrow-minded fools.

While those in favor are naive idiots.  See how that works?

[WYLDMAXX]

Another reason why?

Even the trees at the end are synthetic. 

[FlyingSquirrel]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Don't be daft. "Soul", as used by Mordin, does not necessarily refer to disembodied supernatural ghost-pilots, but to our whole personality, psyche, mental autonomy - in short, to everything that makes life more than a mechanical processing of resources.

I'm not really defending synthesis, but my impression has been that the various "mutated" forms of organics that the Reapers create (husks, cannibals, banshees, Collectors) do not have free will and may not even be sentient at all. Husks in particular seem to be regarded as essentially zombies, those Abominations in ME2 apparently exist for the sole purpose of blowing themselves up, and none of them ever actually speak as opposed to just shrieking, growling, and...well, whatever that weird fluttery noise that the Collectors make is called.

Whatever the implications of synthesis, I saw nothing to suggest that it involves mind control or otherwise depriving people of their ability to make decisions in general. So I don't think it's equivalent to Mordin's view of the Collectors as having no soul. (It takes away *one* specific and immensely important choice, which is part of why I don't like it, but it doesn't take away choice altogether.)

[SetecAstronomy]

I don't see anyone noticing that the galaxy collectively agreed to aid in the construction of this Crucible, a machine with Purpose:Unknown written all over it. Knowing that, they agreed to actively build it anyway. As far as the Galaxy is concerned, Synthesis (or Control or Destroy, for that matter) was the Crucible's sole function.

They shared the responsibility.

They shared the consequences.

They will enter year 50,001 of their cycle believing that they, through their own free will, evolved themselves, and they would be correct to think so.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I actually did pick synthesis my first time through, though partly by accident - I thought I was supposed to walk into the beam and *then* pick something instead of walking down one of three separate paths. Still, I was probably 90% sure that I was going to do that. I think I was just drawn to the idea of ending the division between organics and synthetics. After thinking about it, though, I concluded that it really isn't Shepard's place to make that kind of decision for the entire galaxy, and I doubt that I will pick it on any future playthroughs.

Most of my characters are paragons, and the "control" option seems like the most appropriate solution for them - the fighting stops and the Reapers just get sent away. I also sort of figured that if the Reapers are operating under the Catalyst's control, they might not even be hostile if given their own choices and that Shepard's "control" wouldn't necessarily persist indefinitely.

[goofyomnivore]

Personally, I think Synthesis' changes are way more subtle than people assume. Nobody is going to wake up the next day with a metal heart and the Geth aren't going to get an organic heart plugged up to wires. That is foolish to think.

I'm going with the idea of the green waves being trillions of trillions of trillions of nanobots similar to the Reapers armor/indoctrination that self replicate, but instead of them being bad they alter synthetic code and organic chemicals to bolster both.

Modifié par strive, 09 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Konfined wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Because people are narrow-minded fools.

While those in favor are naive idiots.  See how that works?

Can't say I do, because last time we did this you just bowed-out of the argument completely while I made a case. But that just seems to re-affirm what I have to say here.

[LaZy i IS]

 

SetecAstronomy wrote...

I don't see anyone noticing that the galaxy collectively agreed to aid in the construction of this Crucible, a machine with Purpose:Unknown written all over it. Knowing that, they agreed to actively build it anyway. As far as the Galaxy is concerned, Synthesis (or Control or Destroy, for that matter) was the Crucible's sole function. 

They shared the responsibility.

They shared the consequences.

They will enter year 50,001 of their cycle believing that they, through their own free will, evolved themselves, and they would be correct to think so.

More like:

The galaxy collectively agreed to aid in the construction of this Crucible, a machine that Sheperd/the Alliance said would stop the Reapers. Knowing that, they agreed to actively build it. 

They shared the responsibility.

Sheperd made the choice.

They got the consequences. 

Believing making choice =/= Making actual choice.

They will enter year 50,001 of their cycle believing that they, through their own free will, evolved themselves, but they would be incorrect to think so. 

And think about it; how would you feel if some machines had just murdered billions/trillions of innocent people, turned them into husks, made you fight them, only to be allowed to leave on their own terms?

[akenn312]

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....

Also this too....
"Saren made it his goal to save the races of the galaxy by aiding the Reapers, proving the worth of organics to the Reapers so that they might be spared. He believed that servitude was the logical answer, instead of instinctively fighting to the finish."

Also with the endings we have now, we fight a little to the finish but eventually do what the Reapers want us too. But by proving to them we are worthy to get the three choices not because we could destroy them on our own.

For me it's that simple. Control is the Illusive man, Synthesis is Saren. Destroy is just genocide of the Geth and continues the cycle. Which to me all three choices suck. So I just chose whatever color I feel at the time or day.

Today I feel Blue for some reason.

Mass effect wiki link for Saren Arterius
http://masseffect.wi.../Saren_Arterius

Modifié par akenn312, 09 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[Konfined]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Konfined wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Because people are narrow-minded fools.

While those in favor are naive idiots.  See how that works?

Can't say I do, because last time we did this you just bowed-out of the argument completely while I made a case. But that just seems to re-affirm what I have to say here.

If my decision not to argue with circular logic, strawman, and ass-pull is a personal victory, then I'm happy for you.  However, in this case allow me to open your narrow mind.  The statement you made, was asinine ad hominem; contributed nothing to the discussion.  So I simply turned your statement around and threw it right back at you.  And I'm not at all surprised that you missed it.  

Modifié par Konfined, 09 mai 2012 - 06:11 .

[eddieoctane]

The Catalyst proposes that the conflict between organics and synthetics arises because of our differences, and that eliminating said differences will resolves said conflict. Forcibly removing the differences between various races is a lot like eugenics. I have family who fought in WWII, so I'll be damned if I'm going to abide any variant of Hitler's ideology.

[Ieldra]

Valentia X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Valentia_X
There are no absolute rights. Everything is context-dependent.

Perhaps I should have been more specific; I meant that by the thinking of the h+ movement, the ability to remain unmodified is an absolute right. Obviously otherwise, our rights are created and dependant on our social and political processes.

I understand. And in the context this statement was created for, I support it. Standing at a fulcrum of events and having to make a decision, every one of which affects the whole galaxy, that's a different context. Also note that in my interpretation, the change the Synthesis effects is reversible on an individual basis. I don't take the "genetic rewrite" literally since it's nonsensical.

(You might ask why it would still work as a solution. My answer is that the Catalyst isn't concerned about individual organics, just intelligent organic life as a whole)

I personally (and by extention, my avatar Shepard) believes that the genetic rewriting/plundering offered by Synthesis is morally abhorrent and against the 'soul', which is clearly a subjective stance to take on the matter- much like whether you consider the Geth to be persons or intelligent toasters. (Editorial you, not you in particular.)

As I see it, it depends. Genes are information, after all. It doesn't really matter how it's physically encoded. But as I said, I don't take that literally since it makes no sense. If synthetics had a DNA analogue, they would be functionally identical to organics, regardless of biochemistry. Also most traits defining organic and synthetic life are digital, in the sense that there can be no "in-between" forms, just a mix of organic and synthetic elements.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[LaZy i IS]

akenn312 wrote...
For me it's that simple. Control is the Illusive man, Synthesis is Saren. Destroy is just genocide of the Geth and continues the cycle. Which to me all three choices suck. So I just chose whatever color I feel at the time or day.

Um... Destroy is about as ended as the cycle can get. The Reapers are totally gone, so no chance of it ever happening again. Given, the Geth do get wiped out, but it completely stops the biggest threat to all life in the galaxy, organic or (future) synthetic.

[NoUserNameHere]

LaZy i IS wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
For me it's that simple. Control is the Illusive man, Synthesis is Saren. Destroy is just genocide of the Geth and continues the cycle. Which to me all three choices suck. So I just chose whatever color I feel at the time or day.

Um... Destroy is about as ended as the cycle can get. The Reapers are totally gone, so no chance of it ever happening again. Given, the Geth do get wiped out, but it completely stops the biggest threat to all life in the galaxy, organic or (future) synthetic.

The problem is Destroy is just portrayed as a very sub-optimal solution that the Catalyst could come up with, given limited EMS. It ends this big threat the Geth pose to you, but also destroys your 'protectors' the Reapers -- the organics will be screwed in a few hundred years. m

Don't assume  that the red ending is sticking it to the Starchild. You're not doing anything without his blessing.

[Oldbones2]

EvilMind wrote...

Random Geth 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.

That is a mind-bogglingly stupid question.  How do you figure curing a disease that causes stillbirths and forcing cyborg transitions upon everyone in the galaxy as the same?  Explain *that* to me first, if you would.

I know its stupid, but in both cases we make choice for others and it affects them on cellular level. Didn't someone just say that even if its a "good thing" you cant make choice for others.

The difference is that you would be hard pressed to find even ONE Krogan who would say, 'don't cure the genophage'.


They WANT to be cured.  Because something was done to them.


We didn't start out as hybrids and then got separated into synthetics and organics. 

So why would we want to turn into them?

[akenn312]

LaZy i IS wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
For me it's that simple. Control is the Illusive man, Synthesis is Saren. Destroy is just genocide of the Geth and continues the cycle. Which to me all three choices suck. So I just chose whatever color I feel at the time or day.

Um... Destroy is about as ended as the cycle can get. The Reapers are totally gone, so no chance of it ever happening again. Given, the Geth do get wiped out, but it completely stops the biggest threat to all life in the galaxy, organic or (future) synthetic.

Nope the kid says "Your children will create sythetics agian and the cycle will begin again." Shepard says in response..."Maybe" That maybe is not a admission that the cycle ends that is just Bioware not commiting to anything but implying that the sythetic problem will start all over.
So I assume that potentially the cycle has a greater chance of begining again with the Control or Destroy choices as they are set up now.

But again Synthesis sucks too because it was what we were first fighting against Saren about at the first part of the series. To keep our own form but find another way to defeat the Reapers.

Now I feel like Red.

[akenn312]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
For me it's that simple. Control is the Illusive man, Synthesis is Saren. Destroy is just genocide of the Geth and continues the cycle. Which to me all three choices suck. So I just chose whatever color I feel at the time or day.

Um... Destroy is about as ended as the cycle can get. The Reapers are totally gone, so no chance of it ever happening again. Given, the Geth do get wiped out, but it completely stops the biggest threat to all life in the galaxy, organic or (future) synthetic.

The problem is Destroy is just portrayed as a very sub-optimal solution that the Catalyst could come up with, given limited EMS. It ends this big threat the Geth pose to you, but also destroys your 'protectors' the Reapers -- the organics will be screwed in a few hundred years. m

Don't assume  that the red ending is sticking it to the Starchild. You're not doing anything without his blessing.

That is totally true. You're not doing anything without Star Childs blessing.

[a.m.p]

Interesting discussion going on here. I think I'll join.

I do hate synthesis for a variety of reasons. It makes no sense, thematically, scientifically, in-universe and out-of-universe, as a solution to the stated problem, as Shepard's choice, in fact it makes no sense on any level. Any attempts to make it make sense are centered around dismissing what little information we have about it as making no sense, which is ironic. Also I obviously have a huge misunderstanding about the implications and 'benefits' of it with whomever wrote it.

But that's not the real problem. That is just terrible writing + a complex subject handled very badly + my personal opinions on the matter being clearly opposite to the opinon of the writers.

Let's say the EC clarifies it and shows that it is in fact a beneficial change, it solves the stated synthetic/organic problem and it in fact is 50% less bull**** on a lore level that we originally thought it was. Let's say the EC provides Shepard reasons to believe the proposed options are really what they are (don't see how).

But there are some things EC is not going to fix.
Let's try to apply this purely beneficial change to the universe we know.
Most people that inhabit it aren't terribly different from us now, there are few truly alien aliens, like say the rachni. The galactic civilization that we have been trying to save is not that different from our current society.

Let's imagine a wave of green light washing over them and green glowing circuits appearing on their skin turning them half-synthetic. Without warning, without any clue of what is going on. What would they do? Krogans and turians, salarians, asari, humans, batarians <insert the list of all known races here>. What would Wrex do? How would he like this new development? Javik? Jack? Anyone else with big guns and a habit of violence?
What would the traumatized people in the death camps awaiting to be turned into husks think and do?
What would the pre-space species that don't even have technology yet do?

We have a forum here, a significant part of which is angry that this was forced without consent and warning on an imaginary galaxy. What would the people within that imaginary galaxy feel? You know, the part of those people who isn't willing or able to appreciate how beneficial the change forced upon them is?

Or is it like this? Does it make it so everyone feels happy by default? Really? Because then it is a whole new level of disgusting. Then it is rewriting the personalities of every single being in the galaxy. Are we going to argue that this is awesome and beneficial too?

Seriously. Why the hell isn't Joker freaking out in that cutscene? How did he manage to land the ship in one piece when green circuits suddenly appeared on his skin? Why is he grinning? He just crashed the Normandy on an unknown planet, why is he acting the way he is acting?

Modifié par a.m.p, 09 mai 2012 - 06:28 .

[antares_sublight]

antares_sublight wrote...

I've written some of my favorite problems/questions about synthesis in a couple of threads. In summary, it's a ridiculous idea when you think about the ramifications (which BioWare didn't)

Above all, it's a tremendously naive choice to make after an all-to-brief, content-free overly-agreeable chat with a being you know as the most evil force in the galaxy who is impliing that choice is its favorite. You have *no idea* what it will do, and you're risking that on EVERY SINGLE ORGANIC LIFE FORM IN THE GALAXY.

1. Peak of evolution, or freeze of evolution. How does making something a synthetic-hybrid mean that organism has reached the "peak of evolution". Does that mean it stops evolving? So what it's actually done is stop the evolution of all species where it was when you chose. Aside from being contradictory, this is just... waht?

2. Flora & fauna. Plant life is now synthetic-hybrid as well. Entire ecosystems and organisms have been rendered useless in the new galactic framework. Is pollination necessary now, how will plant reproduction work? What does it even mean for plant life to be synthetic? What about cooking & eating plants now? How do electric eels work now? Is wood flammable still? Is cotton soft? What will fossil fuels of synthetic organisms be like? How are single-celled organisms synthetic now? On and on and on...

3. The kill-switch. You just found out that there exists technology to destroy all synthetic or partly-synthetic life in the galaxy. By choosing synthesis, you are implanting that kill-switch in ALL ORGANIC LIFE IN THE GALAXY. On top of that, the beings that possess the technological knowledge are left alive. How long will it be before someone reconstructs the Destroy option and uses it as a threat? Would an EMP now destroy all life in the affected area?

4. Nonsensical. It's just too difficult to explain the way it was done. DNA requires specific chemicals to work, how is organic DNA changed to be partly synthetic without totally altering everything about EVERY LIFE FORM IN THE GALAXY?

5. The reapers are still alive.

6. There is no indication it does anything good for anyone. Because you have *no idea* what it will do, yet you rashly impose fundamental genetic changes on ALL ORGANIC  LIFE IN THE GALAXY without a clue of what that means, or even a question about it.

I chose synthesis first because it seemed like the only win-win everyone lives scenario, but after thinking about it, for me, it's a pretty terrible choice for innumerable reasons.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Konfined wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Konfined wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Because people are narrow-minded fools.

While those in favor are naive idiots.  See how that works?

Can't say I do, because last time we did this you just bowed-out of the argument completely while I made a case. But that just seems to re-affirm what I have to say here.

If my decision not to argue with circular logic, strawman, and ass-pull is a personal victory, then I'm happy for you.  However, in this case allow me to open your narrow mind.  The statement you made, was asinine ad hominem; contributed nothing to the discussion.  So I simply turned your statement around and threw it right back at you.  And I'm not at all surprised that you missed it.  

Not really an ad-hominem if I can prove it correct. I have thought-out reasoning - drawn from the narrative - and all you can do is call it ass-pull/strawman, no proper refute. Which basically makes you narrow-minded.

Thanks for playing.