9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

Well Assassin's Creed is doing a good job keeping the plot coherent over four games, I hope it doesn't go mass effect in the finale. xD

[Ieldra]

Meltemph wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kathleen321 wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...
I might have liked this ending had it not been for the fact that husks are still alive, its just wrong.

I also found that very disturbing. Aside from that I like this ending.

Yeah, that's creepy. By design I guess. I wonder how they just changed from mindless killers into sapient/sentient beings.

Stuff like this is why I dont like snythesis.  I like the transhuman idea's, like Miranda, Shep, and even the Illusive man(one of the big reasons I liked him in 2 was because he opened up a path to start talking about the subject).  I was really hoping they were going to go with a whole Star Trek DS9, side story, of transhumanism and genetic manipulation, but they didnt.  Instead we got a last ditch not very well thought out add to the idea of transhumanism, and applied it to the game in a very cheap way.

You have put more thought into snyhtesis, imo, then the devs ever thought to, in terms of actaully being realized in game.  IMO, synthesis doesnt deserve your devotion, because I think it is an insult to your very interest, transhumanism.  Very much hollows out the whole idea of it, to me.

I can live with the awakened Husks. It may be creepy, but it's also interesting and a challenge to the player to look beyond appearances. As I see it, nobody who will be put off by the merely creepy will ever choose Synthesis anyway. The bigger problem is that you force this change on the whole galaxy, which really goes against the spirit of transhumanism. I've created an interpretation where the actual visible changes effected by the Synthesis are minimized, with most of the possibilities left to the discretion of individuals, but that's all I can do without deviating from canon. It's as if in DX:HR, there was an ending where you genetically modify all humanity to have Jensen's enhanced augmentation compatibility. It's not as if I'd have a problem with moral justification if I only had the choice of none or all with no second chance to do the same thing on an individual basis later, but it does go against the spirit of the theme.

As for what is deserving of what, I'm doing this mostly for myself and certainly not to credit the writers with their flawless in-world logic. I'm a worldbuilder, I dislike lore violations and contradictory statements about elements of the world by the same person, and I absolutely *hate* the fact that in the Synthesis ending more than in any other, symbolism ran roughshod over in-world logic. It's like the writers wanted to hammer home the statement "sacrifice is the theme" regardless of in-world applicability. But in the end, what we take away from the story is more important than the writers' intentions and their competence, and so the fact that I like the outcome make the other stuff sting less.

[Ksandor]

pirate1802 wrote...

Ksandor wrote...
Besides Shepard said that the Collector base was tainted by the blood of millions. He said "I won't let fear compromise who I am".

My Shepard never said said any such thing. Do people forget there are different dialog option to pick? As to why Shepard fights Saren? Simple answer: Because the game forces me to. Like it forces me Join Cerberus. I'd have liked to quite a few things differently if the game allowed me to.

EDIT: And also this:

JeffZero wrote...
Implanted to be a better slave by Nazara is not the same thing as Synthesis.

Your renegade Shepard was not big on Control or Synthesis either. You do not understand. Renegade does not mean accepting Reapers' plans. Both Shepards will do what is right and they would never accept Reapers' point of view.

In ME3 you fight Reapers for God's sake! You can play renegade or paragon Shepard but you don't control Shepard's story 100 percent. It is NOT your story but Shepard's story. Of course you can choose Synthesis and you can always want your Shepard to become a Reaper apologist (in your head) but it is still out of character. ME3 ending is forced to the game at the last moment and DOES NOT represent the character's or the game's premise.

Shepard would never say "But there will be peace then Starchild? Let's choose Synthesis. Why did I ever bother fighting Reapers in the first 2 games gosh! Now I know that they won't destroy advanced civilizations we can be firends!". You should get your facts straight.

Modifié par Ksandor, 15 août 2012 - 12:06 .

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...
By the way, there's an excellent pen and paper RPG pursuing such transhumanist themes: Eclipse Phase. It even features post-singularity AIs running amok and forcefully uploading human consciousnesses.

And you can play as pretty much anything: a transhuman adapted to another environment (including zero-g); an uploaded consciousness existing solely in digital form; an "uplifted" dolphin, octopus or great ape; a cyborg that looks like a floating robotic sphere, etc.

I'm familiar with Eclipse Phase. I've been running a short campaign and played in another one. A fascinating world. Those post-singularity AIs essentially wrecked the Solar System before they vanished and left humanity to pick up the pieces. Do I see some similarity with ME's hypothetical "synthetics destroy organics" scenario here? There's also something very similar to indoctrination, a so-called "basilisk mind hack", some kind of mental reprogramming carried by augmented reality elements.

Another very good source for exploring the ascension theme is the Orion's Arm Universe Project. They have invented a terminology that works so well I'm always tempted to use it here.

[Ksandor]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ksandor wrote...
You don't understand. This is ethics, a principle of morality.

Yeah. And? We all have slightly different value hierarchies. There are some who say Refuse is the only moral choice, to which I answer: the thought that doing nothing is always safe because you also do no wrong is a fallacy. As I see  it, I am required to act towards the greater good to the best of my ablity. 

In synthesis Shepard decides in the name of all organic and synthetic species. Nobody was asked if they would want synthesis. Plus understanding comes after synthesis. That strongly implies indoctrination through synthesis ala Stargate Arc of Truth way.

Synthetics gain understanding - a new mode of experiencing organics. Organics gain no such thing, they just gain the physical ability to integrate technology.

Besides Shepard said that the Collector base was tainted by the blood of millions. He said "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Even Renegade Shepard fought against Saren. Synthesis? Out of character.

Actually, no, Shepard doesn't say these things in my games, though it took me a while to find out how to avoid that damnable line "I won't let fear compromise who I am". Also, I *never* got the line that the CB was tainted by the blood of millions. That was Maelon's line about the genophage rather. Yes, we all fought Saren, but not because he wanted Synthesis, but because he helped the Reaper invasion.

Also, this:

JeffZero said...
Implanted to be a better slave by Nazara is not the same thing as Synthesis.

I will say just one thing: If understanding comes after Synthesis you can never be sure of NOT being indoctrinated. And renegade Shepard was never designed to support Reapers in M1-ME2 and ME3. In this universe even God did not dictate its views on humanity (if God exists, if not I am proven by default). We have free will. We can choose to believe or not.

Then who are you to play God with your Shepard hımm? Especailly when God itself did not choose to play God, if you believe its existence. You take away free will and you call it greater good? Yeah right. Your free will forced on the galaxy in the name of greater good. Just because you talk to a Starbrat only for a few minutes. How... sophisticated and thoughtful.

I am really sorry to see people who are simply indoctrinated by Bioware just because Bioware wanted to force their last minute stupid ending to consumers. Believe what you want. Mine is not belief or wishful thinking. Mine is extrapolation... Mine is "THE" moral theory and I don't choose stupid endings thrown at me at the last moment. So there!

[Mobius-Silent]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Mobius-Silent:
(Oops - this is in answer to your post two posts above this one)

That would have been great. But given how the planning went at Bioware, they didn't even know how the trilogy was to end when ME2 came out, and the communication between those who wrote the big subplots of ME3 and those who wrote the endings was apparently lacking, else we wouldn't have such a thematic inconsistency. It seems video game writers still have a lot to learn about plots spanning several games.

Oh indeed, but if it was me I would have released DLC for ME1 and ME2 in the runup to ME3 once the arc concept was solid. Probably DLC centered on some other arc as it's central theme but that included ME3 plot foreshadowing elements, also encouraging ME1/ME2 sales before ME3

Say:
Mass Effect: Cerberus Rising (More info about Cerberus pre ME2)
Mass Effect 2: Dust of Ages (Finding information about the Prothean->Collector transition on remote worlds)
Mass Effect 3: Return to Ilos (find more information about the Crucible and the connection between the Protheans and their forerunners)

[Ksandor]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Ksandor wrote...
You don't understand. This is ethics, a principle of morality.
In synthesis Shepard decides in the name of all organic and synthetic species. Nobody was asked if they would want synthesis.

 And in destroy no one asks the Geth if they mind dying to allow the organics to live, in control no one asks the rest of the galaxy if they're ok with Shepard being the Reaper overlord. All three ending have Shepard making morally dubious choices on behalf of the galaxy, synthesis is no different and no better/worse

Ksandor wrote... 
Plus understanding comes after synthesis. That strongly implies indoctrination through synthesis ala Stargate Arc of Truth way. 

"Understanding" is the opposite of indoctrination, there is no evidence at all of regulatory tampering in thought processes or coercion, simply the addition of (entirely personal) implicit emotional imperitives to synthetics. And the _option_ of some form of direct life to life communication.

Ah because there was never a reason to destroy the Geth. Bioware wanted to force this on people to make them choose Synthesis. Destroy is in the Shepard's character. Other choises are out of caharacter and out of game premise.

In my head Geth and EDI survive. Since choosing Destroy is what Shepard would do, ignoring other artificial last moment tangents like Geth demise is acceptable. If Bioware had been loyal to the Shepard they created, Geth and EDI would never die in destroy ending. I am exercising my free will WHILE being loyal to Shepard character. I am refusing Bioware's stupid endings and don't allow them to impose their will on me. Btw if understanding comes after the Synthesis you could be indoctrinated. You should read or re-read Asimov's Foundation series, the part about the people who are converted by mutant Mule to his cause.

[Ieldra]

@Ksandor:
*sigh*

(1) It is irrelevant what Saren wanted or not. The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. I did not fight Saren because he wanted Synthesis, I fought him because he wanted to submit to the Reapers.
(2) Synthesis supporters do not support the Reapers' harvesting cycle.
(3) Synthesis does not remove free will.
(4) There is not a shred of evidence of indoctrination.

Why is is that so many of those who reject Synthesis try to invent "facts" to support their rejection. I mean it isn't that I don't understand people rejecting it, but really, making up hyperbolic statements to support that doesn't help the case. Tell me you think Synthesis cannot be justified because it forces a change on all life of the galaxy, and all I can answer is that I understand that you reject it on that basis but I have a different perspective on things. But everything else you say is nonsense.

As for your morality being "the" morality, well, obviously you have no understanding of the nature of human morality.

I'm really sorry to see some people here let their passion run away with their reason. It's like visceral aversion to Synthesis makes people stupid.

Edit:
It's really ironic to see you claim Synthesis supporters are indoctrinated while you, confronted with the death of the geth in Destroy, close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalala....it didn't happen. It didn't happen".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 août 2012 - 12:40 .

[Jassu1979]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm familiar with Eclipse Phase. I've been running a short campaign and played in another one. A fascinating world. Those post-singularity AIs essentially wrecked the Solar System before they vanished and left humanity to pick up the pieces. Do I see some similarity with ME's hypothetical "synthetics destroy organics" scenario here?

The TITANs share some similarities with both the reapers and the hypothetical synthetic threat the Catalyst tries to prevent: they wreck the solar system and pretty much destroy earth, but they also "preserve organics in synthetic form" by taking hundreds of thousands of minds with them when they leave for unknown shores.

[Mobius-Silent]

Ksandor wrote...
Ah because there was never a reason to destroy the Geth. Bioware wanted to force this on people to make them choose Synthesis. Destroy is in the Shepard's character. Other choises are out of caharacter and out of game premise. 

 All of the endings are poorly implimented and morally dubious. They all cause Shepard to assume responsibility for something that is not natural to him/her. I don't like it _but_ I don't transfer that emotion onto a single specific ending that is the least compatable with me and my Shepard. I defend Synthesis for the simple reason that people attack it poorly and need to be called on their bull****.

The truth of the matter is we are all playing into Bioware's hands here and in the other ending threads. Each ending was made to be devisive and appeal to people of a specific mindset and to cause them to argue, the more argument, the less focus on Bioware and the more people dig in to defend "their" ending, artificially inflating it's worth.

Ksandor wrote... 
Btw if understanding comes after the Synthesis you could be indoctrinated. You should read or re-read Asimov's Foundation series, the part about the people who are converted by mutant Mule to his cause.

 The Crucible isn't reaper tech, even the Citadel and the Catalyst isn't Reaper tech (It's Leviathan-tech) there is no suggestion that indoctrination should be a concern. After all unless you're wearing a tinfoil hat "you could be" brainwashed by the CIA... it's just not very likely.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Ksandor wrote...

Your renegade Shepard was not big on Control or Synthesis either. You do not understand. Renegade does not mean accepting Reapers' plans. Both Shepards will do what is right and they would never accept Reapers' point of view.

In ME3 you fight Reapers for God's sake! You can play renegade or paragon Shepard but you don't control Shepard's story 100 percent. It is NOT your story but Shepard's story. Of course you can choose Synthesis and you can always want your Shepard to become a Reaper apologist (in your head) but it is still out of character. ME3 ending is forced to the game at the last moment and DOES NOT represent the character's or the game's premise.

Shepard would never say "But there will be peace then Starchild? Let's choose Synthesis. Why did I ever bother fighting Reapers in the first 2 games gosh! Now I know that they won't destroy advanced civilizations we can be firends!". You should get your facts straight.

...Accepting Synthesis doesn't mean accepting the reaper cycles of genocide. When someone chooses to save the collector base, does he agree with the loss of all the humans? When we save Maelon's data does that mean we agree with his barbaric experiments?

I am really sorry to see people who are simply indoctrinated by Bioware just because Bioware wanted to force their last minute stupid ending to consumers. Believe what you want. Mine is not belief or wishful thinking. Mine is extrapolation... Mine is "THE" moral theory and I don't choose stupid endings thrown at me at the last moment. So there!

Man.. can't hear you from up there, come down please?

Modifié par pirate1802, 15 août 2012 - 03:45 .

[Chashan]

...Accepting Synthesis doesn't mean accepting the reaper cycles of genocide. When someone chooses to save the collector base, does he agree with the loss of all the humans? When we save Maelon's data does that mean we agree with his barbaric experiments?

...You know, there is still some angle to this that is right however, and which I may have made not clear enough before:

As it is the one choice most preferred by the executor of the (final) solution, it can be seen as a moral redemption making up for its former, flawed and morally abhorrent doings simply since it works. The Reaper-constructs are turned into accessible, benevolent archives, a not entirely specificied upgrade of the "hardware" of life takes place across the galaxy, what very much looks like the dawn of a golden age comes to pass.

It is no new concept for antagonists to have such a final goal in mind and do the horrible things they do regardless in hopes of achieving it. "The end justifying the means", as it is called.

And for that reason, as the means through which the Reapers operated are simply several leagues too damning to be worthy of such a redemption, I cannot condone Green.

I know, I know, fundamentalist thinking that is dismissed out of hand right here, but just to get back on that.

PS: As for Maelon's doctoring around, I am also of the opinion that even with what he made happen there, it cannot be undone. So one might as well try and do some good with it and keep the data.
You may now say that I could apply the same to the Reapers. However, as I said: the magnitude of their atrocious course of action is simply too great for me to look past.

Modifié par Chashan, 15 août 2012 - 10:01 .

[Seival]

I think you should check this out: http://social.biowar...ndex/13693416/1

[DirtyPhoenix]

Seival wrote...

I think you should check this out: http://social.biowar...ndex/13693416/1

I saw it. Playing as LI and talking to synthesized Harbinger = Mindblown

[Aurora313]

I would totally play it.... wouldn't buy it because EA are a bunch of corporate vampires. But would totally play it.

[JedTed]

 Since everyone brings up the ethics of "forcing" Synthesis on the rest of the galaxy, i'd say that maybe the way it is integrated with each organic race is different.  Since the Catalyst says Synthesis was attempted before but the galaxy wasn't ready, perhaps it only works when a civilization has evolved beyond a certain point.  We don't know percisly what happened to the civilization they tried Synthesis on, it's possible they could have been mutated into the rachni or the keepers(that actually wouldn't be much of a stretch).

Maybe the fact that our civilization finished the Crucible is enough to prove that we are ready for this massive leap in evolution.

While most people saw chooing Synth as Shepard "giving up", i see it as a Leap of Faith(little AC reference there).  My Shepard is open minded and he believes that the civilizations of the galaxy ARE ready for "Ascension".

In ME1:  Shepard fought Saren because, one that was the only option in-game, but also because Saren was using brute force to acomplish his goal.  I'd also say that Saren was a little mis-guided because he didn't understand why the Reapers "reap".

In ME2:  My Shepard destroyed the Collector base because he felt using it would be an insult to all the human colonists that were "processed" there.  He also didn't want TIM to get his evil little paws on it, if there was an option to hand it over to the Council then i may have put more thought into that decision.

That's my rationale for choosing Synth.

[lillitheris]

JedTed wrote...

 Since everyone brings up the ethics of "forcing" Synthesis on the rest of the galaxy, i'd say that maybe the way it is integrated with each organic race is different.
…
While most people saw chooing Synth as Shepard "giving up", i see it as a Leap of Faith(little AC reference there).  My Shepard is open minded and he believes that the civilizations of the galaxy ARE ready for "Ascension".

I don’t think you understand what ‘forcing’ means. I could give a toss whether you want to jump into a beam and become whatever. It’s everybody else that’s the problem.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 août 2012 - 07:23 .

[Jassu1979]

JedTed wrote...

In ME2:  My Shepard destroyed the Collector base because he felt using it would be an insult to all the human colonists that were "processed" there. 

What about all the countless races that were "processed" to create the Reapers?
In one potential dialogue on Rannoch, Shepard even tells the dying destroyer that the people who were used to create it died a long time ago, and will now be finally able to rest in peace.

Personally, I see this as a HUGE stumbling block when it comes to synthesis, because some part of the beings that were "processed" by force still exists within the Reapers. In short, embracing the Reapers after all that they did strikes me as an insult to every sapient being that went through this:



It's not about revenge, not really. It's more about ending the suffering of those whose minds are trapped inside Reaper form, all of whom were forced to repeat the crimes that had been committed against them throughout the ages.

[JedTed]

Jassu1979 wrote...

JedTed wrote...

In ME2:  My Shepard destroyed the Collector base because he felt using it would be an insult to all the human colonists that were "processed" there. 

What about all the countless races that were "processed" to create the Reapers?
In one potential dialogue on Rannoch, Shepard even tells the dying destroyer that the people who were used to create it died a long time ago, and will now be finally able to rest in peace.

We still don't know exactly how each Reaper is constructed or how the genetic material is "stored" in Reaper form.  It could be that after Synthesis, the individuals that make up each Reaper will form a sort of consensus like the geth(you remember how Legion became conflicted as to whether to destroy or brainwash the heretics).

[DirtyPhoenix]

@Jassu1979, yes I'm aware of that dialog on Rannoch, but I my Synthesis-Shepard never used it, for obvious reasons.
Also, we do not know how the minds are fused inside a reaper, or if they are fused at all, its all up in the air. Those species trapped inside the reapers are gone, I'd agree. But according to me, the next best thing is to free the reapers. Killing the reapers won't bring them back, if it did I'd have chosen destroy.

The dilemma is similar to saving/destroying the collector base in ME2, just on a much, much larger scale. Do I save the collector base, the place where innumerable humans were slaughtered? Would using it mean I'm insulting all those people who died there? I chose to save the collector base, for similar reasons.

Modifié par pirate1802, 16 août 2012 - 08:21 .

[JedTed]

lillitheris wrote...

I don’t think you understand what ‘forcing’ means. I could give a toss whether you want to jump into a beam and become whatever. It’s everybody else that’s the problem.

What about the Protheans who meddled in the evolution of humans and asari?  Sure they didn't do anything as big as Synthesis but they did force some change on lesser civilizations, the salarians did same thing when they uplifted the krogan.

If you wanna get technical then what they did is actually worse than Shepard "forcing" Synthesis on the galaxy.  I still think the Synthesis wave wouldn't affect any pre-spaceflight civilizations(maybe the Yahg) until they evolve enough on their own.

[Mobius-Silent]

Jassu1979 wrote...

It's not about revenge, not really. It's more about ending the suffering of those whose minds are trapped inside Reaper form, all of whom were forced to repeat the crimes that had been committed against them throughout the ages.

Keiji's greybox was enough data to construct an AI (or synthetic-intelegence) post-synthesis. Who says that those who were completely consumed could not be recovered and restored to conciousness-as-AI. EDI herself says that the ME2 "consumption" process is a destructive brain scan, if the reapers has a complete conciousness archive of all those consumed alive. There is no reason to assume capatulation or even awareness on the part of those who were is storage during that time.

It's speculation but not completely unsupported, when we admit that a digital conciousness is now capable of full sentience, the notion of what is alive and what is unrecoverably dead becomes a thorny one.

Pre-synthesis it is a much less thorny one.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 16 août 2012 - 10:16 .

[lillitheris]

JedTed wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I don’t think you understand what ‘forcing’ means. I could give a toss whether you want to jump into a beam and become whatever. It’s everybody else that’s the problem.

What about the Protheans who meddled in the evolution of humans and asari?  Sure they didn't do anything as big as Synthesis but they did force some change on lesser civilizations, the salarians did same thing when they uplifted the krogan.

If you wanna get technical then what they did is actually worse than Shepard "forcing" Synthesis on the galaxy.

Oh, yeah, ‘cause that’s a valid reason. Murder is OK, because Ted Bundy killed more people?

(Not to mention that it actually isn’t worse, even by comparing the numbers of people affected…)

I still think the Synthesis wave wouldn't affect any pre-spaceflight civilizations(maybe the Yahg) until they evolve enough on their own.

That’s patently ridiculous even for a Synthesis argument. Sorry. Have you actually tried explaining to yourself how that would even work?

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 août 2012 - 08:01 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

JedTed wrote...

the salarians did same thing when they uplifted the krogan.

That's kind of the way I see this whole thing too. That they're *uplifting us to their level, without the whole harvesting thing.

I think the thing about being "ready" is being technologically advanced enough, and having the right attitudes. High EMS to unlock synthesis means the Crucible is strong (tech) and there's is unity among species (attitude). So nobody gets left behind, and we're going to be responsible with how we use new tech.

To me, the "forced" part means, you can't just give it to a society that isn't ready for it.

*Tali: You want to upload the Reaper code? That would make the geth as smart as when the Reapers were controlling them.
Legion. But with freewill.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Jassu1979 wrote...

It's not about revenge, not really. It's more about ending the suffering of those whose minds are trapped inside Reaper form, all of whom were forced to repeat the crimes that had been committed against them throughout the ages.

Well it's good that you think that, but I still kind of have an issue with this POV. It's assuming what's right and what would be a mercy based on how we look at them, and it will apply to all of them by choosing Destroy, even if some of them may not feel the need to die.

For that reason, I do prefer leaving them alive. If it's too terrible to live with, they can fly themselves into a sun or black hole. I can't imagine being hit by an unstable red wave of energy is going to be a more painless way to go anyway, so they'll be getting what they would have gotten if I Destroy'd.

Those that do not can offer valuable aid/knowledge to our galaxy.