685 réponses à ce sujet

[gosimmons]

Well, The Angry One's already stated it better than I can.

Implausibilities aside; Synthesis just feels like a statement saying we can't have peace in diversity.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Indeed I would say that. But the more important point is that (1) Legion and EDI didn't impress me has having bland, and tasteless lives, and (2) that there is no reason to assume that Synthesis will take that "meaningful" life away. It's supposed to add, not to subtract.

1. well, I admit it was wrong for me to assume synthetic life is bland and tasteless on a subjective level, since I am not a synthetic, as long as they are happy I am happy

2. going back to synthesis, if u said that synthetics are already living meaningful lives, then I don't see that it is necessary for synthesis to happen to give synthesis an extra edge in feeling and appreciating nature, I think they are fine where they are at without artificial addition to them ... and now u will say:" yes, BUT I chose synthesis to end organic/synthetic conflicts and various other reasons..."

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Ok.... Cleary the reapers form of indoctrination really  exsist.
You don't understand that still is moraly wrong anyway because they areimposing this on organics?

Ah Indocrination, how quickly those who have no arguments use that word.
Morality is not objective.

But  the objectity of morality is not what I'm argueing....It the imposing of it...
How can you argue that morality is not objective when you are ok with imposing yours on other with synthesis?

[azerSheppard]

o Ventus wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

All is seen as data, as it is synthesis is not amoral but devoid of any moral at all.

Devoid of moral is what amoral means. The prefix a-- means not, no, or non-. Just pointing that out, it was bothering me.

Oh, and in regards to your final point, when has utopia EVER been a good thing? When has it not led to a big brother type of government?

Amorality is an absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for moral beliefs. 

from wikipedia/ i was obviously referring to the latter meanings.

The veiw is a realist view... What you not getting is that it's an issue of trust. Note who is the only one that knows how to apply synthesis....The star child. This being controls the reapers and killed and reporsessed trillion of organics in the name of forcing evolution. Who also is showned controling organics with implants...What do you thing combining synthetics and organic mean?
Noe, of you pro-synthesis are using any logic in you assumtion that it a benifit for all...Your too blinded by the benifits of it to even consider to cons....You even justify it...Just like TIM in the end of the game.
You people are blind.
Do you really trust the star child that much?

This is a moot argument, as all three endings are proposed the the star child. By that logic you should just turn of your game as soon as you get to that point.

It's implied that the reapers are following something or someones directives, and later the Catalyst says the Reapers are his solution to the problem. Not that he is directing every move of each Reaper.
Synthesis does not implant people with reaper tech,(otherwise joker would have TIM eyes) but implants all things with something it calls DNA. Obviously it's not actual DNA, the term is used so we can understand the act of synthesis, which is to change the fabric of living things, organic or otherwise.
Notice how it also changes the Reapers. We don't become Reaper, both us and the Reapers become something new.

The presence of the green matrix tatto is simply for the cinematic feel. As long as synthesis does not alter thought patterns, its a more viable option than, Destroy (which can be argued as genocide), or Control (which can be argued as "too much power"). 

I'd rather induce a change to all, and in this way ensure a form of equality. And the thing about trust is, you don't know wht is going to be the longterm cause of ANY of the endings. Except that the catalyst states that all life will eventually evolve into synthesis.

And he's right. Both the catalyst and the Protheans have figured out that time is cyclical. Therefore if left alone someone will produce dangerous AI, and as a reaction someone will produce a Catalyst/reapers.
So we end up the same way.

Modifié par azerSheppard, 04 juin 2012 - 08:02 .

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Indeed I would say that. But the more important point is that (1) Legion and EDI didn't impress me has having bland, and tasteless lives, and (2) that there is no reason to assume that Synthesis will take that "meaningful" life away. It's supposed to add, not to subtract.

1. well, I admit it was wrong for me to assume synthetic life is bland and tasteless on a subjective level, since I am not a synthetic, as long as they are happy I am happy

2. going back to synthesis, if u said that synthetics are already living meaningful lives, then I don't see that it is necessary for synthesis to happen to give synthesis an extra edge in feeling and appreciating nature, I think they are fine where they are at without artificial addition to them ... and now u will say:" yes, BUT I chose synthesis to end organic/synthetic conflicts and various other reasons..."

LOL.....we have debated this so long and often that this seems like yet another round of fighting, no?

Actually, I think what Synthesis must add to synthetics is some kind of empathy. Anything more is an optional self-modification. Just like organics must have the capacity for mental networking to keep up with post-Singularity synthetics should the need arise, but anything more is an optional self-modification. Other scenarios are possible of course, but apart from Heeden, Siduri and me nobody seems interested in making one.

[Ieldra]

@Nyoka:
Admittedly the Synthesis as written has overtones of that. But here is why I don't think that was actually *meant* by the writers:

We did prove that people of different biochemistries can get along. Basically, a big part of our success was only possible because of that. I don't believe it was the writers' intention to throw all that away. Thus, I went back to the unpublished singularity scenario, where the problem was that synthetics are designed and can understand themselves fully on a physical level, with the result that they can self-improve much faster than organics.

So, the problem becomes an inevitable and ever increasing difference in power and understanding. Those future synthetics the Catalyst talks about won't be like EDI and Legion any more, they will be Jupiter brains and Matrioshka brains whose expansion will be effected by intelligent starships which noneless are as single cells to the power and might of their originators. They will build more planetary brains, pushing back the puny organics who are below any level of significance from their point of view. They'll expand across the face of the galaxy as inexorably as humans expand across the face of the Earth, habitually wiping out "lesser" species along the way.

My Synthesis scenario gives organics the capacity to self-improve and link with each other, in order to enable meaningful communiation with these AI gods when they appear. Because peace is only possible between approximate equals, give or take an order of magnitude. If organics are to synthetics as single cells are to us, then there won't even be meaningful communication.

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LOL.....we have debated this so long and often that this seems like yet another round of fighting, no?

Actually, I think what Synthesis must add to synthetics is some kind of empathy. Anything more is an optional self-modification. Just like organics must have the capacity for mental networking to keep up with post-Singularity synthetics should the need arise, but anything more is an optional self-modification. Other scenarios are possible of course, but apart from Heeden, Siduri and me nobody seems interested in making one.

Yes, I am trying to get u to come to the dark side:devil:...hahaha

I am sure there are many scenarios, people just can't be bothered to type, like I said, all options have unquantifiable effects, right now we r just debating the likelihood and moral backgrounds of the options and consequences, most of our debates are based on the pros and cons, with me pointing out the cons of synthesis and u defending the would-be pros and fending off cons of synthesis...

It is to my surprise u didn't go out of your ways to criticise destroy option...I don't know if u are being polite or simply just dismissed destroy as a viable option, but if that day should come for u to bash destroy, I will be ready to wipe the floor with u;)

Returning to the topic, I think maybe these seemingly beneficial self-modification can be delayed after both organics and synthetics come to a consenses for a "go ahead", it is too BIG a deal for me, maybe they could build the crucible again... okay so we skip the practicality talk... in ur reply u seem to think that synthesis is a safe keeping option, like a hedge against synthetics uprising, but I based my choice on faith and idealism, if synthetics are sentient enough to survive and treated as alive, then I would expect they have at least a bit of feelings, in another words, aspects of human psyche

I am looking forward to see your reply on AngryFrozenWater still...

EDIT:^ I missed AngryFrozenWater's reply

EDIT: I appreciate your view that synthesis is the exact way to add those "feelings" to synthetics, but the method felt forced, and I do not know if synthetics wanted these kind of things, because they may think having feelings is a weakness

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juin 2012 - 10:55 .

[Ieldra]

Nyoka, you won't get anything meaningful out of any of the endings without adding stuff based on your interpretation and personal ideology, particularly for Control and Synthesis. The question "What will happen" is not answered by the game in any meaningful way. I can let the phrasing stand as written.....and throw up my hands in defeat because it makes no sense, or I can try to make sense of it, trying to decipher what was actually meant, or what it can mean, but that requires going back to the underlying themes and unpublished material.

The whole ending setup taken at face value makes no sense at all. It requires interpretation, and all interpretation adds stuff.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juin 2012 - 10:00 .

[Vigilant111]

Nyoka wrote...

Again with the fanfic?

edit: even considering that fanfic canon. Humans went from horse carts to starships in the last two hundred years. How much have the geth self-improved in that period of time? They've spent that time building their own little dyson sphere that will enable them to basically sit all day thinking about moral archetypes and they haven't even had that much success at it.

hats off to u

I don't think that there is a valid basis to say that synthetics are smarter than organics... synthetics have longer memories and larger storage, takes less time to process information, so they may seem smarter, its like playing chess against computer, if a computer really is that smart, there would be no more chess tournaments in my opinion

The human brain is far more complex than people think it is, we make arbitrary choices while synthetics' minds are always confined one way or another

Modifié par Vigilant111, 04 juin 2012 - 10:05 .

[Motherlander]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, I think what Synthesis must add to synthetics is some kind of empathy. Anything more is an optional self-modification. Just like organics must have the capacity for mental networking to keep up with post-Singularity synthetics should the need arise, but anything more is an optional self-modification. Other scenarios are possible of course, but apart from Heeden, Siduri and me nobody seems interested in making one.

This is where I and you differ.

I think you offer a vey benevolent vision of Synthesis where changes are optional.

I prefer a much more ambiguous version where the benefits can be great, for for many the cost will also be great.

I think synthetics will be forced to feel individuality and emotions and they wont necessarily have a choice..

In the same way, organics will undergo a change that will alter their DNA or at least swith on some inactive genes that we all have. And these changes may result in disadvantages to some individuals and groups in the new society.

The benefits of synthesis are portentially great. It gives organics potential super powers and makes synthetics feel more "alive".

But it is only just there should be disadvantages. In the end, the new capacities from synthesis will likely empower some and enslave others. The world remains the same, but the rules change.

So in my view, the changes are forced and the benefis of synthesis are ambiguous at best.

However, this does not invalidate synthesis as an option. In the context of "making choices" in ME3 it strengthens it precisely because Shepard has to make a choice.

The question is: For each individual Shepard, is the perceived potential benefit of synthesis to society worth the risk of the negative consequences that may result from it.

There is no universal right or wrong answer.  In the end it depends on what synthesis is:

1) If it is the benevolent optional synthesis suggested by ledra2, then synthesis may be a good thing.
2) If it is more ambiguous like I suggest, then it is a matter of weighting up the risks of benefits.
3) If it is the nightmare scenario suggested by the opponents of synthesis, then synthesis is porbably a bad aidea.

Since we have no information, we have to believe there is a risk that synthesis would turn out bad. On that basis, without more canaon information, I would probably pick control over synthesis (if I am not choosing destrooy) on the basis that i am risk adverse and and not convinced that manipulating the internal structure of others is a good idea on the basis that there is a risk it could all go horribly arong.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(2) The scenario solves the problem the Catalyst posits

According to the reapers all is well and they are not the problem. It is those nasty synthetics who are the problem. But don't be alarmed. Your kind will be killed to take care of them. So they say.

That's a bit puzzling, you know. As you may have noticed that your #2 statement is the core of my problem with all 3 options that Star Child offered me once. Maybe the kid offered these to you too? None of them can be a solution because the problem does not exists. In the only two cycles I have info from it looks like the organics have dealt with synthetics one way or another. In Javik's cycle the protheans exterminated all the synthetics during in the Metacom war. Bold move. But, hey, the protheans seem to like it. You know the geth? The ones created by the quarians? You must have seen those AIs before. Nice chaps. In Shepard's cycle the geth needed some help when the quarians attacked them several times and the reapers faked the geth's evilness by infecting some of them with the Pentium's FDIV bug. A nerdy joke, but still. These were later called heretics. I wish I really knew whether the synthetics pose a real threat, though. But it is hard to prove synthetics are the real problem when the reapers exterminate advanced civilizations and try to hide the traces of the event. As far as I can tell it never happened. To take their word for it is not something I am likely to do. I don't trust them. That's because several things make me very uneasy:

"The problem does not exist" was actually my first reaction to the Catalyst. I thought "Hey, I just made peace between the geth and the quarians. It was my finest moment bar none, really sublime. And you are telling me that doesn't count? *indignant spluttering*"

I could have let it stand at that, and chosen Control. Hey, I'm doing that with my second Shep. But I also thought "Hmm.....I can't believe the writers are *that* stupid....so what the hell did they mean when they gave the Catalyst those lines?" Then I found the singularity references in the leaked script - I knew the script and the general outlines of the endings, but had avoided details. And....if you use the singularity as the event that will push synthetics so far beyond organics that the latter will never be able to keep up, *then* the Catalyst makes sense. Of course, singularity theorists in real life say anything between "It might not even happen" and "It will be mostly beneficial", but the extinction scenario is not off the table. So, I could accept the premise that in this fictional universe, that post-singularity extinction scenario had an extremely high probability, and it was what the Catalyst was trying to prevent. It had helped that I had read an SF trilogy where it was one of the goals of an evil cybernetic god (aptly named "The Silicon God") to assimilate all matter in the galaxy into itself ("A Requiem for ****** Sapiens" by David Zindell).

As a result, what I was now seeing was not a setup that made no sense from the ground up, but a setup that had been simplified by the writers so far that it had ceased to make sense. By using the leaked script, a backstory had emerged I could believe in. And I simply prefer that to having to reject it altogether.  

One would expect that the reapers would post clear warnings for those races instead. But, no... It seems that they rather make sure advanced civilizations come to fruition every 50,000 years or so and then harvest their organics and technology. It may be coincidence, but they use that to create new reapers. Funny, right? That's not all, I have seen it at work. They smashed living humans to pulp and pumped that through tubes to create a giant humanoid reaper. It was a bit silly, though. Even though all powerful reapers can fly they forgot to give this one wings. Luckily I was able to blow up it easily. I just went for the eyes. That worked.

It's like they do not have any other means of reproduction. It wouldn't surprise me when they stay on top of the food chain that way, though. It seems effective. Well, except for that one giant humanoid reaper, of course. That one must have been a booboo on their part. I've encountered one reaper who said that they are doing that for nearly forever. Phew. If that's true then it would explain why these creeps are so hard to kill. The non-humanoid ones, I mean.

In ME2, Legion says this about the nature of the Reapers "Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined in an immortal machine body". I had actually come to the same conclusion long before I ever heard Legion say this (that conversation is extremely hard to get), for if it was just physical matter, DNA and stuff what the Reapers needed, then why the hell not clone it? It's cheaper and poses no danger to existing species. So, if they *really* need existing organic individuals, it must be what made each of them unique - their minds. Of course, then the question arose: Why all the unnecessary destruction? Which is answered in ME3 - the destruction is as much as the point, to "clear the way for new life", as the preservation of minds.

As a result, I did believe in the Catalyst's claim of preserving organic species in some way. I outlined that in my thread On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers. I believe that those organic minds still exist, as a gestalt mind whose will is subverted by the Catalyst. And thus it became almost a moral obligation to find a way to free them, as long as it can be done without compromising my primary goal of removing the Reapers as a threat to the galaxy. There are possible scenarios for that in Control and Synthesis, but not in Destroy.

Thus, the reproduction theme speculated on by EDI was pushed into the background, which was fortunate because it didn't make sense (see above) that reproduction was the Reapers' primary purpose. They could have had that much easier without killing millions of organics and risk some of them being destroyed every cycle in a war.

What also so surprises me is that they use scare tactics during the genocide. It's like they are dreaming up the most efficient ways to horrify their victims. One very popular method is to turn members of a population into zombie-like husks. It's like they think humans have never seen "Plan 9 from Outer Space". If it wasn't real, it would be funny.

The thing is, those images don't work on me. I've always seen them as artificial rather than accepting them as in-world reality. When ME2 started to push the horror up to eleven, my reaction was like this: "So, you're trying to manipulate me into hating the Reapers more, suspending my reason, by adding imagery that evokes disgust? What are you taking me for? A moron?" In matters like this, I'm used to detach myself from my emotions and refuse to make a judgment until I know everything of the background, and I'm extremely wary of, and often very annoyed by attempts at emotional manipulation. As a result, I always approached that aspect as artificial, I saw the hands of the creators too much to be really touched by it, especially since from the Reapers' point of view, as you correctly pointed out, there was absolutely no need of that. It was even counterproductive. A "clean" approach to the harvesting would have been much more efficient on several levels. For me, it was the creators trying to manipulate me into unreasonable hatred. I reacted by suspending all feelings of antagonism towards the Reapers until I knew their purpose, the necessity to end them as a threat notwithstanding. The horror was never the Reapers', but the writers'.

I can imagine that if synthetics were the real problem that these saviors of humanity would help fight synthetics when they become too strong. The contrary seems to be true. The case of the earlier mentioned heretics speaks for itself. That doesn't make me very comfortable with those reapers. Above all, it appears very counterproductive to me.

Another disadvantage of those genocides is that the victims are the ones the reapers are supposed to protect. I am not confident that this is a good idea when I hear that. Sounds like a reaper dreamed that up on an off-day. They also leave us organics little choice. It's not like they say: "Hello guys, we are the reapers. You have a problem. And we can help. Care if we sit down and talk about it?" Instead they are a bit pushy, you known. I think we better solve our own problems.

In other words, you think it would have been better if the Reapers had tried to take an active hand in galactic politics and convince, cajole or force organics not to build synthetics, and to help contain those already existing? I've thought the same, and it's a valid complaint. However, what would've happened had they done that? Inevitably, organics would have resented their Reaper overlords who were always trying to enforce "unreasonable" laws and prevent them from making their lives better by building machine servants. Eventually, organics would've tried to fight the Reapers. Organics are stubborn that way With no reset of civilization, eventually they'd have succeeded, then proceeded to build synthetics - and they would've been wiped out by them eventually. The reset of civilization is thus a necessity from the Reapers' perspective, and since organics would never willingly agree to that, they weren't asked in the first place. At least that's a rationalization I can go with.

Given all the above, it seems a bit far fetched to me that everything is for our own good. But I am strange that way.

I think this is a prime example of how different the things can be that different people take away from the story of Mass Effect. To me, that the Reapers were an enemy was an unfortunate side effect, that I had to fight them an unfortunate necessity. To me, they were primarily a fascinating mystery I wanted to decipher. An ending where I can end the threat, but can also imagine that meaningful communication is possible, perhaps even that some of the organic minds caught in the Reapers might be reincarnated, *plus* the possibility of a transhumanist future - that's a dream ending for me.

It might be possible to achieve the same through Control, though..... takes a little more headcanon, but avoids the moral quandary of Synthesis. I'll see what the EC has to offer before I choose my ultimate personal canon ending.

@Vigilant111:
You asked, I answer: That people take away different things from the games is the reason why I don't argue against people choosing Destroy. I do not claim sovereignity of interpretation over others' games because I don't know what they take away from them. For instance, "I choose Destroy because the risk of leaving the Reapers alive is too big" is a perfectly acceptable reason for me, even though it's not my choice. I do, however, ask that others pay me the same courtesy. The attempt to enshrine one choice as canonical by claiming sovereignity of interpretation over others' choices and associating them with evil I find....well....immoral, and even worse are attempts to influence the writers and put pressure on them to enshrine one interpretation as canonical in the EC. I can get as incensed by the attempt as some people get by the idea of Synthesis. That's what gets me so riled up in the IT people. If the writers follow their preferences, my games will be ruined. All of them. All I have taken away from the story will be gone. A faction of fans will have ruined my Mass Effect story. That does not, to say it most carefully, endear them to me.

[Ieldra]

@Motherlander:
Do you realize that the idea of mental networking is already scary to many people because it means that theoretically, their thoughts can be read, or even hacked. I don't think I need to add more "bad stuff" for realism. The potential for good and bad is already there, as with every new technology. New wonders, but also new horrors.

And what kind of genetic changes are you thinking of? I have just done away with the "new DNA" because it makes no sense....

As for whether it's good, bad or something in-between: the ending is structured in a way that we are the authors of the consequences. If someone who chooses Control says that in his game, the Reapers will repair the relays, help with rebuilding civilization, make Shepard a new body and then fly into a black hole, who am I to gainsay that brighter future? If I can wrest a bright, hopeful future from this wreck of an ending, I can see no reason to add more bad stuff than necessary to make it believable.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juin 2012 - 11:58 .

[Reign Tsumiraki]

gosimmons wrote...

Well, The Angry One's already stated it better than I can.

Implausibilities aside; Synthesis just feels like a statement saying we can't have peace in diversity.

Pretty much this. The entire argument for synthesis is based upon a false assumption. 

Also, I'd like to state that I'm a huge fan of OPTIONAL synthesis. Species arriving at it by themselves, with their own technology. The Geth and Quarians are already doing this.

Modifié par Reign Tsumiraki, 04 juin 2012 - 11:58 .

[Helios969]

All you need to know about synthesis comes from Mordin.

Mordin Solus: Discovery.  Based on Prothean-Collector connection...can examine technology...charge Reaper-species modification...fall of Protheans.

Early stages similar to indoctrination.  Can guess captured Protheans lost intelligence over several cloned generations.  Cybernetic augmentation widespread afterward...as Protheans failed Reapers added tech to compensate.  Mental capacity almost gone - replaced by overworked sensory imput transfers.  Transmitting data to Masters.

Sheppard:  Is there anything we can do to help them?

Mordin:  No.  No glands - replaced by tech.  No digestive system - replaced by tech.  No soul...replaced
by tech.  Whatever they were...gone forever.  Understand now?  No art, no culture.  Closer to husks than
slaves.  Tools for Reapers.  Collectors just final insult.  Must be destroyed.

Sheppard:  What is it about the Collectors modification that bothers you so much?

Mordin:  Disrupts socio-technological balance.  All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming...
compensating for limitations.  Can't carry a load, so invent wheel.  Can't catch food, so invent spear.
Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement.  No advancement...culture...stagnants.  Works otherway too.
Advancement before culture is ready...disasterous.  Saw it with Krogan.

Modifié par Helios969, 04 juin 2012 - 12:09 .

[Ieldra]

Reign Tsumiraki wrote...

gosimmons wrote...

Well, The Angry One's already stated it better than I can.

Implausibilities aside; Synthesis just feels like a statement saying we can't have peace in diversity.

Pretty much this. The entire argument for synthesis is based upon a false assumption.

As written, this is correct. However, if you add the singularity hypothesis from the leaked script, things make more sense.

Also, I'd like to state that I'm a huge fan of OPTIONAL synthesis. Species arriving at it by themselves, with their own technology. The Geth and Quarians are already doing this.

I fully agree that would be preferable. Perhaps you can twist the Control ending into something like that. Through his agents, ascended-Shepard subtly encourages the civilizations of the galaxy along that path.

@Helios:
That's a completely different scenario. The Protheans were indoctrinated, so functions had to be replaced by tech to keep the body going after the mental collapse indoctrination always ultimately brings. Also, Mordin's reasoning is flawed: As long as you're not omnipotent, there will always be challenges to overcome, and I have seen no interpretation of Synthesis where everyone becomes omnipotent.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 juin 2012 - 01:39 .

[ReXspec]

Ugh... I posted this already on another thread, but I believe it is relevant here.

OP, you are going off several broken concepts which invalidates your arguments.

You are trusting the star brat, for one, he is a Reaper form of consciousness or AI-- do you honestly think he is out to do anything beyond ensuring survival for the Reapers or ensuring the continuation of the Cycle? Especially with his vague answer of what synthesis actually entails?

Second, the concept of bringing "Order to Chaos" and Synthesis being the ultimate form of unity is very much head canon. Not only is that fundamentally flawed as far as sapient beings being imperfect and mortal, but there is no certainty that this is the case with the ending we have now.

Again, even if it were the truth, you haven't risen the mortal races to such a level that there will be no wars. The sole purpose of Synthesis was to eliminate the possibility of Technological Singularity and it would effectively do this if it were not for one blaring issue: PEOPLE CAN STILL MAKE SYNTHETICS.

Third, synthesis doesn't eliminate the possibility of Technological Singularity. No where in current canon does it say the races in the ME universe can no longer create Synthetics. The only thing you have accomplished is making everyone an ambiguous machine/organic hybrid. Assuming the IT is proven false, you have essentially re-written every organic being on a genetic level--creating what I can only imagine is a form of forced eugenics and stepped well outside your mission parameters to destroy the Reapers in favor of this unknown, idealistic gobbledegook.

[sAxMoNkI]

Helios969 wrote...

All you need to know about synthesis comes from Mordin.

Mordin Solus: Discovery.  Based on Prothean-Collector connection...can examine technology...charge Reaper-species modification...fall of Protheans.

Early stages similar to indoctrination.  Can guess captured Protheans lost intelligence over several cloned generations.  Cybernetic augmentation widespread afterward...as Protheans failed Reapers added tech to compensate.  Mental capacity almost gone - replaced by overworked sensory imput transfers.  Transmitting data to Masters.

Sheppard:  Is there anything we can do to help them?

Mordin:  No.  No glands - replaced by tech.  No digestive system - replaced by tech.  No soul...replaced
by tech.  Whatever they were...gone forever.  Understand now?  No art, no culture.  Closer to husks than
slaves.  Tools for Reapers.  Collectors just final insult.  Must be destroyed.

Sheppard:  What is it about the Collectors modification that bothers you so much?

Mordin:  Disrupts socio-technological balance.  All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming...
compensating for limitations.  Can't carry a load, so invent wheel.  Can't catch food, so invent spear.
Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement.  No advancement...culture...stagnants.  Works otherway too.
Advancement before culture is ready...disasterous.  Saw it with Krogan.

+1, Mordin always did have a way with words

[ReXspec]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

All you need to know about synthesis comes from Mordin.

Mordin Solus: Discovery.  Based on Prothean-Collector connection...can examine technology...charge Reaper-species modification...fall of Protheans.

Early stages similar to indoctrination.  Can guess captured Protheans lost intelligence over several cloned generations.  Cybernetic augmentation widespread afterward...as Protheans failed Reapers added tech to compensate.  Mental capacity almost gone - replaced by overworked sensory imput transfers.  Transmitting data to Masters.

Sheppard:  Is there anything we can do to help them?

Mordin:  No.  No glands - replaced by tech.  No digestive system - replaced by tech.  No soul...replaced
by tech.  Whatever they were...gone forever.  Understand now?  No art, no culture.  Closer to husks than
slaves.  Tools for Reapers.  Collectors just final insult.  Must be destroyed.

Sheppard:  What is it about the Collectors modification that bothers you so much?

Mordin:  Disrupts socio-technological balance.  All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming...
compensating for limitations.  Can't carry a load, so invent wheel.  Can't catch food, so invent spear.
Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement.  No advancement...culture...stagnants.  Works otherway too.
Advancement before culture is ready...disasterous.  Saw it with Krogan.

+1, Mordin always did have a way with words

Mordin's argument against synthesis is possibly the most powerful one yet.  If there is any indication of what synthesis actually entails, people should look no further than ^THIS^.

[Motherlander]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And what kind of genetic changes are you thinking of? I have just done away with the "new DNA" because it makes no sense....

As for whether it's good, bad or something in-between: the ending is structured in a way that we are the authors of the consequences. If someone who chooses Control says that in his game, the Reapers will repair the relays, help with rebuilding civilization, make Shepard a new body and then fly into a black hole, who am I to gainsay that brighter future? If I can wrest a bright, hopeful future from this wreck of an ending, I can see no reason to add more bad stuff than necessary to make it believable.

I'll respond to the second point first.

Yes, in the end, we are all going to pick the ending we think is best. We are of course free to invent the results in our own imagination whether they are good or bad.

In some ways, the fact that synthesis is not explained makes sense. Perhaps this is a new time of discovery and exploration. Perhaps finding out what synthesis is is the next great journey for all species. But that doesn't mean it will be good for all. There will be winners and losers; the pivileged and surpressed.

However, from a story telling point of view, I think that synthesis should have more explanation. Especially as we assume the Catalyst knows whta it is.

Also for the sae of the fan base, it would be good to know what it does so that we know what the effects are. I would rather be having discussions on whether Synthesis is good or bad from a basis of some knowledge on how it works, rather than discussing what it is in the first place.

In the end, each of us will have our own vision of it.

Some will be very optimistic and see it as a new opportunity for peace and prosperity for all.

Some will be pessimistic as see it as a horrific intrusion of others. Or even as a surrender to Reaper ideals.

I see it as more ambiguously in that it may have benefits, but couls also have horrific costs. Just like when they exploded the ship full of ezo over a human colony to produce biotic babies. It may have benefited humanity. But it may also result in deep cost to the individual. Who know what Kaiden or Jack would have been if they were not biotics?

I have read different opinions on Synthesis with interest. It was good to read both optimistic and negative opinions on it to get a balance.

In the end, I regard synthesis as being very risky. At the very least it may have significant socio-political consequenses and impacts which may not be all positive.

But of course any of us can imagine it as resulting in paradise or the depths of hell as we like as things stand.

Now to the DNA comment. I personally don't reject that the idea that there are changes to DNA, expecially for organics. To me it seems more logical that there is some sort of DNA manipulation, even if it is very sublte.  And that is a factor for my ambiguity.

In reality, I do not have a preferred option for the three endings. All are possible depending how I perceive my Shepard.

I see Synthesis as very risky. But now I believe I understand what it could mean (both optimistic and pessimistic), it may be an option for a Shepard who thinks that the changes will be positive for the galaxy on bealance.

But other Shepards may regard it as too risky, or indeed an abomination to be rejected out of hand.

[Peranor]

Can't we all just agree that the words 'synthesis' and 'sense' should not be used in the same sentence ever again? Please?

[Motherlander]

ReXspec wrote...

Mordin's argument against synthesis is possibly the most powerful one yet.  If there is any indication of what synthesis actually entails, people should look no further than ^THIS^.

Yes that is very interesting. I agree Mordin makes some good points.

If we don't know how synthesis works it could be very dangerous as people try to find out what it is.  And if society is not ready for the advancement synthesis offers, it could be disasterous.

If on the other hand, Synthesis is the wonder solution that gives us all outr answers, then society will stagnate because there will be no need for development. 

Of course, there is always the chance that the bad things wont happen or be so bad. And that is the one thing the Catalyst cannot control or predict with certainly.

[Motherlander]

anorling wrote...


Can't we all just agree that the words 'synthesis' and 'sense' should not be used in the same sentence ever again? Please?

No.

[Ieldra]

@Helios et al:
(1) There is no indication that Synthesis replaces anything with tech. If anything, Synthesis *adds* tech.
(2) Mordin's argument is flawed. It assumes that it was the purpose of the Collectors' tech upgrades to remove limitations. That argument defeats itself when we meet the Collectors. They are rather unimpressive. It's rather that the tech replacements kept them going after indoctrination destroyed their normal functions.
(3) There are always limitations unless you're omnipotent. Gaining greater capabilities is desirable because it enables you to accept greater challenges and gain greater understanding.
(4) This is just the opinion of one character in the game. A pretty smart one, yeah, but one whose arguments I can easily pick apart nonetheless.

Note that I explicitly reject the utopian interpretation of Synthesis. I've said as much in the EC threads where I said it was necessary to give us a description that avoids utopian imagery, nonsensical concepts and metaphors easily misunderstood. I want a bright future, not a stagnating one.