9087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@Uncle Jo:
Where has anyone said you don't have the right to argue against it? That's what you're doing, and did I ask you to stop? Did Veneke? We only ask not to be an absolutist about it. For instance, you'll not hear me saying "Synthesis is the best ending and every other option is crap". I've always said Synthesis is *a* good ending and my interpretation is *a* scenario that presents it as a viable way to end the Reaper threat and secure a future for the species of the galaxy free from the harvesting cycle.

What I would like you - and others - to accept, though, is that all options are intended to be good options. All end the Reaper threat, all preserve species identity, nobody gets mind-controlled, nobody's intelligence gets reduced, nobody gets turned into Husks, indoctrinated or the like. Why? Because that is not in the spirit of the story we have been told. Because the Mass Effect trilogy is not a story meant to end this way. The execution of the ending may not carry that message well but it's there nonetheless. It is not in the spirit of Control that Shepard continues the harvesting cycle, it is not in the spirit of Synthesis that people's individuality is compromised, just as it's not in the spirit of any ending that the relays go supernova.

It shouldn't need to be said. One-sided interpretations that go against this and paint horrific pictures are carried by an emotional dislike fueled by several intuitions I might go into at another time. People are unwilling to accept that an option they don't like might be compatible with the heroic and epic spirit of the story we have just finished. But what's heroic is different for different people. I may not like Destroy, but I would never try to paint it as worse than it is just because of that dislike. To say nothing for lobbying to have it removed. *That* sends me up the wall because yes, I think you do not have the right to do that.
 
About the science, yes, I am trying to give a face to Synthesis that is scientifically feasible within a typical SF framework. But you might have noticed that I said nothing about the process. That's because I can't. Nonetheless, we are told it is done. I would have preferred it were explained better, and I am complaining about the fact that it's not, but it's no reason to reject the whole thing. The results, though, they matter. Because we need to put a face to them if we want to envision the future of the galaxy after Synthesis. Understanding the process is not needed for that.

@Jade8aby88:
Which question?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 02:14 .

[Taboo]

Did we ever reach a consensus about retrieving those records from the Reapers? That is to say the species they harvested. That if we Destroy them we don't burn the perpetual Alexandrian library?

They are turned into a paste processed into the Reaper.

We can't retrieve said data correct?

I'd say the Reapers did a pretty thorough job in making sure little evidence remained. We would only have oral and data recordings from, say Javik. We'd have to record an oral history...

Interesting.

Thoughts?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 mai 2012 - 02:06 .

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Did we ever reach a consensus about retrieving those records from the Reapers? That is to say the species they harvested. That if we Destroy them we don't burn the perpetual Alexandrian library?

They are turned into a paste processed into the Reaper.

We can't retrieve said data correct?

I'd say the Reapers did a pretty thorough job in making sure little evidence remained. We would only have oral and data recordings from, say Javik. We'd have to record an oral history...

Whatever information existed would have existed in the minds of the uploaded species. These have been destroyed. The Reapers, as far as I'm aware, didn't save anything from the species they harvested except the minds and the information about their physical makeup.

[Uncle Jo]

kookie28 wrote...

What's so great about biological purity?

You would sacrifice human advancement for diseases and viruses that kill your loved ones because it would make you different than you are now?

Maybe you're the monster.

There is difference between human advancement and curing diseases and messing with all beings of the galaxy without their consent.
If you're unable to understand this, you're indeed a monster. And yes, it has something to do with ethics and moral. It's exactly what makes us... human.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Did we ever reach a consensus about retrieving those records from the Reapers? That is to say the species they harvested. That if we Destroy them we don't burn the perpetual Alexandrian library?

They are turned into a paste processed into the Reaper.

We can't retrieve said data correct?

I'd say the Reapers did a pretty thorough job in making sure little evidence remained. We would only have oral and data recordings from, say Javik. We'd have to record an oral history...

Whatever information existed would have existed in the minds of the uploaded species. These have been destroyed. The Reapers, as far as I'm aware, didn't save anything from the species they harvested except the minds and the information about their physical makeup.

Then we simply have some sort of.....physical history. I'm worried about extraction though. I'm unaware of any technique to record such things.

I see it as a record with black marker all over it. It's a record, but I cannot read it.

Surely if we had the ability to extract said data we would have done so by now.

It was simply replaced with tech. Do you remember that discussion with Mordin? 

About no souls? No glands? Digestive System?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 mai 2012 - 02:23 .

[dreman9999]

 Picking Synthesis is falling for the oldest trick the reapers used on organics. Let's look at mass effect 1 when we met sovereign. He tells us the mass relay and all the tech we've gotten are lures for there trap and a way to control organic advancement."By using it your society develops on the paths we desire"


The star child is their leader and controler.......And with synthesis, he is offering this technological mass evolution utopia.....Andyou don't notice it's the same trick as the mass relay?

You really going to jump on this because of the shiny benifits and ignore the con with it.
Your really going to ignore this?

Modifié par dreman9999, 22 mai 2012 - 02:31 .

[dreman9999]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Did we ever reach a consensus about retrieving those records from the Reapers? That is to say the species they harvested. That if we Destroy them we don't burn the perpetual Alexandrian library?

They are turned into a paste processed into the Reaper.

We can't retrieve said data correct?

I'd say the Reapers did a pretty thorough job in making sure little evidence remained. We would only have oral and data recordings from, say Javik. We'd have to record an oral history...

Whatever information existed would have existed in the minds of the uploaded species. These have been destroyed. The Reapers, as far as I'm aware, didn't save anything from the species they harvested except the minds and the information about their physical makeup.

Then we simply have some sort of.....physical history. I'm worried about extraction though. I'm unaware of any technique to record such things.

I see it as a record with black marker all over it. It's a record, but I cannot read it.

Surely if we had the ability to extract said data we would have done so by now.

It was simply replaced with tech. Do you remember that discussion with Mordin? 

About no souls? No glands? Digestive System?

[SimonTheFrog]

Ieldra2, I enjoy the way you contribute to the discussion.

But i must say that I feel what you are doing is that you add fan-fiction to the unexplained parts of synthesis. Clever fan fiction, but fan-fiction nontheless.
I mean ideas like: "post-Synthesis intelligent life will no longer experience random changes and natural selection as a response to environmental stress factors because it will have surpassed being shaped by its natural environment."
This is possible... but other explanations are also possible. There is no way to tell what the hell the game tries to tell us.

And you agree that a real "synthesis" is not possible (growth vs. build).

Hell, this subject is such an unexplained can of worms that should NEVER have been opened unless fully explored, especially NOT in the last 5 minutes of the trilogy.

I don't say that the transhuman stuff is boring or not worth exploring, it surely is and was done quite nicely in the 80's or even earlier already. But if you do it (as a game writer i mean), you should make this your point and not yanking it out of thin air after spending hundreds of hours with totally different subjects.
It just isn't handled well at all.

[Xandurpein]

I find both the OP's post and the debate following interesting and entertaining. I wish more people from both sides of the fence would let down their defence and admit that there are many things we are in agreement in. Everyone seems to agree that the Synthesis ending seen as is in the game is extremely poorly developed to the point where little or nothing can be said about what it actually means. It's up to each of us to form their own opinion of what Synthesis actually means.

You can interpret the information given literally, which leads most who do so to reject Synthesis simply because seen that way represents too much uncertainty, or you can chose to do like the OP and use imagination and symbolism to "fill in the blanks". Since this is ultimately a piece of fiction, I believe both ways are acceptable. I still think it's still a fundamental weakness in the narrative that only those who are per-disposed to a certain interpretation of the story can make sense of it.

To me the real weaknesses in the Synthesis ending is the promised scope of the change. I can see how Synthesis, at least with a heavy dose of Space magic, can bridge the gap between the current generation of sentient organics and synthetic/AI beings, but what of future generations? What about organic life not yet evolved? The way I see it, in order to solve the Catalysts dilemma, it's not enough to change organic life, but to change the fundamental nature of organic life, and I don't see how that is done.

The OP's post, like many similar posts is also weak in explaining what the organic input to this Synthesis really is. It's not enough to vaguely refer to emotions, as there are sufficient hints in the game that synthetic beings are perfectly capable of developing emotions on their own.

The human brain has in fact a vast computing power, but most of it is not used for math. It's used for extremely complex processing of social interaction, which includes emotions. The reason why social interaction takes so much computing power is that involves so much recursiveness. This is all a result of evolution, something that doesn't stop just because self-modification replaces random mutations. On the contrary, self-modification would in all likelyhood speed up the process of evolution vastly.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 22 mai 2012 - 03:10 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The question: what could synthetics possibly have to gain can be answered thusly: (a) the upgrades need not be physical. Synthetics could gain non-physical traits like empathy. ( there may be aspects of a life form's interaction with its environment more suited to solutions created by evolutionary algorithms. Those solutions would not necessarily have to be based on carbon chemistry, but would nonetheless be organic in nature.

If your assertion is that the "organic" addition to pure synthetics must not be physical, as the previous poster pointed out synthetics have already gained emotions in the game without needing synthesis. Additionally, evolutionary algorithms already exist now in real life. If I run one on my PC, are you saying my PC has gained some kind of "organic-ness"?

[Taboo]

MissNet wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

MissNet wrote...
Looks like Mass Effect X Mein kampf crossover. Not a big fan of fanfiction anyway.

I know it's futile to ask, but could you Godwin folks come up with something fresh? Hitler is so 40s, you know?

Well, you see, I live in the country where one guy in the mid-1930 decided that communism is f**king super good for the whole world, killed everyone who disagreed with it (millions) and turns the whole country into one big war camp. Than WW2 started because another guy thought that he is great enough to create one master race and therefore everyone who disagrees or doesn't belong to that race should be killed.
Well, my country lost more than 25 millions (more than all other countries together) and we still do not know for sure exactly numbers. +/- several millions. Than, everyone who came back from a captivity were declared a traitors and send into jails/camps (if they are lucky) or were executed.

That's why I hate Synthesis. You can talk how beautiful it is from the perspective but it will always end in the "kill everyone who disagrees with me".
I really, don't even know how to find right words to express what I feel about this "choice". I know it's evil without any rationalizing. I find people, who think it's a good choice either hopelessly idealistic or intentionally stupid.

No offence, of course 

These kinds of things aren't jokes to people in Germany Optimystic. I can't discuss any of that with them when I am in Germany for things. I love German cinema, Werner Herzog is one of my favorites, but even he doesn't have the gall to talk about Hitler.

In fact, I don't think I've ever had a full fledged discussion on any of that with anyone from Germany. The best answer I got was "We don't talk about it."

Needless to say, quite a few people need to take trips there. Authoritarianism is any form is disgusting.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 mai 2012 - 03:24 .

[Heeden]

I think people are barking up the wrong tree with Synthesis, nothing the Catalyst says suggests individuals will have their bodies hybridised to become cyborgs or incorporate other DNA (although that would sort out a lot of relationship problems). The Crucible combined with the Citadel has the ability to send out a burst of energy through the Mass Relay system to permeate the galaxy. You can do a lot of things with a burst of energy but rewriting genetic material or building Nanites is not one of them.

Control sends out a signal - Shepard is broken down, converted to information and transmitted across the galaxy to take the place of whatever control functions the Catalyst originally had in place. Effectively the Reapers will all ask (and know the answer to) What Would Shepard Do? whenever they have a decision to make. This forces you to ask some very serious questions about your character - of all the many, many decisions you have made in this game were they all correct for the beings involved or were you just pushing your own agenda? If the decisions were right, is it okay to have them enforced by the ulitmate power in the galaxy? It's one thing to enforce your will against people who have at least a fighting chance, and the requirement for support means you will always have other opinions to affect your own. Having the capabilities to independantly enforce your agenda with irresistable force is a heftier responsibility.

Personally I could not choose control although it was very, very tempting. My Shepard was exactly the sort of person who should be running the galaxy - he smacked down threats swiftly and brutally then stopped to help them back on their feet. Everyone gets a second chance (or a third in the case of the Rachni). That said, there are still a few decisions that may or may not be correct - I reprogrammed the heretic Geth and whilst it ended up working to my advantage in the long run that doesn't make it necessarily right. Plus he's a compulsive meddler and even if the Reapers do turn out to be paragons of virtue I don't think it's good for the galaxy as a whole to be nannied that way.

Synthesis is the most magical and has the heaviest vibes of "it's best for everyone". The burst of energy is Shepard's life-force, every living being in the galaxy is connected to it and through it to everything else. I gave a fuller version of my idea of Synthesis on page 5, it's supported within the gaming universe by Asari psychic powers, the Turian's spiritual ideas, the effects of the Thorian on the Zhu's Hope colonists and the Geth's ability to live by "consensus". It would be the ultimate e-democracy and help complete the symbiotic relationships already existing between the races (and helped along by Shepard organising the Reaper resistance). Look at the way the Volus and Turians work together, or the Hanar and Drell, or the way the three council races work together to run the galaxy. Look how effective Krogan and Turians work together when properly integrated. Now imagine every race can find ways to fit together like that, not through bullying or persuasion or mind-control, but by opening new streams of information - including realisation that we are all related simply by being alive in a hostile universe - so they can make better informed decisions. It won't be perfect, there will still be individuality and therefore disagreements, divisions and possibly war, but there will at least be understanding amongst all factions not just of the opposition's reasoning but also the consequences of conflicts.

Morally I think this vision of Synthesis is the correct choice. You can argue that Shepard doesn't have the right to make this decision for the galaxy but it is an equally strong argument that Shepard doesn't have the right not to make it. Besides, the whole galaxy has united behind him to fight the Reapers, they all followed him to this point and gave him this responsibility (even if they didn't know what was going to happen). If anyone has any complaints after the decision is made then maybe they should have solved the Reaper problem themselves. My problem with it, is it seems too much like a form of up-lift and I am personally against it. It caused me to umm and ah for a long time because it is clearly the best thing for the galaxy but I believe we can make it there on our own. With the wheels I've set in motion the galaxy can move towards that level of mutual respect and cooperation whilst developing/evolving the technology/skills needed to get to the same result. The Catalyst tried and failed to control chaos, we showed him potential for a better way but as a petty little human I will not let him share in our victory, even if it means running the risk of eventual failure.

So I chose destroy because honestly I was proud of the way the races of the galaxy were relating to each other now, especially as I had such a significant part to play in it all. I also (selfishly perhaps) chose the only route that gave the chance of staying alive, because being a survivor seems to have worked out for the best so far and besides, me and John have been through a lot together (does anyone else find it a bit sad that no-one uses the first name, gives a sense of loneliness and distance from everyone) and whatever happens next he deserves a chance to see it.

Of course, there is the down-side. After proudly declaring earlier I always gave second and third chance, I'm now wiping out not just the Reapers but anything they've been carrying forward from previous cycles. My defense? It's them or me, with no room for peaceful coexistence I'm afraid I have to side with me, sorry Reapers. Then there's the Geth, I'm hoping some combination of magic, technology or suitably-advanced versions of the two can give us a shot at bringing them back and if not...well lets hope the next time we make AI we've learned a thing from all this. Whatever the case, once the galaxy is trundling along again Tali and Shepard will build that house and dedicate our time to at least trying to resurrect the Geth.

[Ieldra]

MissNet wrote...
That's why I hate Synthesis. You can talk how beautiful it is from the perspective but it will always end in the "kill everyone who disagrees with me".

This is a false association. Nobody is killed in the Synthesis ending.

I really, don't even know how to find right words to express what I feel about this "choice". I know it's evil without any rationalizing.

If you don't know *why* it's evil and can't rationalize it, you don't know *that* it's evil. Knowledge based on emotion is nothing more than intuition. And if you trust intuition before reason, then you'll end up as a victim of exactly those anti-intellectualist ideologies you were referring to.

So, the question is: why do you feel that way? Why is rejection of the Synthesis so important that you even invent "facts" (see above) in order to justify it? This is a question I would ask of a few other people as well.

@Taboo-XX:
I am German, and rather well-educated in history, and I'm willing to discuss these things with you elsewhere. But I am not willing to put up with the crazy comparisons in this thread. It cheapens history and it's an insult to anyone who had to live through those horrors. Look at any picture from a death camp. Look at the final scene of ME3. Case closed.

@antares:
I said the changes to synthetics *need* not be physical, not that they must not be physical, and added a way how they could be physical. For more details you'd have to ask a synthetic.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 03:45 .

[Uncle Jo]

dreman9999 wrote...

 Picking Synthesis is falling for the oldest trick the reapers used on organics. Let's look at mass effect 1 when we met sovereign. He tells us the mass relay and all the tech we've gotten are lures for there trap and a way to control organic advancement."By using it your society develops on the paths we desire"


The star child is their leader and controler.......And with synthesis, he is offering this technological mass evolution utopia.....Andyou don't notice it's the same trick as the mass relay?

You really going to jump on this because of the shiny benifits and ignore the con with it.
Your really going to ignore this?

The whole problem is that even if you take the ending at face value, why would the Reapers and the brat give you an opportunity to destroy them? Why don't they kill you once and for all while they can?

I'll talk about the nonsensical attitude of the Reapers in this case:

- Harbinger blasts you but is too lazy to confirm if you're dead or not and leaves. Nonsense 1

- Then there is Marauder shields and the three husks as last defense line of the Citadel. Nonsense 2

- The interior of the Citadel is unguarded. Nonsense 3

- TIM appears magically behind you, with super-Reaper powers. Nonsense 4

- After you survive TIM's encounter, instead of letting you bleeding out, you're being taken by an elevator, which pops out of nowhere, to the Space Troll. Nonsense 5

- The Space Troll gently gives you the opportunity to sabotage the great work he and his troll-toys are doing for billions of years. Nonsense 6

Maybe he was impressed by the fact that Shep always was a pain in the *ss since ME1, surviving against all odds and wanted to reward him/her. Or he was simply tired of trolling the Galaxy and mass murdering trillions of beings and wanted to retire. Who knows...

But as a Troll he must somehow have an option to trick you:

Control: Nah, most of the players will never choose it. Path of TIM. Too obvious.

Synthesis: Illusion of galactic peace. Merge Synthetics and Organics (that's also exactly what the Reapers are). Unity and happiness forever. End of the Cycle. Great !

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 22 mai 2012 - 04:00 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ieldra2 wrote...

*sigh* Why do I even bother?

Fight the good fight!


I support The Green Path. :happy:

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...
Some pro-synthistes posit that plant life becomes networked and able to make deliberate decisions regarding harvesting and growth.

Uh....really? That's.....odd. You sure they weren't ironic?

As for the ending scene: what we are shown are images that appear to suggest half-synthetic plants. I have not discounted that, I have just not further speculated about it because there is no information and I'll rather wait for the EC for a possible clarification. Ask me then again. But I hope they don't insist on it and go back to the phrasing from the leaked script.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mai 2012 - 03:54 .

[Taboo]

The thing is.........is that I've seen things like said happenings in Germany all over. They are not the same, but the enforcement policies are the same. People don't have a choice in what happens to them and that's what bothers me.

For example, not many people are aware of the happenings in Greece during the seventies. The CIA supported the Regime of the Colonels, a far right dictatorship that was responsible for hundreds of deaths. They banned music and arts and anything they deemed inappropriate.

I have friends in Greece and I hear all types of horror stories coming out of there. I have seen the fighting and results of poor control and authoritarian history. Greece is in the hole right now and Angela Merkel isn't helping either. Germany still has to reparations to pay to Greece.

Europe still suffers from the horrors of the past regimes. The enforcement is what disgusts me. I cannot bring myself to have any involvement such authoritarian policies in such a large scale. People do NOT like being forced to do something.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 mai 2012 - 04:04 .

[Uncle Jo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

*stuff about history*

You're going out of topic and make this thread get closed. Please stop.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 22 mai 2012 - 04:15 .

[Taboo]

ANYWAY.

I see no bearing on realistic moral endeavors with Synthesis. Yes, the potential benefits are there but all beings have the right to consent, this is what gives us our humanity.

People have the right to choose, Synthesis is the ultimate.......dismissal of that. One man/woman has no right to make said choice.

Have you heard those stories about how they would chop off inoculated arms or refuse vaccination entirely? People don't like being subjected to such things. Yes, a potential polio inoculation would be great, but people have the right to choose.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 22 mai 2012 - 04:15 .

[ChickenMan77]

Great… another thread extolling the virtues of forced galactic eugenics..Ughhhh

[draken-heart]

my opinion, if we take it (the ending) as Shepard fight back against Indoc. Control could be seen as the neutral option (Submitting to Indoctrination/Shepard Shutting down his/her body systems, killing himself/herself but shutting down the Reapers from backlash, like Saren being defeated and allowing them to be defeated.) and synthesis as Reaper Choice and destroy as resist the reapers and lead the final charge personally.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@antares:
I said the changes to synthetics *need* not be physical, not that they must not be physical, and added a way how they could be physical. For more details you'd have to ask a synthetic.

But how would Synthesis produce organic physical changes in synthetics? Running an evolutionary algorithm to produce physical changes in response to environmental pressures is not organic, it's still synthetic.

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...
Some
pro-synthistes posit that plant life becomes networked and able to make
deliberate decisions regarding harvesting and growth.

Uh....really? That's.....odd. You sure they weren't ironic?

As
for the ending scene: what we are shown are images that appear to
suggest half-synthetic plants. I have not discounted that, I have just
not further speculated about it because there is no information and I'll
rather wait for the EC for a possible clarification. Ask me then again.
But I hope they don't insist on it and go back to the phrasing from the
leaked script.

They seemed quite serious.

You won't speculate on the nature of hybrid plant life, but you're totally willing of throwing out a proportionally very large amount of canon and substitute your own speculations to address the other aspects? Your theory is more speculation than anything based on canon.