550 réponses à ce sujet

[essarr71]

OblivionDawn wrote...

I don't see how it's genocide when everyone is still alive.

And I never said that Synthesis would ensure peace forever. It would just remove the wars that arose from the paradigms saying that organics are inferior to synthetics, or that synthetics are nothing more than tools.

As for the last part of your post, I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that Synthesis changed the very foundation of biochemistry on a molecular level (hence the glowing leaves, etc).

To the first:  You're changing the DNA of everything.. so that in itself means a new organism.  But let's say that's not so important to the idea, since everyone got the same thing.  The sudden shift ALSO changes the outlook and direction of every race.  So there's a cultural difference.  So new organism + new culture.

It may look Geth or Turian or Human.. but it isn't anymore.  Everyone is "alive", but you've destroyed everything they were and replaced it.  As I said before: if they maintain their individuality, then ultimately, you've not only changed them physically, but you've also accomplished nothing by doing it.  It'd be like, say, giving everyone 1k $ to help the economy.  Since everyone got it, nothing has changed.

To the second: yes, while this would end a synthetic/oganic conflict at least momentarily, there is nothing stopping a mass genocide at the hands of one of the races later on.  If another race advances far enough ahead and feels like killing everything, what's to stop them?  We're all the same DNA?  That seems to be working out on Earth since... forever. 

And to the third: yes, it looks that way.. but again.  These things were alive at the time of the beam.  Why would a dead planet that in 20 million years sprouts life comform to the event?  It doesn't make sense that it possibly could, forever, keep the level playing field.  Sooner or later, you're back at square one.

Modifié par essarr71, 25 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[Stump01]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

It misses the tone and theme of the story, makes no sense, isn't at all an ideal solution to any of the problems raised in the story and is just plain stupid.

I think that sums it up pretty well, without throwing a wall of text up.

[kookie28]

Zuka999 wrote...

Because its not possible. It just can't happen. Its freaking nonsense.

But giant machines that harvest organic life every 50,000 years who were created by a mystical AI God that also wants to stop synthetics from wiping out all of organic life is withtin the realm of possibility.

Yes, totally reasonable argument.

[EricHVela]

Unfortunately since BWE didn't give us much to define what Synthesis meant, metaphysical stuff is just one of many possibilities.

Yet, this still goes back to a crap-shoot on whether or not it will be a good thing for the Galaxy, a crap-shoot that one person is making for everyone else.

At least, the races eventually united to fight the Reapers. The races are completely out-of-the-loop on this choice. They are not even aware the choice is happening.

[o Ventus]

kookie28 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Because its not possible. It just can't happen. Its freaking nonsense.

But giant machines that harvest organic life every 50,000 years who were created by a mystical AI God that also wants to stop synthetics from wiping out all of organic life is withtin the realm of possibility.

Yes, totally reasonable argument.

No one said that Space-baby and cuttlefish robots weren't unrealistic either.

[JamieCardillo]

Jamie9 wrote...

JamieCardillo wrote...

Two common responses I'd like to address:

A lot of people are saying that synthesis is playing god. Quite frankly, in my opinion, Mass Effect 3 was all about playing god. The Reapers are coming to destroy organic life, as they do every 50,000 years. As f***ed up and unjust as it is, I'd consider this part of the natural cycle, as it allows new organic life to flourish. But Commander Shepard isn't down with that bull**** because he wants humans, asari, turians, etc to continue living. Thus, he must break a cycle that has existed for an unknown amount of time.

My second point is about this "galactic rape" and "violation of consent" thing. The easy response for me to make is that there was not really any time to take a show of hands as to who would be ok with this with the small matter of helter skelter breaking out, but that doesn't really solve anything. So my response is this: when we get to the stupid scene with the Normandy crash and the crew walks out, Joker is still made of flesh, EDI of metal. At this point, it's obvious we aren't expected to understand something so complex as a new framework, but who's to say just how much really changed? After all, the only difference from the control option was glowing green eyes, right?

The only difference is a colour change because BioWare was incredibly lazy.

I'll answer your second point. It is and it isn't. We don't know what it does. All we know is that common sense says it isn't possible. If we can't comprehend something, my instinct is to not change every sodding being in the galaxy into that "framework".

It's not as if synthesis is the only choice. Control and destroy are viable options that work in the Mass Effect setting. I'll just never pick synthesis. Well, I won't play the game again until the Extended Cut, and only if it's good.

Let me first tell you, I tried very hard to form a witty sentence that made mention to us having a name and number in common, but there was no way to bring the number part in there without sounding like a retard, so I have no choice but to let this opportunity slip away. 

But on a slightly less childish note, let's continue our discussion on "space magic." I know I'm having trouble explaining my side of the argument, but all I can think of to say is "we cannot comprehend what is beyond comprehension." You say common sense disproves everything about this choice because it isn't possible, but I will remind you that the premise of this series is for you to defeat colossal, sentient machines that begain this series by putting human corpses on spikes to make glowing, mechanical zombies. Probably longer than I needed to make that point, but whatever. So I guess what I'm saying is, of course it's impossible, but like the Reaper invasion, it happened and we are not the ones who get to decide to what extent it makes sense, nor can we proclaim it makes no sense at all until it is further explained.

[kookie28]

o Ventus wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Because its not possible. It just can't happen. Its freaking nonsense.

But giant machines that harvest organic life every 50,000 years who were created by a mystical AI God that also wants to stop synthetics from wiping out all of organic life is withtin the realm of possibility.

Yes, totally reasonable argument.

No one said that Space-baby and cuttlefish robots weren't unrealistic either.

If possibility is your problem with synthesis then you should probably have a problem with Mass Effect as a whole.

Or even science fiction.

[Veneke]

JamieCardillo wrote...

When completing the game for the first time (Yessir, I did play through multiple times. Sorry if that blew any minds.), I found the most interesting choice to be the synthesis option. Of course, like everyone else, I was very displeased to discover there was almost no difference between any of the endings, but the concept in itself still intruiges me.

I understand a lot of people are unhappy with the pure fantasy of somehow molding the DNA of organics with synthetics, and the only apparent change is green eyes, blahblahblah. I get that part, believe me, I am currently in the Mass Effect Forum. But what I'm not understanding is why some fans are borderline insulted by this choice. Sure, it's not very easy to comprehend, but it's my belief we aren't supposed to fully comprehend it. It's a the final evolution of life. Scientists today still have some difficulty explaining precisely how evolution works. I honestly don't have any other points to make to defend the choice because I really don't know what part of it is in need of any defending.

And just to be clear: as the title would indicate, I am just asking a question. What I have written above is meant only to be used as a basis for others to explain what I'm missing; it is not meant to be an attempt to spread any idealism or convert members of the Red or Blue Churches to the all-holy Green Church. I understand the degree to which a lot of you are pissed off at the endings, but I'm only asking that you respond with legitimate, nonbeligerent answers to my question.

 
This is going to be a disaster - so I'm not even going to bother reading the three pages that came after this. Basically it boils down to a few things:
 
1. The starchild seems to favour it and the starchild is the head honcho of the bad guys. Hence,
2. Control and Synthesis are the less 'trustworthy' options.
3. Moral arguments exist against it, as they do for all three endings, but people tend to be less inclined to bother with the moral arguments when it comes to the destruction of their enemies. So Synthesis becomes rape, Control becomes an acceptance of defeat and Destroy is the feel-good 'win' ending in the minds of a number of people with a very strict view on morality.
4. It is hurt by its lack of explanation more than either of the other two endings. Hence,
5. As an idea that players have to come up with themselves, it ends up being an abhorrent one. The idea of turning everyone into cyborgs, which some equate with husks, seems to be a defeat, not a victory.
6. Overly optimistic endings, which Synthesis is if you take a positive light to it, are distrusted.
 
There are probably more, but most of the reactions against Synthesis that I've seen seem to revolve around these main points.

[Taboo]

kookie28 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Because its not possible. It just can't happen. Its freaking nonsense.

But giant machines that harvest organic life every 50,000 years who were created by a mystical AI God that also wants to stop synthetics from wiping out all of organic life is withtin the realm of possibility.

Yes, totally reasonable argument.

No one said that Space-baby and cuttlefish robots weren't unrealistic either.

If possibility is your problem with synthesis then you should probably have a problem with Mass Effect as a whole.

Or even science fiction.

[wright1978]

Only logical way i can see synthesis can achieve Catalyst's goal is to sever people's higher thought processes and turn them into a dronelike race that won't have the temerity to build new AI's. Very unpalatable.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Because it's some eugenics bullsh*t based on a racist premise and ripped straight out of Mr Sinister's page book.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 25 mai 2012 - 09:06 .

[D24O]

Taboo-XX wrote...
https://encrypted-tb...b3IJmrK12sCzxfR


%20http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc402/delossantosj1/spidermanthread.jpg%20

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbwVdeGJmFrWE0pt6rtt0kHeb5zJhbpv7ETjxVi2obDEMbr-91Ow

Modifié par D24O, 25 mai 2012 - 09:08 .

[o Ventus]

kookie28 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Because its not possible. It just can't happen. Its freaking nonsense.

But giant machines that harvest organic life every 50,000 years who were created by a mystical AI God that also wants to stop synthetics from wiping out all of organic life is withtin the realm of possibility.

Yes, totally reasonable argument.

No one said that Space-baby and cuttlefish robots weren't unrealistic either.

If possibility is your problem with synthesis then you should probably have a problem with Mass Effect as a whole.

Or even science fiction.

I'll tell you the same thing I told another person.

there's a difference between suspension of disbelief, and flat-out stupid space magic. Biotics, kinetic barriers, mass accelerators, all of those are bending your suspension of disbelief, because the game makes an effort to explain how those things work within the context and confines of the in-game universe. It works in this respect.

Synthesis just jumps in, slaps a trollface, and bails out before I have a chance to squash it.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

I'll tell you the same thing I told another person.

there's a difference between suspension of disbelief, and flat-out stupid space magic. Biotics, kinetic barriers, mass accelerators, all of those are bending your suspension of disbelief, because the game makes an effort to explain how those things work within the context and confines of the in-game universe. It works in this respect.

Synthesis just jumps in, slaps a trollface, and bails out before I have a chance to squash it.

THIS.

****ING THIS.

[darkchief10]

D24O wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
https://encrypted-tb...b3IJmrK12sCzxfR


%20http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc402/delossantosj1/spidermanthread.jpg%20

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbwVdeGJmFrWE0pt6rtt0kHeb5zJhbpv7ETjxVi2obDEMbr-91Ow

[JamieCardillo]

wright1978 wrote...

Only logical way i can see synthesis can achieve Catalyst's goal is to sever people's higher thought processes and turn them into a dronelike race that won't have the temerity to build new AI's. Very unpalatable.

Catalyst stated his former method of achieving his goal (Reapers kill organics) would no longer be effective, thus giving Shepard the choice of the next method. RGB.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

  Fans hate on Control and Synthesis because they are not the endings that fans want (we win and all go home happy). Neither is Destroy, but that one is at least closest to it.

Slowly and surely, Destroy becomes the only "accepted" path and as a result, fans go to great lengths to try to discredit the other two to further justify their decision so it feels less crappy.

[sharkboy421]

Omanisat wrote...

Personally I hate it because it completely craps all over the established tone and feel of the series up till then. For 2.95 games my Shepard existed in a realistic, hard sci-fi universe. The rules were clear and well defined. They went out of their way to try to come up with reasonable science. Then all of a sudden *BLOOP* green space magic suddenly turns everyone in the galaxey into some third form of life. 

This was probably my biggest issue with it.  Every piece of tech in the Mass Effect universe could be explained by its own rules, which made sense.  And now the most important decision in all 3 games, has no explanation?  I don't like that. 

Also I feel this is what the Reapers want.  As Sovereign said, Reapers are the pinnacle of evolution.  And the Catalyst says synthesis will create the final evolution of life.  So as the Reapers harvest species and create new Reapers, they have turned them into a final form, which is the best they could be.

For me synthesis is what the Reapers want and having been doing.  So it made no sense for me to choose to do the very thing I've spent 3 games trying to stop.

[EricHVela]

wright1978 wrote...

Only logical way i can see synthesis can achieve Catalyst's goal is to sever people's higher thought processes and turn them into a dronelike race that won't have the temerity to build new AI's. Very unpalatable.

A valid possibility.

This is why having the ultimate decision that decides the final fate of the galaxy be nothing more than speculation for every choice option is not really a good thing IMHO.

Any choice one makes has just as many bad interpretations from some as good ones from others.

It's basically making a choice and being shown a vague consequence, and the player has to hope their conjecture is what really happens. To me, that's a hollow ending. Nobody's sure what they're choosing until they head-canonize it -- and then, it's still just head-canon.

[legion999]

kookie28 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Because its not possible. It just can't happen. Its freaking nonsense.

But giant machines that harvest organic life every 50,000 years who were created by a mystical AI God that also wants to stop synthetics from wiping out all of organic life is withtin the realm of possibility.

Yes, totally reasonable argument.

The Reapers justification is also stupid.

But this is a machine that changes everything in the the galaxy. There's incredibly difficult and then there's deity required intervention.

[kookie28]

darkchief10 wrote...

D24O wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
https://encrypted-tb...b3IJmrK12sCzxfR


%20http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc402/delossantosj1/spidermanthread.jpg%20

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbwVdeGJmFrWE0pt6rtt0kHeb5zJhbpv7ETjxVi2obDEMbr-91Ow

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

  Fans hate on Control and Synthesis because they are not the endings that fans want (we win and all go home happy). Neither is Destroy, but that one is at least closest to it.

Slowly and surely, Destroy becomes the only "accepted" path and as a result, fans go to great lengths to try to discredit the other two to further justify their decision so it feels less crappy.

The jokes on you.

I wouldn't pick control or Synthesis even if I could live.

There is no such thing as a happy ending in Mass Effect.

They will all be hideously depressing.

[N7Gold]

JamieCardillo wrote...

When completing the game for the first time (Yessir, I did play through multiple times. Sorry if that blew any minds.), I found the most interesting choice to be the synthesis option. Of course, like everyone else, I was very displeased to discover there was almost no difference between any of the endings, but the concept in itself still intruiges me.

I understand a lot of people are unhappy with the pure fantasy of somehow molding the DNA of organics with synthetics, and the only apparent change is green eyes, blahblahblah. I get that part, believe me, I am currently in the Mass Effect Forum. But what I'm not understanding is why some fans are borderline insulted by this choice. Sure, it's not very easy to comprehend, but it's my belief we aren't supposed to fully comprehend it. It's a the final evolution of life. Scientists today still have some difficulty explaining precisely how evolution works. I honestly don't have any other points to make to defend the choice because I really don't know what part of it is in need of any defending.

And just to be clear: as the title would indicate, I am just asking a question. What I have written above is meant only to be used as a basis for others to explain what I'm missing; it is not meant to be an attempt to spread any idealism or convert members of the Red or Blue Churches to the all-holy Green Church. I understand the degree to which a lot of you are pissed off at the endings, but I'm only asking that you respond with legitimate, nonbeligerent answers to my question.

*A reply to some comments:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12237187/3#12237988

to put it bluntly, choosing Synthesis means you're kissing Reaper a** instead of kicking their a** which has been your goal since ME1.

[Jamie9]

JamieCardillo wrote...

Let me first tell you, I tried very hard to form a witty sentence that made mention to us having a name and number in common, but there was no way to bring the number part in there without sounding like a retard, so I have no choice but to let this opportunity slip away. 

But on a slightly less childish note, let's continue our discussion on "space magic." I know I'm having trouble explaining my side of the argument, but all I can think of to say is "we cannot comprehend what is beyond comprehension." You say common sense disproves everything about this choice because it isn't possible, but I will remind you that the premise of this series is for you to defeat colossal, sentient machines that begain this series by putting human corpses on spikes to make glowing, mechanical zombies. Probably longer than I needed to make that point, but whatever. So I guess what I'm saying is, of course it's impossible, but like the Reaper invasion, it happened and we are not the ones who get to decide to what extent it makes sense, nor can we proclaim it makes no sense at all until it is further explained.

I'm sorry to cause you so much brain pain. I may even rename myself just to relieve you.

Or maybe I'm your ninth clone...

I think I get you. I'll throw my common sense away for this discussion if that would help. I admit it would be very hard to make something you cannot comprehend in a story. It would either seem stupid, be farfetched, or be comprehensible. In this case, it has ended up being stupid. To make sense, the writer needs to be able to comprehend it, therefore it is comprehensible. The only way to solve this is to leave key information out.

Husks kind of, sort of make sense scientifically. It's not too crazy for all liquids to be removed and for the organs etc. to be replaced with tech.

I guess this demonstrates that certain things in sci-fi will be easily accepted, whereas some will not.

So I think the extended cut could solve many problems. If it is explained somewhat, perhaps not fully, but we need to know the immediate consequences of it to be able to make that decision. I see it as a chain reaction.

Concept > Execution > Consequences

but our mind processes it as:

Concept < Execution < Consequences

We're not shown the consequences so we don't know what to think here. If the execution is poor but it provides great storytelling potential, it could be forgiven somewhat.

So we fall back to execution, which is again poor, it is not elaborated on at all. I get that you seem to like it being incomprehensible, so they don't have to tell us everything. Just tell us the basics: will our characters we love be the same people or not?

So we fall back to concept, and because the other two were poorly done, the concept is not accepted. This is why the Lazarus Project was generally accepted, it had good consequences and was executed well. So the concept was accepted.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading my wall of text. I hope I accurately read your post. Feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]