9089 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

alleyd wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Enthalpy wrote...

alleyd wrote...
I don't personally think it would be a good idea to communicate with Reapers, unless there was an even bigger threat on the horizon that we would require their power or knowledge to combat. The arrogance and contempt of Sovereign and Harbinger states to me that they would be pleasant neighbours 

I was thinking something more along the lines of "hey, want to tell us where these hundreds of relays we have been too cautious to open actually lead?"
There are definitely questions they can help answer. But yeah, most don't seem to have shining personalities.

The implication being you'd trust them to tell you the truth.  They showed disdain for people in ME1 and 2.  To think in ME3, that they don't still have that disdain is a part of what's wrong with it.

Pre ME 3 I thought the reapers wanted to eat me, that they needed the organic material to maintain themselves.  They had the same disdain that a predator has for its prey. 

Yes, I never lost that thought until glow boy.  I thought about the movie Predator in fact.  He just hunted.  Neither he nor the Alien in Alien cared to be understood.  I don't recall ever learning why the Alien was killing people other than using them as incubators for their offspring.  The Predator was merely a hunter.  And yet, I didn't feel either movie failed.  They were beings that didn't care if we understood them or not.  They used people as some people use inanimate objects.  If the reapers also fed, that made sense.  It even made fish make sense.

[Ieldra]

I would understand that attitude had the Reapers not been revealed to be uploaded and conjoined organic minds in ME2. From that point onwards, the predator analogy wouldn't have worked for me anymore, even had I ever thought that way.

For me, there was a mystery to solve, not just a fight against an enemy. I recall when Vigil said "You are not here to understand them, but to stop them", that I said "idiot" loudly and hoped the trilogy wouldn't follow that path. And it didn't. So, 3DandBeyond, I get that you don't like how the Reapers were handled, but a different attitude was quite possible to have, right from the first encounter with Sovereign in ME1.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I would understand that attitude had the Reapers not been revealed to be uploaded and conjoined organic minds in ME2. From that point onwards, the predator analogy wouldn't have worked for me anymore, even had I ever thought that way.

For me, there was a mystery to solve, not just a fight against an enemy. I recall when Vigil said "You are not here to understand them, but to stop them", that I said "idiot" loudly and hoped the trilogy wouldn't follow that path. And it didn't. So, 3DandBeyond, I get that you don't like how the Reapers were handled, but a different attitude was quite possible to have, right from the first encounter with Sovereign in ME1.

The problem is, that's a minor player wish and not a driving character goal.  For it in the story to be a real driving goal there had to be someone that repeatedly wanted to understand them or it would have had to be relevant to the goal of destroying them, like a mystery needed to be solved to finish the game.  It isn't even needed in the end, though the kid starts to explain how weak and meaningless they are.  As it is, it would have been better served as part of a true epilogue, but it is not of any meaning to the plot and it rings as not authentic.  In fact, in BW's own words the ending will answer all of the questions-it doesn't even fully answer the reaper origin and motivation question.  A mystery is something you need to know and when you find out you have an "aha!" moment of understanding.  There are no hints at the kid in ME1 and thus the reapers' keeper is not part of any mystery and there is no slight reveal of the reapers as having some alternate motive other than wanting to kill for food or fun.

The reapers in ME2 were revealed as having goo in them.  Legion says they have organic minds conjoined in them, but again this never went against my thoughts and all the hints that they were using people for nutrition and reproduction.  That made sense to me.  Seeding the galaxy with tech, fattened up the organic minds and assured they would be ready when the reapers awoke from their dormant state (hibernation) to intake the organic goo and the intelligence that was aged like wine-they needed both to sustain them and to increase their numbers.  It made sense.  It made what Sovereign said logical.  The reapers ate organic goo (just as the keepers seem to) and also used the intelligence energy as sustenance.  And I don't explain to a chicken why I want to make chicken salad out of it, so Sovereign didn't care to discuss his purpose with Shepard.  It fit so many other things in the game, that if it was finally revealed, I would have said, "Aha!"  But this ending is never hinted at, never alluded to in any meaningful way.  And the reapers are like neutered dogs.  They were cool and they now look just silly.

Predator was not a direct comparison, but it was the idea that such a being might see no need to explain himself to his prey.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 24 août 2012 - 09:16 .

[Reptilian Rob]

Ok just throwing this one out there again...

Aldous Huxley.

Brave New World.

How does anyone who read that book still think synthesis is a good idea?

"Strip away the individual, filter their essence into one singular body with slight variation of title and then watch as the world around you burns."

We're not talking unity, being alive, being one with everyone happy every after. We're talking sterility and stagnation.

Remember the savage, John, very last page of the book? Yeah...

[Ieldra]

We've been there, Reptilian Rob. The thing is that Synthesis doesn't do all that, except in the minds of those who already dislike it.

[Reptilian Rob]

Ieldra2 wrote...

We've been there, Reptilian Rob. The thing is that Synthesis doesn't do all that, except in the minds of those who already dislike it.

Go listen to EDI's epi again, then go read the first chapter of that book. Synthesis denotes that all life is not apart of each other, allbeit with slight variations of unique genes making the differenr races somewhat unique in nature. However, the individual identity of said races is lost through synthesis being that everyone is now "linked" in a neural sort of way. Brave New World denotes that everyone is the same, allbeit with slight variations based on genetic mutations induced by the "world" leaders to make the mirage that everyone is different. Synthesis is no different, it is a mirage image of perfection and not a true evolutionary road down to said perfection. Starchild even tells Shepard that their species is "ready" noting that it is not a natural evolution but one Shepard must initiate. Much like the world leaders initiate the sterilization of humanity in order to passify them. 

Remember, this is starchild's prefered option. The very same person who is sterilizing the galaxy in order to maintain "order." However his method is flawed because he is altering the course of natural cyclical order, something in which he seeks to preserve. In that way, he is rampant and stuck in a logic loop of sorts. He wishes to preserve the natual cycle, but his solution to doing so rests with tampering with said cycle and deviating from natural evolution based on the sole reason that synthetics will ALWAYS rebell again their creators. Much in the same way that Huxley proposed that humans will always wage war until they are completely identical. But again, all that leads to is stagnation through genetic sterilization, again, deviation from the natural order of which BNW seeks to preserve. 

You can try to say that Synthesis is a different concept, in the same way I may call an apple an orange. The method is different, yet the concept remains the same. 

Granted I am also one who believes that all three endings are just variation of different war crimes you must commit to end a total genocide. I view all endings as bad choices, it's just to what degree. 

I mean come on, Shepard's canon first name is even "John" the person fighting to keep the galaxy unique! Well, that's just a coincidence but still! 

[Ieldra]

@3dandBeyond:
How the hell did those hints about the nature of the Reapers NOT constitute a mystery that asked to be solved? As for it not being explicitly mentioned, well, nothing is except the goal of stopping the Reapers, and that's because we're not in a book or a movie, but a game where what you as the player put in is just as important as what the writers put in. You could play the games as a horror story, see whatever animates the Reapers as either already dead and better gone completely or completely incomprehensible - and consequently choose Destroy in the end. Or you could play the game as a story where destroying the enemy was seen as a regrettable necessity in order to survive, until it was revealed that it wasn't necessary.

That those hints may not have constituted a mystery for *you* says nothing. Some players reacted to the presentation of all that information with questions, others reacted with "it doesn't matter, we just need to kill them." Both attitudes get answered in the end, so I don't know what you're complaining abouot. Or is it just that you resent that people like me have gotten what they wanted from the EC ending?
Personally, I find it completely incomprehensible how anyone could not have asked those questions to be answered and be content with an unsatisfying, even depressing agenda of destroying what they don't understand. Had this stereotypical old agenda of "kill the bad guys" without any revelation about their nature and motivation been the only canonical attitude that would have made the ME trilogy definitely Not My Story. It would have been depressing and I'd possibly have retroactively considered playing the games a waste of time because I didn't care for the message sent at the end.

[Ieldra]

@Reptilian Rob:
So basically you're *assuming* that the diversity we still see post-Synthesis is a lie? Where is the evidence, please? In the EC epilogues, I see species identity preserved. And being "linked", as I see it, just means easier communication.
Another assumption I question is "nature knows best". There is no reason to believe that the natural is by definition better than the "artificial", and I do not believe in normative notions of what is natural. Artificial evolution is not lesser than natural evolution, designed life is not lesser than grown life. In fact, human biology is a total mess from a design viewpoint, evolution works in a way comparable to the attempt to turn a calculator program into an AI by applying a million consecutive patches. "It is not a natural evolution" is an argument with zero weight. Sticking to natural evolution is only preferable *today* because we don't know enough about how our genes influence who we are. Once we know all that, I can assure you, only the religious will stick to the natural as a matter of principle.

[inko1nsiderate]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Ok just throwing this one out there again...

Aldous Huxley.

Brave New World.

How does anyone who read that book still think synthesis is a good idea?

"Strip away the individual, filter their essence into one singular body with slight variation of title and then watch as the world around you burns."

We're not talking unity, being alive, being one with everyone happy every after. We're talking sterility and stagnation.

Remember the savage, John, very last page of the book? Yeah...

Probably because people think it just opens new modes of communication and doesn't just shut down individuality like you are describing.  By removing physical constraints that tie down our personalities, you are now free to directly modify yourself as you see fit.  You may disagree, but I see that sort of self-modification as leading to more diversity.  The peaceful aspect of synthesis comes from the concept that enlightment, and better understand of yourself and others, naturally leads to peace.  Peace doesn't have to mean stagnation and death, as there are still individual challenges and conflict.

I mean, you have to accept Huxley's assumption that war comes from diversity to make your argument.  Why should that assumption be the only assumption one can make?  Why couldn't war come from misunderstanding or miscommunication of diversity as opposed to the mere existence of diversity?

The game itself actually makes the opposite argument.  Violence comes from the inability to act in a way that is different from the past.  The galaxy is stuck in a cycle, of Reaper harvest and of brutal action and re-action.  See the Geth and Quarian conflict; Legion himself says peace cannot happen as long as only one side is unwilling to act differently from the same way it has been acting.  If the races reacted to violence in a different way then their ancestors did, then these cycles could be broken and there could be peace; peace requires a diversity of opinion that allows you to react in ways that are distinct from the past.  The peace requires both sides willingly communicating, but doesn't require an end to diversity.  The Geth/Quarian peace only becomes possible after the Geth gain diversity as individuals and gain a better understanding of themselves and have lines of communication forcibly opened to the Quarians through Shepard's cajoling/screaming.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 24 août 2012 - 10:55 .

[ghost9191]

yeah and by doing that you change ppl, for better or worse. but they are no longer what they use to be

they be rewritten , improved maybe , but still they are changed


not really refering to a single post, just throw my thought in there:huh:

Modifié par ghost9191, 24 août 2012 - 10:47 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

We've been there, Reptilian Rob. The thing is that Synthesis doesn't do all that, except in the minds of those who already dislike it.

The thing is it does exactly that except in the minds of those who can somehow rationalize it all away.  You can say it isn't forced, but what do you call it when it is done without permission.

You can say it isn't stagnation, but that's exactly what it is intended to lead to.  It is the kid's favorite choice and that's because he will most definitely be in some way directing it toward its inevitable conclusion.  It is meant to stave off chaos and conflict in pursuit of some warped vision of perfection and final evolution.  That does not prevent the synthesized from creating alternate lifeforms, but it determines the end state of their own existence.  Immortality is a conclusion, a final point.  And it still involves some unrealistic idea that the kid would somehow be able to impart full understanding of organics to synthetics when he barely understands the concept himself.

Individuality is only temporary since that is not the purpose of synthesis.  It is as the kid says-it's to be used toward perfection, as he sees it.  He clearly states that's the reason organics want tech and synthetics want understanding for perfection.  Synthetics get that supposedly, but organics are not perfect yet with tech.  That's why immortality will happen (it's what tech is designed to work for).  And knowledge from a certain perspective.  Everything that is given by this tech is to end chaos and evolution is partly chaotic.  Orderly evolution is evolution in one way with less diversity.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 25 août 2012 - 12:32 .

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3dandBeyond:
How the hell did those hints about the nature of the Reapers NOT constitute a mystery that asked to be solved? As for it not being explicitly mentioned, well, nothing is except the goal of stopping the Reapers, and that's because we're not in a book or a movie, but a game where what you as the player put in is just as important as what the writers put in. You could play the games as a horror story, see whatever animates the Reapers as either already dead and better gone completely or completely incomprehensible - and consequently choose Destroy in the end. Or you could play the game as a story where destroying the enemy was seen as a regrettable necessity in order to survive, until it was revealed that it wasn't necessary.

That those hints may not have constituted a mystery for *you* says nothing. Some players reacted to the presentation of all that information with questions, others reacted with "it doesn't matter, we just need to kill them." Both attitudes get answered in the end, so I don't know what you're complaining abouot. Or is it just that you resent that people like me have gotten what they wanted from the EC ending?
Personally, I find it completely incomprehensible how anyone could not have asked those questions to be answered and be content with an unsatisfying, even depressing agenda of destroying what they don't understand. Had this stereotypical old agenda of "kill the bad guys" without any revelation about their nature and motivation been the only canonical attitude that would have made the ME trilogy definitely Not My Story. It would have been depressing and I'd possibly have retroactively considered playing the games a waste of time because I didn't care for the message sent at the end.

It was never a huge goal of the characters (namely Shepard as the character tied to players) throughout 3 games.  It was irrelevant.

And revealing or having motivations for the baddies is the timeworn crap, not just leaving them a mystery.  Yet as I said that would have been better left to a decent epilogue, because it was not a resounding part of the plot.  It was not relevant to the goal of destroying them.  And no matter what you say, the goal was not controlling or joining with them and holding green circuited magical hands together, it was destroying them.  You can ignore that, but the story does not. 

The game ignores truly often expressed points and then brings up a point that was never a burning desire of the characters within it.  That means answering it rings hollow when other questions that were pertinent were ignored.  It is put into a "nice to know" but not "need to know" category. 

You think that would be depressing-not to care about or get to understand the reapers, but you think it's just fine to alter peoples' core beings without their consent?  You want to get touchy feely with reapers who have been turning people into goo, as if understanding them will make some huge difference and you'd be sad not to have that chance, but don't mind deciding the internal fate of billions or trillions of people.

Guess what?  Jeffrey Dahmer ate people and he couldn't say why.  Abandonment issues, maybe.  Ted Bundy killed people and couldn't say why-he tried to manipulate police into believing he might be able to help them understand him.  The reapers have killed trillions upon trillions of people and you want to become one with them.  And you've accused me of injecting my morality upon this before by saying neither you nor any other person or group of persons has the right to alter people genetically or fundamentally without their permission.  None was given.  But go ahead and hug a reaper.  That makes no sense to me.

Leaving them and their baby daddy alive is a risk too big to take.  Hackett says this.  Mordin speaks out against synthesis, as does Legion, and no sane or unindoctrinated person thought such a thing was good.  You say that not understanding the reapers and their motivation at the end would have been a message you wouldn't have liked.  Well, having them continue to be the true antagonists of the story and having them be large incomprehensible foes with mysterious motives would have been infinitely better than the demented mostly magical message left at the end now.  They are all parts of some despot's idea of utopia-control, integrate, or murder.  Sounds like the way the Protheans ruled in their cycle.

[3DandBeyond]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

We've been there, Reptilian Rob. The thing is that Synthesis doesn't do all that, except in the minds of those who already dislike it.

Go listen to EDI's epi again, then go read the first chapter of that book. Synthesis denotes that all life is not apart of each other, allbeit with slight variations of unique genes making the differenr races somewhat unique in nature. However, the individual identity of said races is lost through synthesis being that everyone is now "linked" in a neural sort of way. Brave New World denotes that everyone is the same, allbeit with slight variations based on genetic mutations induced by the "world" leaders to make the mirage that everyone is different. Synthesis is no different, it is a mirage image of perfection and not a true evolutionary road down to said perfection. Starchild even tells Shepard that their species is "ready" noting that it is not a natural evolution but one Shepard must initiate. Much like the world leaders initiate the sterilization of humanity in order to passify them. 

Remember, this is starchild's prefered option. The very same person who is sterilizing the galaxy in order to maintain "order." However his method is flawed because he is altering the course of natural cyclical order, something in which he seeks to preserve. In that way, he is rampant and stuck in a logic loop of sorts. He wishes to preserve the natual cycle, but his solution to doing so rests with tampering with said cycle and deviating from natural evolution based on the sole reason that synthetics will ALWAYS rebell again their creators. Much in the same way that Huxley proposed that humans will always wage war until they are completely identical. But again, all that leads to is stagnation through genetic sterilization, again, deviation from the natural order of which BNW seeks to preserve. 

You can try to say that Synthesis is a different concept, in the same way I may call an apple an orange. The method is different, yet the concept remains the same. 

Granted I am also one who believes that all three endings are just variation of different war crimes you must commit to end a total genocide. I view all endings as bad choices, it's just to what degree. 

I mean come on, Shepard's canon first name is even "John" the person fighting to keep the galaxy unique! Well, that's just a coincidence but still! 

This is exactly right.  All choices are a version of a war crime, and as I see it they will all have the potential to lead to complete annihilation.  One will do so through genetic similarity.  It also requires you tamper with the internal makeup of races that have already suffered tampering.  I doubt they will thank you for again putting constraints upon their natural evolution.  I don't care how happy the slides are afterward-they make no sense.  Destroy can lead to annihilation through the insidious idea of certain races being less valuable or less valid.  Destroy the geth and the Krogan and Rachni and Batarians have to wonder what their own worth is.  Control could create annihilation through the reapers themselves.  Shepard the reaper god will at some point have to split the baby and decide who lives or dies.  If groups try to destroy reapers, they can't continue.  If conflict arises, it must be dealt with.  Shepard does not have feelings any longer and feelings help  us make such decisions.

I think all choices lead to conflict, chaos, and slow genocide after the initial spurt of war crimes.

[Enthalpy]

3DandBeyond wrote...
I think all choices lead to conflict, chaos, and slow genocide after the initial spurt of war crimes.

Well, ok, then.
Rest of thread, let us speculate in peace.:innocent:

[HiddenInWar]

Okay, funny thought. (warning, bad analogy)

Take a person with braces and forsus (the springs attachment to braces to align the jaw), and just for a moment say that that person is partly synthetic. The catalyst says that it cannot be forced, yet the orthodontist forcibly "synthesizes" a person with these attachments (in a similar way with Paul Grayson), a process that takes years of suffering to get used to. Does the body ever get used to Synergy in a process like this? Or is it instantaneous?

[zambot]

Reptilian Rob wrote...


Go listen to EDI's epi again, then go read the first chapter of that book. Synthesis denotes that all life is not apart of each other, allbeit with slight variations of unique genes making the differenr races somewhat unique in nature. However, the individual identity of said races is lost through synthesis being that everyone is now "linked" in a neural sort of way. Brave New World denotes that everyone is the same, allbeit with slight variations based on genetic mutations induced by the "world" leaders to make the mirage that everyone is different.

Are you claiming that "all life is not apart of each other" is the same as "everyone is the same"?  Your statement does not prove or even hint that synthesis is the same as Brave New World.  The only similarity is the speculation that all species now are genetically similar: which is speculation.  That Krogan baby sure looked like a Krogan and not something else.  Sorry, I don't buy your argument.

Synthesis is no different, it is a mirage image of perfection and not a true evolutionary road down to said perfection. Starchild even tells Shepard that their species is "ready" noting that it is not a natural evolution but one Shepard must initiate. Much like the world leaders initiate the sterilization of humanity in order to passify them. 

The claim that it is a mirage image of perfection is speculation/opinion.  You also put forth the opinion that true evolution leads to perfection.  I would disagree with that statement.  Evolution's purpose is to produce genes that a. "survive" and b. "dominate".

Remember, this is starchild's prefered option. The very same person who is sterilizing the galaxy in order to maintain "order."

Yes, but let's be careful to avoid association fallacy.

However his method is flawed because he is altering the course of natural cyclical order, something in which he seeks to preserve. In that way, he is rampant and stuck in a logic loop of sorts. He wishes to preserve the natual cycle, but his solution to doing so rests with tampering with said cycle and deviating from natural evolution based on the sole reason that synthetics will ALWAYS rebell again their creators. Much in the same way that Huxley proposed that humans will always wage war until they are completely identical. But again, all that leads to is stagnation through genetic sterilization, again, deviation from the natural order of which BNW seeks to preserve. 

I claim that you have not created a link between Huxley's viewpoint and the Catalyst.  In BNW, peace is achieved through eliminating differences.  The Catalyst achieves peace by killing civilizations before they can catastrophically destroy the galaxy.  Synthesis achieves peace through communication (the linked neural network), understanding (something Shepard gave to synthetics), and knowledge (unfettered access to billions of minds across millions of years of history).

You can try to say that Synthesis is a different concept, in the same way I may call an apple an orange. The method is different, yet the concept remains the same. 

And hopefully you can see why I disagree with your outlook.

Granted I am also one who believes that all three endings are just variation of different war crimes you must commit to end a total genocide. I view all endings as bad choices, it's just to what degree. 

I mean come on, Shepard's canon first name is even "John" the person fighting to keep the galaxy unique! Well, that's just a coincidence but still! 

I am definitely unaware that Shepard's canon name is "John"  That would invalidate the work Bioware put into keeping Shep gender neutal.  Not that it matters for this discussion, but I would love to see a source on this.

I also agree that the endings are bad, but I view synthesis as silly more than I do view it a war crime.

Modifié par zambot, 25 août 2012 - 01:24 .

[JedTed]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ever watch Caprica (the series that could have been)?  It's the prequel to BSG, where you learn or start to learn how the Cylons came to be-with the uploaded consciousness of a scientist's daughter into a memory core inserted into a Cylon.  The girl had saved her essence in a VR game and her father retrieved it.  The Cylon she becomes thinks it understands what she wanted to do, but it begins immediately to have problems with how the world sees it.  The girl inside still sees herself as a girl, but the world sees this hulking awkward, kind of threatening thing.  She gets made at being restrained and carted around like freight.  Only her best friend initially realizes the girl's memories are in the Cylon body.  It's obvious that at some point the girl inside will start to become more like people see her.

Daniel, Zoe's father, also says that it's what's on the inside that determines one's character.

I know that's kind of cliche but it's true and i thought i'd point that out.

[Reptilian Rob]

zambot wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...


Go listen to EDI's epi again, then go read the first chapter of that book. Synthesis denotes that all life is not apart of each other, allbeit with slight variations of unique genes making the differenr races somewhat unique in nature. However, the individual identity of said races is lost through synthesis being that everyone is now "linked" in a neural sort of way. Brave New World denotes that everyone is the same, allbeit with slight variations based on genetic mutations induced by the "world" leaders to make the mirage that everyone is different.

Are you claiming that "all life is not apart of each other" is the same as "everyone is the same"?  Your statement does not prove or even hint that synthesis is the same as Brave New World.  The only similarity is the speculation that all species now are genetically similar: which is speculation.  That Krogan baby sure looked like a Krogan and not something else.  Sorry, I don't buy your argument.

Synthesis is no different, it is a mirage image of perfection and not a true evolutionary road down to said perfection. Starchild even tells Shepard that their species is "ready" noting that it is not a natural evolution but one Shepard must initiate. Much like the world leaders initiate the sterilization of humanity in order to passify them. 

The claim that it is a mirage image of perfection is speculation/opinion.  You also put forth the opinion that true evolution leads to perfection.  I would disagree with that statement.  Evolution's purpose is to produce genes that a. "survive" and b. "dominate".

Remember, this is starchild's prefered option. The very same person who is sterilizing the galaxy in order to maintain "order."

Yes, but let's be careful to avoid association fallacy.

However his method is flawed because he is altering the course of natural cyclical order, something in which he seeks to preserve. In that way, he is rampant and stuck in a logic loop of sorts. He wishes to preserve the natual cycle, but his solution to doing so rests with tampering with said cycle and deviating from natural evolution based on the sole reason that synthetics will ALWAYS rebell again their creators. Much in the same way that Huxley proposed that humans will always wage war until they are completely identical. But again, all that leads to is stagnation through genetic sterilization, again, deviation from the natural order of which BNW seeks to preserve. 

I claim that you have not created a link between Huxley's viewpoint and the Catalyst.  In BNW, peace is achieved through eliminating differences.  The Catalyst achieves peace by killing civilizations before they can catastrophically destroy the galaxy.  Synthesis achieves peace through communication (the linked neural network), understanding (something Shepard gave to synthetics), and knowledge (unfettered access to billions of minds across millions of years of history).

You can try to say that Synthesis is a different concept, in the same way I may call an apple an orange. The method is different, yet the concept remains the same. 

And hopefully you can see why I disagree with your outlook.

Granted I am also one who believes that all three endings are just variation of different war crimes you must commit to end a total genocide. I view all endings as bad choices, it's just to what degree. 

I mean come on, Shepard's canon first name is even "John" the person fighting to keep the galaxy unique! Well, that's just a coincidence but still! 

I am definitely unaware that Shepard's canon name is "John"  That would invalidate the work Bioware put into keeping Shep gender neutal.  Not that it matters for this discussion, but I would love to see a source on this.

I also agree that the endings are bad, but I view synthesis as silly more than I do view it a war crime.

Male Shep's canon name is "John." Also, that last sentence was a joke, Comannder. 

Second, the only term need used in this situation is "Evolutionary Singularity." If synthesis is perfection and the end to chaos, what prevents genetic and developmental stagnation? Actually, go look up the phrase "evolutionary bottleneck," as it fits this situation quite well. After a disaster (IE Reaper war) the less diversity eventually leads to genetic stagnation and later conflict/extinction. 

If a question like that arises, it probably isn't a good idea to implement in the first place.  

As said before, justify synthesis all you want. It's still the BNW scenario at it's finest. Or "The Island." which ever you prefer. 

[3DandBeyond]

JedTed wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Ever watch Caprica (the series that could have been)?  It's the prequel to BSG, where you learn or start to learn how the Cylons came to be-with the uploaded consciousness of a scientist's daughter into a memory core inserted into a Cylon.  The girl had saved her essence in a VR game and her father retrieved it.  The Cylon she becomes thinks it understands what she wanted to do, but it begins immediately to have problems with how the world sees it.  The girl inside still sees herself as a girl, but the world sees this hulking awkward, kind of threatening thing.  She gets made at being restrained and carted around like freight.  Only her best friend initially realizes the girl's memories are in the Cylon body.  It's obvious that at some point the girl inside will start to become more like people see her.

Daniel, Zoe's father, also says that it's what's on the inside that determines one's character.

I know that's kind of cliche but it's true and i thought i'd point that out.

Well, I agree but we are formed by our interaction with the environment as well and that process doesn't stop once we hit a certain age.  It never does.  Consider that people can become bitter due to the treatment at the hands of others.  That doesn't all come from the inside.  Adversity can reveal character.  But that isn't all of it.  We all have invisible thresholds that determine what affects us.  As in the idea of physical predisposition to disease.  You and I might be in contact with the same virus at the same time and I get sick, but you don't.  I can't help that, it's how I'm made.

So, too some people crack under pressure while others rise above.  Some people can't ride the elevator, some can't stand snakes, and some people are not approachable in the morning without having 3 cups of coffee first.  We have different thresholds for various things. 

But here's another thing that is very interesting - at least I think it is.  There's a line of thought that says not only can we internally determine how we feel by deciding to be unafraid or happy, we can also create it by how we act physically.  For instance, if you are about to talk to someone on the phone that you know you usually get mad at, consciously force yourself to smile while doing so.  I'm not saying try to remain nice and all.  I am merely saying smile.  It is infinitely more difficult to get mad at someone when you are smiling than when you aren't.  Just as negative talk can weaken you and change your perception so can physical actions.

It is like your brain understands the act of smiling as being happy and it cannot go against it.  It's why when you fear entering into a situation, like a job interview, you are told to act confident.  Sit up straight, be in command.  Your brain will believe what your body is showing.

What I'm saying is our character is determined by what we are internally, but it is also determined by our interactions with the external world and the people in it.  We aren't just our bodies or are minds, we are our bodies and our minds.  And our self-perception is partly determined by how the world sees us and how we react to it.  If we react badly, it may be that that hidden threshold has been reached.

[zambot]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Male Shep's canon name is "John." Also, that last sentence was a joke, Comannder. 

Sorry for being dense.  Are you saying that (really) his canon name is "John"? Or are you making a joke?  Believe it or not I care more about this than arguments about synthesis.  Everyone's interpretation of synthesis is just headcanon, but Shepard being "John" is news to me, so I'd love to see a source.  That would be "new and exciting" to me.

Second, the only term need used in this situation is "Evolutionary Singularity." If synthesis is perfection and the end to chaos, what prevents genetic and developmental stagnation? Actually, go look up the phrase "evolutionary bottleneck," as it fits this situation quite well. After a disaster (IE Reaper war) the less diversity eventually leads to genetic stagnation and later conflict/extinction. 

If a question like that arises, it probably isn't a good idea to implement in the first place.  

I view synthesis more as Bioware's "transcendence".  Civilizations in synthesis have transcended to a state of being that is beyond normal evolution.  Ever play Alpha Centauri?  I view synthesis closer to that than I do BNW.

As said before, justify synthesis all you want. It's still the BNW scenario at it's finest. Or "The Island." which ever you prefer. 

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion and headcanon.  If you want to envision a synthesis that leads to BNW, you are of course free to do so.

[Enthalpy]

Reptilian Rob wrote...
...the only term need used in this situation is "Evolutionary Singularity." If synthesis is perfection and the end to chaos, what prevents genetic and developmental stagnation? Actually, go look up the phrase "evolutionary bottleneck," as it fits this situation quite well. After a disaster (IE Reaper war) the less diversity eventually leads to genetic stagnation and later conflict/extinction. 

If enough people died in the Reaper War for genetic bottlenecks to become a problem, every ending is screwed. If not, I believe a population boom is the natural response after a disaster -- in which case, more mutations. 

[3DandBeyond]

Enthalpy wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...
...the only term need used in this situation is "Evolutionary Singularity." If synthesis is perfection and the end to chaos, what prevents genetic and developmental stagnation? Actually, go look up the phrase "evolutionary bottleneck," as it fits this situation quite well. After a disaster (IE Reaper war) the less diversity eventually leads to genetic stagnation and later conflict/extinction. 

If enough people died in the Reaper War for genetic bottlenecks to become a problem, every ending is screwed. If not, I believe a population boom is the natural response after a disaster -- in which case, more mutations. 

Not with tech directing the path.

And Evolutionary Singularity fits it all because it isn't just knowledge, it's everything.  After the reapers lay waste to the galaxy, there will be billions if not trillions dead as you say, this means less diversity.  Genetic alteration which is geared toward the kid's idea of perfection would definitely direct it toward this Evolutionary Singularity.  That is why the idea of immortality exists.   It is seen as a part of this final state of perfection.

[Reptilian Rob]

zambot wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Male Shep's canon name is "John." Also, that last sentence was a joke, Comannder. 

Sorry for being dense.  Are you saying that (really) his canon name is "John"? Or are you making a joke?  Believe it or not I care more about this than arguments about synthesis.  Everyone's interpretation of synthesis is just headcanon, but Shepard being "John" is news to me, so I'd love to see a source.  That would be "new and exciting" to me.

Second, the only term need used in this situation is "Evolutionary Singularity." If synthesis is perfection and the end to chaos, what prevents genetic and developmental stagnation? Actually, go look up the phrase "evolutionary bottleneck," as it fits this situation quite well. After a disaster (IE Reaper war) the less diversity eventually leads to genetic stagnation and later conflict/extinction. 

If a question like that arises, it probably isn't a good idea to implement in the first place.  

I view synthesis more as Bioware's "transcendence".  Civilizations in synthesis have transcended to a state of being that is beyond normal evolution.  Ever play Alpha Centauri?  I view synthesis closer to that than I do BNW.

As said before, justify synthesis all you want. It's still the BNW scenario at it's finest. Or "The Island." which ever you prefer. 

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion and headcanon.  If you want to envision a synthesis that leads to BNW, you are of course free to do so.

I don't really view synthesis as a good or bad ending, just one to me that leads to stagnation. I'm a destroy guy, I set out to destroy the Reapers all the way back in ME1 and I damn sure will follow through on that. I view every other option as compromising with the Reapers, the harvesters and the bringers of sorrow. I didn't come to compromise, I came to end it. My personal views; and when I say "justify it all you want" I'm refering to what it represents not that it's a "bad" choice.

Also, the "John" thing was a joke. It's not his/her (fem Shep is "Jane") canon name of course, it's just the name that shows up when you create your first Shep as a placeholder. 

[zambot]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Also, the "John" thing was a joke. It's not his/her (fem Shep is "Jane") canon name of course, it's just the name that shows up when you create your first Shep as a placeholder. 

Drat!  I wanted to be excited by something new.  Guess I'll just have to wait for all the analysis about Leviathan next week.