9089 réponses à ce sujet

[CosmicGnosis]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

Not that anyone cares what I have to say, but I've been replaying the ME trilogy, and recording it this time. Anyway, it means I don't skip dialogues which has reminded me about The Cipher's description. One thing I see a lot of people complain about is why does Shepard need to die in Synthesis. Well, besides symbolically, we can justify it several ways:

1) Cultural endemic memory of humanity is important in making synthesis possible. Certainly if the Thorian can gain this endemic memory through consuming of Protheans (with some study), and this Cipher can be transferred to an Asari and to Shepard, that a similar process can happen to read Shepard's endemic memory.

2) From ME3 we know Protheans can read DNA, but we could guess something along those lines based on their technological ability to transfer information directly into Shepard's brain with the beacons. Either way, we see that memory of an individual can be read and transferred by advanced technology thus Shepard's unique experiences and outlook is part of what is necessary for Synthesis to work. In effect, Shepard's memories are encoded in the synthesis technology so that the memories can influence people towards peace (but it isn't a mindwashing thing just like the Prothean Beacon didn't mindwash Shepard).

I've also been thinking about the actual mechanics of the synthesis technology as well, I'm still thinking it is picotechnology. There are repeatedly references to nanotechnology throughout the series, mostly in codexes, and there is a mystery as to why the Serpent nebula is there. Prevailing theory is that waste is 'somehow' reduced to the sub molecular level and dispersed by the Keepers. So there is in lore justification for the Reapers having a similar level of technology that is necessary for my picotechnology explanation.

Interesting. I never considered that Synthesis might require something like the Cipher. Actually, it does seem similar to Ieldra's proposal that Synthesis required Shepard's mind. I just never thought of the Cipher as a previous example.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 30 octobre 2012 - 04:02 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Steelcan wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

well, i tried building a bridge of understanding between me and the Indoctrination Hypothesizers...didn't end well.

. What did you try to tell them?

I just tried asking why they think what they do, but instead they all went after me for my ending choice. I hold no ill will towards them though.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 30 octobre 2012 - 04:22 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

well, i tried building a bridge of understanding between me and the Indoctrination Hypothesizers...didn't end well.

. What did you try to tell them?

I just tried asking why they think what they do, but instead they all went after me for my ending choice. I hold no ill will towards them though.

Yeah. I remember walking into the IT thread wearing the synthesis sig. They started raising opposition against it in no time. It wasn't pretty..

[Ieldra]

inko1nsiderate wrote...
Not that anyone cares what I have to say, but I've been replaying the ME trilogy, and recording it this time. Anyway, it means I don't skip dialogues which has reminded me about The Cipher's description. One thing I see a lot of people complain about is why does Shepard need to die in Synthesis. Well, besides symbolically, we can justify it several ways:

1) Cultural endemic memory of humanity is important in making synthesis possible. Certainly if the Thorian can gain this endemic memory through consuming of Protheans (with some study), and this Cipher can be transferred to an Asari and to Shepard, that a similar process can happen to read Shepard's endemic memory.

2) From ME3 we know Protheans can read DNA, but we could guess something along those lines based on their technological ability to transfer information directly into Shepard's brain with the beacons. Either way, we see that memory of an individual can be read and transferred by advanced technology thus Shepard's unique experiences and outlook is part of what is necessary for Synthesis to work. In effect, Shepard's memories are encoded in the synthesis technology so that the memories can influence people towards peace (but it isn't a mindwashing thing just like the Prothean Beacon didn't mindwash Shepard).

This is similar to my hypothesis that what is in Shepard's mind influences the detailed effects of Synthesis, though my version has only physical effects on organics. The example of the Prothean beacons, however, shows that it's not necessary for people to die in the process of extracting information from either their memories or their DNA. I guess you can rationalize Shepard's death by assuming that the Crucible can only handle the equivalent of "destructive uploading" and doesn't have the kind of imaging technology to read information from the living brain. In other words, Shepard must die because the Crucible's technology is too primitive, LOL.

One thing about the Cipher: since Shepard carries the "essence of what it means to be a Prothean" in his head, can we expect aspects of Prothean culture to materialize in the post-Synthesis civilization?

I've also been thinking about the actual mechanics of the synthesis technology as well, I'm still thinking it is picotechnology. There are repeatedly references to nanotechnology throughout the series, mostly in codexes, and there is a mystery as to why the Serpent nebula is there. Prevailing theory is that waste is 'somehow' reduced to the sub molecular level and dispersed by the Keepers. So there is in lore justification for the Reapers having a similar level of technology that is necessary for my picotechnology explanation.

That sounds interesting, but since picotechnology would be able to manipulate matter at the atomic level, i.e. change properties of atoms, the question is whether this is neccessary to effect changes like the Synthesis does. I don't think things like metastable elements or exotic atoms should be required for it. The only place I can see a role for such things is the synthetic DNA wrapper some people have hypothesized. I think that's going in the wrong direction though, since DNA must still be read in the usual way.

Edit:
Since Synthesis works on a cellular level, I'm still attached to my "clusters of synthetic organelles" scenario. There is no reason why those shouldn't use picotech, if only that works on a small enough scale, but whether that's the case is hardly relevant for the bigger picture.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 octobre 2012 - 12:35 .

[Ieldra]

Arcian wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

BSNites loves their groupthink.

And hate when outside opinions threaten the validity of it.

BSN is like the geth Consensus, except that it functions in the opposite way: As it grows larger, it becomes dumber.

You know... if I wasn't so attached to my Super MAC signature, I would totally use this statement as a sig. Genius.

So true, so true. I'm still thinking of using it in my sig, now that I removed both the Miranda and Synthesis banners.

[Steelcan]

pirate1802 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
well, i tried building a bridge of understanding between me and the Indoctrination Hypothesizers...didn't end well.

. What did you try to tell them?

I just tried asking why they think what they do, but instead they all went after me for my ending choice. I hold no ill will towards them though.

Yeah. I remember walking into the IT thread wearing the synthesis sig. They started raising opposition against it in no time. It wasn't pretty..

. They, like a lot of other people, give destroyers a bad name.

[Steelcan]

I don't know if this is the OP, but how would you change Synthesis to make more sense? I think that may be a reason a lot of people don't pick it, it makes little logical sense.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I don't know if this is the OP, but how would you change Synthesis to make more sense? I think that may be a reason a lot of people don't pick it, it makes little logical sense.

That depends how drastic changes are allowed. At the minimum level, I would....

(1) Remove the contradictions and the phrases that make no sense. Remove the "new...DNA" and the "final evolution of life", since DNA does not apply to synthetics and the epilogue clearly shows that the post-Synthesis civilization is not the end of things. Instead, use the phrase from the leaked script "Organics will becore more like us, and we will become more like you." and then follow up with the existing exposition about integration of technology and gainin understanding.

(2) Explain Shepard's role in the Synthesis in a way compatible with in-world logic. The only such explanation I can come up with is that Synthesis takes the shape of what Shepard believes it to be, within certain limits. The information is taken from his mind. That's the only explanation why someone must give from what he is in order to make Synthesis what it is. Everything else is vitalism, and that has no place in SF, not even in a space opera.

(3) Go over the complete ending exposition, look anywhere where you find references to "infinite", "inevitable", "final" and suchlike and remove the term if it makes no sense or where it isn't completely clear that it isn't meant literally. "Infinite" works in the Control epilogue because it's completely clear what is meant, and it's not literal infinity.

For a more drastic change:

Let Synthesis affect only Shepard. He then steps out of the Crucible like JC Denton in Deus Ex's Helios Ending, having gained the ability to transform others in his image. The epilogue shows the galaxy slowly coming around to embrace this vision, with reactions from different species dependent on choices made earlier in the trilogy. The role of the Reapers is unchanged but would need a little more elaboration.

I would like to read other changes that could be made to make Synthesis make more sense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:35 .

[Xilizhra]

I honestly don't know about the BSN sig thing. I personally found the Character Room (Ieldra will know) to be far more afflicted by groupthink and monolithic opinions that turned on any who weren't absorbed by the general forum consensus. On BSN, while there can be larger and louder groups, you'll also be able to voice more or less any opinion and find support in some area, and the larger forum does seem to be the more overall welcoming of divergent opinions. Similar to how large cities are generally more cosmopolitan than small towns, even if they're also dirtier.

In short, the BSN is like America: big, frequently rude and loud, but very diverse and, while it has large groups who are against diversity, the overall structure welcomes it. TCR is like Japan: smaller, definitely more polite/civil, but the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:53 .

[Steelcan]

I think it would have cemented Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard had survived. Also, if Shepard was the only one who was synthesized how would he get other people to become synthesized? I would not want Shepard to be a Jesus figure

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

I think it would have cemented Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard had survived. Also, if Shepard was the only one who was synthesized how would he get other people to become synthesized? I would not want Shepard to be a Jesus figure

Shepard already kinda is one. And clearly many people would still not want to go for Synthesis even if Shepard survived.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

I honestly don't know about the BSN sig thing. I personally found the Character Room (Ieldra will know) to be far more afflicted by groupthink and monolithic opinions that turned on any who weren't absorbed by the general forum consensus. On BSN, while there can be larger and louder groups, you'll also be able to voice more or less any opinion and find support in some area, and the larger forum does seem to be the more overall welcoming of divergent opinions. Similar to how large cities are generally more cosmopolitan than small towns, even if they're also dirtier.

In short, the BSN is like America: big, frequently rude and loud, but very diverse and, while it has large groups who are against diversity, the overall structure welcomes it. TCR is like Japan: smaller, definitely more polite/civil, but the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

That is no contradiction to what CosmicGnosis said, Xilizhra. Mainly, because of the volume of the loud and intolerant groups, the ME-related part of BSN as a whole can come across as dumb. Also like America, if you don't mind a European like me saying it. Also, I didn't see any nail hammering on TCR, but then I wasn't there when you posted your more extreme stuff about the DA universe. Perhaps that's something to discuss somewhere else than this thread.

Having said that, the more interesting debates about Synthesis, and generally the more intelligent and insightful posts about the endings, those you'll find here. It's just unfortunate that you have to wade through so much hate on your way.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:18 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
I think it would have cemented Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard had survived. Also, if Shepard was the only one who was synthesized how would he get other people to become synthesized? I would not want Shepard to be a Jesus figure

How? Using the technology integrated in his body during the Crucible's Synthesis process. It might look like magic, but you know what Arthur C Clarke said about magic and technology. The problem with the galaxy-wide Synthesis, why people call "space magic" - was always the scope of the change, not the details of what happens to an individual. At least after the EC.

And yes, I agree. It would cement Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard survived *and* Synthesis wasn't forced on the whole galaxy. As a balancing factor, I wouldn't mind the geth surviving in Destroy. I think it would've been generally better if those two endings didn't have such significant moral downsides. Then the debates wouldn't be marred so much by people being desperately unhappy with the whole ending scenario.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:28 .

[jtav]

I'm of two minds on Shep's sacrifice. Emotionally, I want him to live. But I think Synthesis needs the sacrifice from a dramatic POV. The hero's life is extinguished, but the very act of his death has bought his loved ones a "new and wonderful future."

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I think it would have cemented Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard had survived. Also, if Shepard was the only one who was synthesized how would he get other people to become synthesized? I would not want Shepard to be a Jesus figure

Shepard already kinda is one. And clearly many people would still not want to go for Synthesis even if Shepard survived.

. Jesus wasn't exactly a warrior.........

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I think it would have cemented Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard had survived. Also, if Shepard was the only one who was synthesized how would he get other people to become synthesized? I would not want Shepard to be a Jesus figure

How? Using the technology integrated in his body during the Crucible's Synthesis process. It might look like magic, but you know what Arthur C Clarke said about magic and technology. The problem with the galaxy-wide Synthesis, why people call "space magic" - was always the scope of the change, not the details of what happens to an individual. At least after the EC.
And yes, I agree. It would cement Synthesis as the best ending if Shepard survived *and* Synthesis wasn't forced on the whole galaxy. As a balancing factor, I wouldn't mind the geth surviving in Destroy. I think it would've been generally better if those two endings didn't have such significant moral downsides. Then the debates wouldn't be marred so much by people being desperately unhappy with the whole ending scenario.

. If the Geth had survived the Destroy ending, I think Destroy would be so mind blowingly popular that about 1% of people would pick the other endings.  And it seems neither of us think much of control or refuse.

[Steelcan]

Another question.

Do you guys pick synthesis because you agree with the catalyst? Or do you just think its the best option for the galaxy? Or do you have another reason?

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I'm of two minds on Shep's sacrifice. Emotionally, I want him to live. But I think Synthesis needs the sacrifice from a dramatic POV. The hero's life is extinguished, but the very act of his death has bought his loved ones a "new and wonderful future."

That's what the "Shepard comes back" scenarios are for, right? They keep the sacrifice theme intact. I'm of the same two minds as you. My survival scenario above was to solve the problem of "I want Synthesis, but not like this". Maybe there's another way to get around that.

[jtav]

I've been watching some of Legion's on-mission banter on YouTube, and I think it makes a case for why Synthesis is necessary. He has a kind of innocent sociopathy for lack of a better phrase. Instead of expressing horror that children were tortured (even Zaeed sounds sick) on Jack's LM, he simply says the facilities are inadequate. On Jacob's LM, he says anger increases the creativity of organics and says it would be interesting to watch. That sort of lack of empathy could swiftly become problematic.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...
Another question.

Do you guys pick synthesis because you agree with the catalyst? Or do you just think its the best option for the galaxy? Or do you have another reason?

I choose Synthesis because I think the future it creates is the best for the galaxy.

On the meta-level, I also choose Synthesis (or Control) because it results in a more interesting and exotic future than Destroy. I don't like the normal and conventional. Still, if I saw Synthesis as significantly bad, I wouldn't choose it with my main Shepard, even were it exotic and interesting.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Another question.

Do you guys pick synthesis because you agree with the catalyst? Or do you just think its the best option for the galaxy? Or do you have another reason?

I choose Synthesis because I think the future it creates is the best for the galaxy.

On the meta-level, I also choose Synthesis (or Control) because it results in a more interesting and exotic future than Destroy. I don't like the normal and conventional. Still, if I saw Synthesis as significantly bad, I wouldn't choose it with my main Shepard, even were it exotic and interesting.

. I don't agree that Destroy is any lessinteresting than the others.  In destroy we have to do things ourselves, the reapers aren't there to take care of us.  We have to overcome all the challenges, Krogan population, synthetic rebellions possibly, Rachni if you spared them.  I see it as a much more exciting future.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

I've been watching some of Legion's on-mission banter on YouTube, and I think it makes a case for why Synthesis is necessary. He has a kind of innocent sociopathy for lack of a better phrase. Instead of expressing horror that children were tortured (even Zaeed sounds sick) on Jack's LM, he simply says the facilities are inadequate. On Jacob's LM, he says anger increases the creativity of organics and says it would be interesting to watch. That sort of lack of empathy could swiftly become problematic.

. I think the geth on Rannoch are pretty sociopathic.  Think of the civilians that were slaughtered, you don't kill billions just by shooting...