685 réponses à ce sujet

[Motherlander]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

How are people still defending the benevolent equivalent of 'Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies' as an ending? "Green Laser, Everyone's Happy".

In my hypothesis of Synthesis, it would actually increase wars and and conflict. Not reduce them.

My idea is this:

For synthetics: Rise of the individual. Development of emotions like love, hate, fear, pride, jealousy, etc. The ability to feel sensations like pain and pleasure. Undermining of the network concensus. Synthetics effectivley become Star Wars Droids.

For organics: Limited ability to network under certain circumstances. Ability to switch consciousness to other bodie under certain circumstancess. The concept of imortality is feasible.

Just think about that. You would have a bunch of synethetics who are now suddenly affected by emotions that they are not used to. They also have the concept of self and personal power. That would inevitably result in power struggles and  even civil war.

You have organics who believe thay can become immortal. They will do anything to achieve it at the cost of others. More conflict.

You will have organics who oppose using the new abilities believing them to be an abination. Result idealogical conflict. 

If anything, syntesis could actually increase conflict and polarize society among both organics and synthetics.

[jla0644]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm talking about synthesis, not destroy. That's where the analogy is. In synthesis, all organic and synthetic life is terminated, replaced with the Reaper ideal.
If the ****s had the magic power to simply replace all humans with their ideal, you think they wouldn't have done it? Of course they would.
The underlying implication of racism and racial ideal is there whether you like it or not.

I still vehemently disagree with this idea that Synthesis is the 'Reaper ideal", and I'm not sure what makes you so convinced it is absolute, unquestioned fact. The Reaper ideal is to continue reaping, to harvest organics, gooify them, and build more unstoppable killing machines, to harvest more organics, to prevent them from creating unstoppable synthetic killing machines (god it sounds dumber every time I say it). I don't see any of that happening with Synthesis.

There is no reason to suspect that Synthesis removes individuality, that it produces homogeneity, that it removes free will, or that it is an unethical violation (and besides, who says your Shepard has to share your values and ethics? I know not all of mine do. If you play them all the same way what's the point?). We don't have enough information to work with to just assume that these things happen. If anyone wants to believe this is what occurs, they have a real simple choice: don't pick the green explosion.

It is beyond ludicrous to get so offended by something that you can completely ignore.

Also, history lesson:  the ****s would have hated Synthesis.  For them, a lesser race synthesized with the Aryan ideal would still be part lesser race. And if you know anything about what they believed  you'd know that would still have been unacceptable. Can we maybe stop bringing up this ridiculous comparison, please?

[Joe Del Toro]

Motherlander wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

How are people still defending the benevolent equivalent of 'Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies' as an ending? "Green Laser, Everyone's Happy".

In my hypothesis of Synthesis, it would actually increase wars and and conflict. Not reduce them.

My idea is this:

For synthetics: Rise of the individual. Development of emotions like love, hate, fear, pride, jealousy, etc. The ability to feel sensations like pain and pleasure. Undermining of the network concensus. Synthetics effectivley become Star Wars Droids.

For organics: Limited ability to network under certain circumstances. Ability to switch consciousness to other bodie under certain circumstancess. The concept of imortality is feasible.

Just think about that. You would have a bunch of synethetics who are now suddenly affected by emotions that they are not used to. They also have the concept of self and personal power. That would inevitably result in power struggles and  even civil war.

You have organics who believe thay can become immortal. They will do anything to achieve it at the cost of others. More conflict.

You will have organics who oppose using the new abilities believing them to be an abination. Result idealogical conflict. 

If anything, syntesis could actually increase conflict and polarize society among both organics and synthetics.

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm just saying the writers clearly threw it out there as a Happily Ever After with no logic to back it up. If anything, Synthesis is presented most like a Disney ending.

[Vigilant111]

jla0644 wrote...

I still vehemently disagree with this idea that Synthesis is the 'Reaper ideal", and I'm not sure what makes you so convinced it is absolute, unquestioned fact. The Reaper ideal is to continue reaping, to harvest organics, gooify them, and build more unstoppable killing machines, to harvest more organics, to prevent them from creating unstoppable synthetic killing machines (god it sounds dumber every time I say it). I don't see any of that happening with Synthesis.

There is no reason to suspect that Synthesis removes individuality, that it produces homogeneity, that it removes free will, or that it is an unethical violation (and besides, who says your Shepard has to share your values and ethics? I know not all of mine do. If you play them all the same way what's the point?). We don't have enough information to work with to just assume that these things happen. If anyone wants to believe this is what occurs, they have a real simple choice: don't pick the green explosion.

It is beyond ludicrous to get so offended by something that you can completely ignore.

Also, history lesson:  the ****s would have hated Synthesis.  For them, a lesser race synthesized with the Aryan ideal would still be part lesser race. And if you know anything about what they believed  you'd know that would still have been unacceptable. Can we maybe stop bringing up this ridiculous comparison, please?

Why can't the reapers concentrate on killing the killer synthetics? killing the organics is nothing more than a quick fix, hence the cycles

[The Angry One]

jla0644 wrote...

I still vehemently disagree with this idea that Synthesis is the 'Reaper ideal", and I'm not sure what makes you so convinced it is absolute, unquestioned fact. The Reaper ideal is to continue reaping, to harvest organics, gooify them, and build more unstoppable killing machines, to harvest more organics, to prevent them from creating unstoppable synthetic killing machines (god it sounds dumber every time I say it). I don't see any of that happening with Synthesis.

That is the Reaper method that leads to the Reaper ideal - order from chaos, the pinnacle of evolution, our genetic destiny.

There is no reason to suspect that Synthesis removes individuality, that it produces homogeneity, that it removes free will, or that it is an unethical violation (and besides, who says your Shepard has to share your values and ethics? I know not all of mine do. If you play them all the same way what's the point?). We don't have enough information to work with to just assume that these things happen. If anyone wants to believe this is what occurs, they have a real simple choice: don't pick the green explosion.

Synthesis violates free will, and imposing something this drastic on others without their consent is the definition of violation. Not even an ultra renegade Shepard is this unethical.

It is beyond ludicrous to get so offended by something that you can completely ignore.

When the developers claim it's the "best" ending, I can't ignore it.

Also, history lesson:  the ****s would have hated Synthesis.  For them, a lesser race synthesized with the Aryan ideal would still be part lesser race. And if you know anything about what they believed  you'd know that would still have been unacceptable. Can we maybe stop bringing up this ridiculous comparison, please?

You have no idea what you're talking about. If that race were completely replaced with their ideal through magic, then there would be no "lesser race". There would be only Aryans.
Just as in synthesis there are no organics or synthetics any longer. There are only Reapers.

Hybrids are only mixed because that's what the Reapers want, the Reapers are hybrids too. I'm talking of the imposition of an ideal here, not the exact nature of the biology.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juin 2012 - 02:54 .

[Motherlander]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm just saying the writers clearly threw it out there as a Happily Ever After with no logic to back it up. If anything, Synthesis is presented most like a Disney ending.

I actually agree with you. When i quoted you I was actually supprting your point. But I didn't express that very well.

Yes, I agree. Synthesis is presented as the disney everyone is happy with foxes and rabbits dancing happily together  in the woods.

It also annoys me that it is potrayed as the "optimal" ending.

But what I was saying is that Synthesis could actually result in a lot of conflict, assuming it leaves people with free will and doesn't turn eveyone into the Borg.

So yes, I agree with you. And I think it is mistaken on Bioware's part.

[What a Succulent Ass]

I came in here expecting a scientific explanation.

I am disappoint.

[Joe Del Toro]

Motherlander wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm just saying the writers clearly threw it out there as a Happily Ever After with no logic to back it up. If anything, Synthesis is presented most like a Disney ending.

I actually agree with you. When i quoted you I was actually supprting your point. But I didn't express that very well.

Yes, I agree. Synthesis is presented as the disney everyone is happy with foxes and rabbits dancing happily together  in the woods.

It also annoys me that it is potrayed as the "optimal" ending.

But what I was saying is that Synthesis could actually result in a lot of conflict, assuming it leaves people with free will and doesn't turn eveyone into the Borg.

So yes, I agree with you. And I think it is mistaken on Bioware's part.

Ah fair enough, I misread you a little bit, it's cool.

It's an even bigger cop-out than the other two, because you'd think if it required more work to gain, you'd get more than the template 5 goddamn minutes that the other two endings have. I want to know from people who defend this: Why don't you want better?

[What a Succulent Ass]

There is no reason to suspect that Synthesis removes individuality, that it produces homogeneity, that it removes free will, or that it is an unethical violation

If it doesn't remove free will, then I see no value in the choice, as it solves nothing. Not even the Catalyst's invented problem.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 juin 2012 - 03:31 .

[Jadebaby]

Destroy wasn't Andersons choice, it was the goal of Mass Effect since Eden Prime.
It was my Shepard's choice. Period.

[Grimwick]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I came in here expecting a scientific explanation.

I am disappoint.

I came in here looking for any actual explanation.

I am too disappoint.

[The Angry One]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I came in here expecting a scientific explanation.

I am disappoint.

For synthesis?
I think it's more likely there's a scientific explanation out there for the existence and powers of the protagonists of My Little Pony.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juin 2012 - 03:05 .

[Pride Demon]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm talking about synthesis, not destroy. That's where the analogy is. In synthesis, all organic and synthetic life is terminated, replaced with the Reaper ideal.
If the ****s had the magic power to simply replace all humans with their ideal, you think they wouldn't have done it? Of course they would.
The underlying implication of racism and racial ideal is there whether you like it or not.

I'm not complaining about you disliking synthesis, my post never even said if I like synthesis or not, don't assume please...
I'm complaining about the analogies you (and others) used, frankly I find them inappropriate...

And if those people had that kind of powers... It may be just me, but they probably wouldn't have turned all humans into their ideal, they already had it, it was themselves,no need to find a middle way or something, they just needed to purge the rest... I actually had an example ready, but let's not get too off topic...

You are angry about all things ME3 due to those endings, I got that, I got that weeks ago, I understand it, but you are not the only one, so if you could please stay civil and avoid throwing around insults, questioning other people morals like if you knew them, and offending other people sensibilities, I would personally appreciate it (not that you, or anyone, would care for my opinion obviously)...
Just take a step back and consider... Please...

Now, I have probably derailed the thread enough, if the ban comes it comes, but I needed to get this off my chest... Like they say, stay classy people...

PS. As a note, you should probably look at the post actually directed at you first, if you didn't, otherwise we'll end up fighting over wrong things (not that there are good things to fight over anyway): the destroy thing was a later post directed at another person, not you... And it was an aside, to put things into perspective, not the point of the post... I even said I myself don't fully believe the analogy to apply... Just to clear the air...

And just so you know, no, I don't hate you, I have nothing against you and I don't think less about you in any way... Not that my approval means anything anyway...
Peace...

[Motherlander]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

It's an even bigger cop-out than the other two, because you'd think if it required more work to gain, you'd get more than the template 5 goddamn minutes that the other two endings have. I want to know from people who defend this: Why don't you want better?

I agree.

I don't necessarily think synthesis is the best option. But i am willing to accept it if it is explained and makes sense. At least I understand destroy and control to some extent.

But sythesis is never well explained. Such an importany plot point should have had time dedicated to it in the dialogue and codex. It is such poor story telling.

So I agree wholeheartedly. I want explanations. I want it to make sense. I do want more.

Because with the current vacuum in canon information on it, it is just a big incomprehensible mess.

Some people have done a nice job of explaining how synthesis could work well. But i want the game to tell me.

For me, out-of game theories are not enough. It makes me think that Bioware didn't really think out the concept properly in the first place.

[wright1978]

Nyoka wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

There is no reason to suspect that Synthesis removes individuality, that it produces homogeneity, that it removes free will, or that it is an unethical violation

If it doesn't remove free will, then I see no value in the choice, as it solves nothing, not even the Catalyst's invented problem.

+1. I want to make synthetics. I want to make artificial intelligences. I want to because the Geth never wanted to eliminate anything. When faced with constant attempts by organics to eliminate them, they chose to isolate themselves beyond the Veil and reject every form of contact for centuries. So now that we're in contact with them again and that we've learned it was all a big misunderstanding and we can indeed coexist, I want to make more synthetics.

Will synthesis allow me to make synthetics as I want or not?

Obviously others are open to have their own view of how synthesis works. However the only logical way synthesis can work imo(given starbrat's stated objective) is for it to remove higher thought processes & thereby stop life creating new synthetics.

[Motherlander]

wright1978 wrote...
Obviously others are open to have their own view of how synthesis works. However the only logical way synthesis can work imo(given starbrat's stated objective) is for it to remove higher thought processes & thereby stop life creating new synthetics.

Yes, that is the dilemma, isn't it.

Synthesis only makes sense as a solution to the Catalysts problem if new synthetics cannot be created. Otherwise the threat the Catalyst mentioned will still exist.

Of course it is not clear how Synthesis can actually do this in way that makes sense.

[What a Succulent Ass]

I still vehemently disagree with this idea that Synthesis is the 'Reaper ideal", and I'm not sure what makes you so convinced it is absolute, unquestioned fact.

Well, if Harbinger's ramblings about "ascension" didn't trip any alarms, I suppose there is the fact that I was described as "become a reaper" in the scripts.

The Angry One wrote...

For synthesis?
I think it's more likely there's a scientific explanation out there for the existence and powers of the protagonists of My Little Pony.

Hence why I was so excited at the prospect of someone having a go at explaining it.

[Pride Demon]

Motherlander wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
Obviously others are open to have their own view of how synthesis works. However the only logical way synthesis can work imo(given starbrat's stated objective) is for it to remove higher thought processes & thereby stop life creating new synthetics.

Yes, that is the dilemma, isn't it.

Synthesis only makes sense as a solution to the Catalysts problem if new synthetics cannot be created. Otherwise the threat the Catalyst mentioned will still exist.

Of course it is not clear how Synthesis can actually do this in way that makes sense.

I thought that too, then I realized something...
The threat the Catalyst mentions always exists no matter what:

- Destroy = destroy "all synthetics", but you can create new ones...
- Control = tell the reapers to stop, but other synthetics could always keep fighting organics...
- Sythesis = there are no more pure synthetics, but you can still create them...

I believe (my personal opinion) the problem here is that the Crucible is not there to solve the Catalyst problem, it's there to solve Shepard's ("I have to stop the reapers. Can you help?").
All three endings stop the reapers and their cicle of destruction and that's pretty much it, no other tension is affected...

- Destroy = you destroy the reapers, duh...
- Control = you control the reapers and order them to stop...
- Sythesis = the reapers exist to "preserve" organics from synthetics, pure organics no longer exist, the reapers have finally completed their task and leave, everything else is apparently not their problem (otherwise they would interfere in organics wiping out other organics, for instance)...

After all the Catalyst says the Crucible will end the "cycle" (as in the "cycle" it created with the reapers), it doesn't say it will end "chaos" (which is how it refers to the organic-synthetic conflict)...
Does that make the ending "good", not by every extent of the word IMHO, but it's a bit more understandable...
There are still several problems though, as in "How can synthesis stop new pure organics from evolving in other planets?"...
Let's just hope EC will answer that and the other lingering questions... :/

Modifié par Pride Demon, 03 juin 2012 - 04:09 .

[MisterJB]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

MisterJB...

the most commonly used form of genocide; that is the slaughter of the entire population of a certain group; has never been practiced by the Reapers as far as we know.

Remember Javik? The last prothean? *walks to Javik and kills him* There you have your genocide.

Needless to say, your other arguments relating to "domination of synthetics over organics" now fall apart. Thanks.

So, basically, you fail to adress any point or present arguments instead choosing to simply say "I win".
Very compelling indeed.

[Vigilant111]

@Pride Demon: why do u spell "Cathalyst"? its just as annoying as people referring to Catalyst as a "he" instead of "it"

[Pride Demon]

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Pride Demon: why do u spell "Cathalyst"? its just as annoying as people referring to Catalyst as a "he" instead of "it"

I mended it now...
To answer your question, I'm not a native english speaker, so I do make mistakes.
An extra "h"? That's a footnote really...

Also I type fast, I try to check for every mistake, but some slip through...

Now that that's out of the way, any actual comment on the post itself? Do you agree? Disagree? Am I full of rubbish?

[Motherlander]

Pride Demon wrote...

[- Destroy = you destroy the reapers, duh...
- Control = you control the reapers and order them to stop...
- Sythesis = the reapers exist to "preserve" organics from synthetics, pure organics no longer exist, the reapers have finally completed their task and leave, everything else is apparently not their problem (otherwise they would interfere in organics wiping out other organics, for instance)...

What you say in your post also occurs to me as well. All of the solutions are just temporary.

The problem with synthesis is that is was made out be me the ultimate solution. Or it seemd that way to me.

But in fact, it is just another temporary solution and the Catalyst's problem still exists. And in that context, then yes, there is no contradiction.

In that sense, it is no better than control. It seems to subtly change organics and synthetics making the Reapers believe that the problem they are created for has permantly dissappeared. In other words, the Reapers are fooled into thinking organics have dissapeared and so they leave.

The problem is that Synthesis is somehow presented as being a desired solution compared to Control. But we have no idea why.

In the end, the effect on Shepard is the same. He/she dies.

So if Synthesis is only a temporary solution to the Catalyst's perceived threat, then it basically has the same impact as control, but makes everyone a little different.

The problem Shep has is that, she/he doesn't know what these changes are because of the lack of information. So if you were to choose between control or synthesis on the basis that they were only temporary solutions, control would be the most prudent and risk-averse option.

[zovoes]

MisterJB...

the most commonly used form of genocide; that is the slaughter of the entire population of a certain group; has never been practiced by the Reapers as far as we know.

what world do you live in? that is ALL they do. they sat bombed a group of cave men one time even and you don't call that genocide? and don't come bake with the "well it's not to them" argument. to invoke godwin's law on my self the ****'s didn't think they were killing people as well, BUT THEY STILL WERE. saving what is left of a culture as the goo you use in making a new reaper is not the same as saving a culture or the people in it, and you ca't use moral relativism to get over that fact.

[Vigilant111]

Pride Demon wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

@Pride Demon: why do u spell "Cathalyst"? its just as annoying as people referring to Catalyst as a "he" instead of "it"

I mended it now...
To answer your question, I'm not a native english speaker, so I do make mistakes.
An extra "h"? That's a footnote really...

Also I type fast, I try to check for every mistake, but some slip through...

Now that that's out of the way, any actual comment on the post itself? Do you agree? Disagree? Am I full of rubbish?

Hey man u are cool, I apologize for my oversight of non native English speakers, I should have thought of a better way to correct you, so I apologize again

With regards to your view of the endings, I think it reinforces the idea that synthesis is no better than any other options even if its valid, hmm I don't think synthesis people would like that if the seemingly most optimistic way to end organic/synthetic conflicts turns out to be a gimmick with all the extra work with fruitless results... so yea

I still advocate destroy option though, even though it is badly done, it gives the galaxy a fresh start without reaper interference