9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

I think that whatever they were is long gone. What the Reapers are using are the memories from the dead.

Much like one would implant memories into a robot. Except that the robot is comprised of those memories. They WERE living things at one point, but they are not specific to the construct that the Reaper is.

In fact, seeing as the Reapers are partly Synthetic we might be able to harvest...the goo in all of the endings and create clones of whatever they once were.

But the issue remains, the Catalyst now states that they harvest Synthetics.

What do you make of that?

[lillitheris]

flemm wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Given the Catalyst’s exposition, yes. It says it will destroy the geth, and (presumably) other synthetics. That’s it.

Oh, well, if we can take the Catalyst at its word then the "synthesis might be brainwashing" argument becomes silly.

Sadly, no. That’s the problem.

It says it’ll effect change that will fundamentally alter how all living things in the galaxy are constructed—among other things.

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

flemm wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Given the Catalyst’s exposition, yes. It says it will destroy the geth, and (presumably) other synthetics. That’s it.

Oh, well, if we can take the Catalyst at its word then the "synthesis might be brainwashing" argument becomes silly.

Sadly, no. That’s the problem.

It says it’ll effect change that will fundamentally alter how all living things in the galaxy are constructed—among other things.

It makes me scratch my head at it's inclusion, especially after listening to Mordin speak about limitations.

And how art comes from NOT understanding the world.

It's a great idea...for another story.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

That's what I'm arguing, too. I wish we could move on from this topic and debate something interesting for a change. Hearing that the epilogue timeframe is 10-15 years should help.

It would be more convenient for you if everybody just ignored the bad parts, I’m sure.

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

That's what I'm arguing, too. I wish we could move on from this topic and debate something interesting for a change. Hearing that the epilogue timeframe is 10-15 years should help.

It would be more convenient for you if everybody just ignored the bad parts, I’m sure.

There's a word for that.

But it's evident in all of the endings.

Glossing things over. A troubling aesthetic.

[Blacklash93]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
I'm not arguing there aren't cognitive changes. The Catalyst basically confirms changes will occur. Organics will gain the technological edge that originally made synthetics physically superior.

What I'm arguing is that the idea people were brainwashed seems farfetched, and feels more like people making an ass-pull to validate a dislike for Synthesis.

That's what I'm arguing, too. I wish we could move on from this topic and debate something interesting for a change. Hearing that the epilogue timeframe is 10-15 years should help.

It would be more convenient for you if everybody just ignored the bad parts, I’m sure.

Thing is many of the bad parts are shaky speculation. I'm sure the people here want to discuss other things that are different from the 10 topics that pop up every single day with the subjects that you're most likely refering to. Such arguments have been done to death and I'm surprised everyone isn't sick of it at this point.

Synthesis is far-fetched and makes little sense. Same applies to many things in ME3. That's generally accepted. Can we move on to other things, preferably that involve the obvious intentions of this particular ending and not conspiracy theories?

[Taboo]

No because glossing things over is wrong.

You need to admit that. Everyone else has.

Synthesis fans have a tendency to ignore everything negative about their ending. I'm sorry but you cannot have debate this way. Either all of the cards are on the table or you can't sit down. Stop playing games.

[flemm]

lillitheris wrote...

It says it’ll effect change that will fundamentally alter how all living things in the galaxy are constructed—among other things.

Well, it also describes what that means: organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology; synthetics will in turn finally have full understanding of organics.

What the Catalyst says (the whole scenario of the endings, really) has all kinds of problems. But... if we accept that the Catalyst accurately describes what will happen (in all three endings), there is no reason to fear any brainwashing.

Modifié par flemm, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .

[Taboo]

flemm wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

It says it’ll effect change that will fundamentally alter how all living things in the galaxy are constructed—among other things.

Well, it also describes what that means: organics will be perfected by integrating fully with synthetic technology; synthetics will in turn finally have full understanding of organics.

What the Catalyst says (the whole scenario of the endings, really) has all kinds of problems. But... if we accept that the Catalyst accurately describes what will happen, there is no reason to fear any brainwashing.

You say understanding. And then deny brainwash. Forcing anyone understand anything is brainwashing.

You force a chnage on everyone for all time. Absolutely everything you do needs to be on the table.

Time and time gaing science fiction novels have warned against this. All the time.

"When a man can no longer choose, he ceases to be a man."

^ And that's from a story about a rapist. A rapist.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...
You say understanding. And then deny brainwash. Forcing anyone understand anything is brainwashing.

Synthetics aren't forced in to anything, the fact organics can now integrate with technology allows Synthetics to gain full understanding but the green-beam doesn't affect them directly.

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
You say understanding. And then deny brainwash. Forcing anyone understand anything is brainwashing.

Synthetics aren't forced in to anything, the fact organics can now integrate with technology allows Synthetics to gain full understanding but the green-beam doesn't affect them directly.

That isn't the point and you know it. The entire intention of this ending is to create a forced peace.

Full understanding? Really?

If we all understood one another all we would have is a forced peace. No need for violence. Anything.

Essentially what you've done is give people the abilibty to lose basic qualities of what makes them them. The racist has every right to be racist, regardless of how much I disagree with him.

Furthermore you will eventually stagnate. All you've done is make it easier. You WILL stop eventually.

And what about the mere addition paradox?

???

[flemm]

Where organics are concerned, obviously it is problematic that Shepard must choose to do this (or not) without consulting everyone first.

However, granting everyone the ability to integrate with synthetic technology seems like a reasonable price to pay for ending an eons-old cycle of destruction definitively. There is no suggestion at all that anyone will lose freewill or individuality (again, if we accept that the Catalyst accurately describes what will happen, which we don't really need to accept, but have been accepting for the sake of this discussion).

Modifié par flemm, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:28 .

[Taboo]

flemm wrote...

Where organics are concerned, obviously it is problematic that Shepard must choose to do this (or not) without consulting everyone first.

However, granting everyone the ability to integrate with synthetic technology seems like a reasonable price to pay for ending an eons-old cycle of destruction definitively. There is no suggestion at all that anyone will lose freewill or individuality (again, if we accept that the Catalyst accurately describes what will happen).

All of the endings end the eons cycle of destruction. All of them.

And then the Catalyst states that Synthesis is inevitable.

Why do it now then?

And then there's the fire metaphor.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:29 .

[webhead921]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No because glossing things over is wrong.

You need to admit that. Everyone else has.

Synthesis fans have a tendency to ignore everything negative about their ending. I'm sorry but you cannot have debate this way. Either all of the cards are on the table or you can't sit down. Stop playing games.

To be fair, supporters of every ending have a tendency to ingore everything negative about their ending to the same defree.  I think synthesis has a ton of moral problems, but destroy and control have moral problems as well (perhaps destroy's moral problems are of a lesser degree).  

[Blacklash93]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No because glossing things over is wrong.

You need to admit that. Everyone else has.

Synthesis fans have a tendency to ignore everything negative about their ending. I'm sorry but you cannot have debate this way. Either all of the cards are on the table or you can't sit down. Stop playing games.

How so? The vast majority of glossing over I see is for the great amount of conjecture and speculation surrounding this. The people in this thread want to discuss what was concretely given and not trivial things like robot babies. Mental interfacing, the knoledge the Reapers give, the nature of Synthesized DNA that involves what could be possible instead of just what isn't. Things like that.

I'll point out you can't really have a debate when people keep arguing the same strict, dogmatic theory and speculation that never changes over and over again either, much less an interesting one. Them being particularly condescending and mocking of Synthesis supporters doesn't help at all. Many come across as overzealous and tend to try to point out invisible subtext instead of putting any focus on the actual text. I don't see anyone's minds being changed and it would appear people either don't realize this or are just not accepting of it.

The only questionable thing about Synthesis I see, given current information, is taking away choice from the galaxy, but then again every ending does. Shepard is always taking his or her own initiative no matter what path is taken and it will change the galaxy forever and everyone will have to cope with the consequences. That, for example, is not "glossing over" but a legitimate viewpoint.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:32 .

[Taboo]

webhead921 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No because glossing things over is wrong.

You need to admit that. Everyone else has.

Synthesis fans have a tendency to ignore everything negative about their ending. I'm sorry but you cannot have debate this way. Either all of the cards are on the table or you can't sit down. Stop playing games.

To be fair, supporters of every ending have a tendency to ingore everything negative about their ending to the same defree.  I think synthesis has a ton of moral problems, but destroy and control have moral problems as well (perhaps destroy's moral problems are of a lesser degree).  

I've never tried to justify my ending though.

It isn't justifiable and never has been and I'm tired of people assuming that everyone chooses it to survive. Surviving is just as much a curse as it as a blessing.

The only difference is that you can take responsibility for what you've done in Destroy, which sets it apart from the other three endings.

Synthesis is possible without the Cruicible and given my Shepard already conflicting morals Control goes out the window. Refuse is just terrible.

I have one choice left. Monstrous. Unethical. Unforgivable.

But the real tradgedy is that the Galaxy won't see it that way. My Shepard would though.

THAT is art.

[Taboo]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No because glossing things over is wrong.

You need to admit that. Everyone else has.

Synthesis fans have a tendency to ignore everything negative about their ending. I'm sorry but you cannot have debate this way. Either all of the cards are on the table or you can't sit down. Stop playing games.

How so? The vast majority of glossing over I see is for the great amount of conjecture and speculation surrounding this. The people in this thread want to discuss what was concretely given and not trivial things like robot babies. Mental interfacing, the knoledge the Reapers give, the nature of Synthesized DNA that involves what could be possible instead of just what isn't. Things like that.

I'll point out you can't really have a debate when people keep arguing the same strict, dogmatic theory and speculation that never changes over and over again either, much less an interesting one. Them being particularly condescending and mocking of Synthesis supporters doesn't help at all. Many come across as overzealous and tend to try to point out invisible subtext instead of putting any focus on the actual text. I don't see anyone's minds being changed and it would appear people either don't realize this or are just not accepting of it.

The only questionable thing about Synthesis I see, given current information, is taking away choice from the galaxy, but then again every ending does. Shepard is always taking his or her own initiative no matter what path is taken and it will change the galaxy forever and everyone will have to cope with the consequences. That, for example, is not "glossing over" but a legitimate viewpoint.

I've spoken at length about this. Destroy is guilty of this as well. It paints over ALL of the negative aspects in the EC and presents an idealized scenario.

That would have been okay with me, had it shown the Geth deactivating. It did so with EDI.

The point is that art should convey a truth, not showcase one side of something.

That's what seperates art from propaganda in the real world for instance.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:43 .

[webhead921]

If anything is a "forced peace," it's control. That's what I don't like about it. I don't think synthesis is a forced peace so much as it is a fundamental change. It opens up new abilities and new avenues/methods of communication, but it comes at the cost of violating personal rights in an extreme manner. I don't buy the brainwashing argument. The effects of synthesis are more analogous to giving sight to a person who was born blind. The formerly blind person isn't brainwashed, but she might change her worldview/way of thinking after being able to see things for herself.

[webhead921]

Taboo-XX wrote...

webhead921 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No because glossing things over is wrong.

You need to admit that. Everyone else has.

Synthesis fans have a tendency to ignore everything negative about their ending. I'm sorry but you cannot have debate this way. Either all of the cards are on the table or you can't sit down. Stop playing games.

To be fair, supporters of every ending have a tendency to ingore everything negative about their ending to the same defree.  I think synthesis has a ton of moral problems, but destroy and control have moral problems as well (perhaps destroy's moral problems are of a lesser degree).  

I've never tried to justify my ending though.

It isn't justifiable and never has been and I'm tired of people assuming that everyone chooses it to survive. Surviving is just as much a curse as it as a blessing.

The only difference is that you can take responsibility for what you've done in Destroy, which sets it apart from the other three endings.

Synthesis is possible without the Cruicible and given my Shepard already conflicting morals Control goes out the window. Refuse is just terrible.

I have one choice left. Monstrous. Unethical. Unforgivable.

But the real tradgedy is that the Galaxy won't see it that way. My Shepard would though.

THAT is art.

My main male shepard was best friends with Joker, EDI and Legion.  He always questioned whether he was a synthetic ever since being brought back to life.  He is also of conflicting morals, and would never trust himself to control the reapers.  Synthesis makes sense for him.  

[Taboo]

webhead921 wrote...

If anything is a "forced peace," it's control. That's what I don't like about it. I don't think synthesis is a forced peace so much as it is a fundamental change. It opens up new abilities and new avenues/methods of communication, but it comes at the cost of violating personal rights in an extreme manner. I don't buy the brainwashing argument. The effects of synthesis are more analogous to giving sight to a person who was born blind. The formerly blind person isn't brainwashed, but she might change her worldview/way of thinking after being able to see things for herself.

Yeah, but that reminds me an awful lot of a Disney movie., After one event a person completely and utterly changes and it's within the last ten minutes of the film.

"I didn't approve of you dating my daughter but afer hearing you talk about her I've changed completely!"

I just can't take it seriously.

I would choose Destroy at this point simply because it is grimmer.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:47 .

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That isn't the point and you know it. The entire intention of this ending is to create a forced peace.

Full understanding? Really?

If we all understood one another all we would have is a forced peace. No need for violence. Anything.

Essentially what you've done is give people the abilibty to lose basic qualities of what makes them them. The racist has every right to be racist, regardless of how much I disagree with him.

The peace we see after Destroy and Control have more an element of being forced than Synthesis. Those two either completely eliminate the opposition or set up a super-power to ensure harmony. Understanding allows people to form a natural peace, racists can still exist but it will be due to genuine malevolence rather than confused ignorance.

Furthermore you will eventually stagnate. All you've done is make it easier. You WILL stop eventually.

Yeah maybe, it all depends on how the galaxy comes together post-Synthesis, what challenges they face, how they decide to keep themselves entertained and whatever the "beyond mortality" thing is EDI suggests they might attain.

And what about the mere addition paradox?

What about it?

???

?

[Taboo]

webhead921 wrote...

My main male shepard was best friends with Joker, EDI and Legion.  He always questioned whether he was a synthetic ever since being brought back to life.  He is also of conflicting morals, and would never trust himself to control the reapers.  Synthesis makes sense for him.  

My ending ends the way it does because it is both supportive AND a violation of his moral principles. It is wrong fundamentally, but it is the only thing he can choose.

Art can be a real rib tickler sometimes.

But I'm okay with that.

But that doesn't mean I don't have a rengade waiting to grab those control rods or an optimist waiting to jump into the Synthesis beam.

[Taboo]

I would imagine if we attain immortality Heeden we're going to have some issues. You also need resources...and it just gets fuzzy the further along you go. That's an issue that needs to be raised about Synthesis. Well it's sure cool beans for the mean time but what after "X" occurs?

Even the Time Lords couldn't progress past a certain point. You WILL stop. But at that point there would be no need to learn. I don't like that idea.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would imagine if we attain immortality Heeden we're going to have some issues. You also need resources...and it just gets fuzzy the further along you go. That's an issue that needs to be raised about Synthesis. Well it's sure cool beans for the mean time but what after "X" occurs?

I assumed by beyond mortality EDI was referring to becoming some sort of sublimed/ascended entity/being of light/energy.

Biological or digital immortality might be possible with Synthesis but it isn't a problem exclusive to it - I'm surprised no race had attained a method to stall or reverse aging well before the Reapers appeared.

Even the Time Lords couldn't progress past a certain point. You WILL stop. But at that point there would be no need to learn. I don't like that idea.

When you've seemingly learned all there is to know it's time to go "beyond mortality" and open up a new plane of existence to learn about, personally I don't think we'll ever attain perfect, complete knowledge.