685 réponses à ce sujet

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

I see, when I make conclusions based on the facts presented in the game, it's headcanon.
When you make **** up, it's "logic".

Your conclusion has nothing to do with your facts.

The Angry One wrote... 
Let's just ignore the dark as hell implications of altering the mind along with the body.
Even an upgrade of the kind you describe is not a solution to anything. A hybrid mind would be better than an organic, but still inferior to a synthetic.

How so? If I can multitask, perform repetitive calculations, prefect recall etc. as easily as a synthetic, how is my mind inferior?

[The Angry One]

dreamgazer wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

But you have the right to remove the Geth completely?  No going back from that.

And what about becoming an immortal AI God via Control?  Some might say no one has the right to be immortal.

Which part of "I think all the options are garbage" do you not understand?

How would you feel if you found out that the catalyst "implied" his way through the destroy option, and that the geth and EDI were peachy in the aftermath?

Then there'd be no penalty, aside from the damn relays.
But essentially destroying the Reapers is what the entire galaxy has been united to do. This doesn't excuse Shepard not even bothering to contact Hackett, but again, lesser of 3 evils.

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You can make similar statements about the other options. If you think that this overrules all other considerations then we have a fundamental disagreement. As I see it, circumstances matter, and results matter. I'm not saying I'm 100% comfortable with the choice - but it's a comparably good outcome, all things considered.

Also, in my interpretation, the change is reversible on an individual basis (see the thread I linked below the OP). That would surely mitigate the situation...

Synthesis removes all choice from all beings in the galaxy. Everywhere. PERMANENTLY.
There's no going back. There's no opting out. Everybody is affected. You have no right to do this, period.

But you have the right to remove the Geth completely?  No going back from that.

And what about becoming an immortal AI God via Control?  Some might say no one has the right to be immortal.

The geth already oked there deaths to stop the reapers. It doen't mean that it's ok to change everyone around you and inslave them to the reapers.

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I see, when I make conclusions based on the facts presented in the game, it's headcanon.
When you make **** up, it's "logic".

Your conclusion has nothing to do with your facts.

The Angry One wrote... 
Let's just ignore the dark as hell implications of altering the mind along with the body.
Even an upgrade of the kind you describe is not a solution to anything. A hybrid mind would be better than an organic, but still inferior to a synthetic.

How so? If I can multitask, perform repetitive calculations, prefect recall etc. as easily as a synthetic, how is my mind inferior?

Fun fact...Reapers control organics with implants....And you just let the star child implant everyone.

[Shallyah]

My real problem with Synthesis is that it changes the Galaxy at fundamental level. Arguably, this means "you lose the game", since we've been playing 3 games defending what we are with our last breath, and defending the biodiversity of the Galaxy, the survival of every race with its own identity (at least if you played Paragon).

My Shepard once stood in front of a Harbinger and said this to his face:

"Maybe we can't win, but we will fight you regardless, as we did Sovereign. Just like I'm doing now. Yes, people will die. Maybe we'll lose half the Galaxy. Maybe more. But I will do whatever it takes to get the Galaxy rid of the Reapers. However "insignificant" we may be, we will fight, we will sacrifice, and we will find a way. That's what humans do."

And then my Shepard goes and surrenders to the Reapers and says "Okay, you're right. We can't win, so we'll become the same as you so we don't have ot fight and we get beaten up. Yes I know I said humans are brave and fight agaisnt all odds and stuff but.. that doesn't matter, because we're gonna stop being humans anyway".

No sir.

Not on my watch.

Modifié par Shallyah, 02 juin 2012 - 02:47 .

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Your conclusion has nothing to do with your facts.

My conclusion is:

Altering sapient beings without their consent on an irreversable genetic level = Bad.
If you think that's good.. for any reason.. you scare me.

How so? If I can multitask, perform repetitive calculations, prefect recall etc. as easily as a synthetic, how is my mind inferior?

It's slower. It's not upgradable. It's not as versatile.
You're now just wildly guessing as to what a synthesized brain can do anyway. This hypocrisy is getting on my nerves.

[dreman9999]

The Angry One wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

But you have the right to remove the Geth completely?  No going back from that.

And what about becoming an immortal AI God via Control?  Some might say no one has the right to be immortal.

Which part of "I think all the options are garbage" do you not understand?

How would you feel if you found out that the catalyst "implied" his way through the destroy option, and that the geth and EDI were peachy in the aftermath?

Then there'd be no penalty, aside from the damn relays.
But essentially destroying the Reapers is what the entire galaxy has been united to do. This doesn't excuse Shepard not even bothering to contact Hackett, but again, lesser of 3 evils.

^This.

[Jenonax]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Obviously - those hybrids who keep their upgrades would be able to keep pace with synthetics. Organic life (mixed with tech) would continue.

And what if no one does?  What if everyone decides to remove them?  The who's around to keep the peace?  The plants?

What if the wrong sorts of people choose to keep theirs?  War and dictatorships all around!  

I don't pretend to know what will happen after synthesis and neither should anyone else.  The consequences are so far reaching as to be almost impossible to predict with any sort of accuracy.

Bioware didn't present any of the endings as anything.  They are simply there.  Here's your ridiculously vague and contrived choices, have fun.  The Catalyst is not the most reliable of sources.  He may not be lying as such but I have no reason to trust him.  Therefore I would have liked the choice to actually question the little bugger about what the hell I was getting myself into.

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

Altering sapient beings without their consent on an irreversable genetic level = Bad.
If you think that's good.. for any reason.. you scare me.

It is good. Nobody asked your opinion when they eliminated polio and smallpox either.

The Angry One wrote... 
It's slower. It's not upgradable. It's not as versatile.
You're now just wildly guessing as to what a synthesized brain can do anyway. This hypocrisy is getting on my nerves.

Again, there are minimum things it must do for us not to need AI to do our thinking for us anymore. If it does not do these things then it was a waste of time. I choose to believe it was the solution it is presented as.

And I'm sorry if my speculations irritate you, but I'm not going to stop.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 02 juin 2012 - 02:55 .

[PsyrenY]

Jenonax wrote...

And what if no one does?  What if everyone decides to remove them?  The who's around to keep the peace?  The plants?

Given the attitudes of both the Salarians and Quarians, this is highly unlikely. And there are definitely humans that would, if only to keep an eye on the other synthesized races.

With those three doing it, at least a few Turians and Asari would. Pretty soon you would have members of every race staying implanted.

Jenonax wrote... 
What if the wrong sorts of people choose to keep theirs?  War and dictatorships all around!  

Another good reason to keep yours. Can't let only bad people have greater mental capability.

Jenonax wrote... 
I don't pretend to know what will happen after synthesis and neither should anyone else.

Too bad for you; I like to speculate and I'm going to keep doing it until EC explains things more, possibly even afterwards.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 02 juin 2012 - 02:54 .

[Ieldra]

Jenonax wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Stop talking about upgrades as if that will convince me. Once again, I am a transhumanist. I fully believe in and endorse the benefits of cybernetic upgrades. I do not however believe that forced upgrades are justifiable by any meeans.
You simply don't have that right. Nobody does. Ever.

You can make similar statements about the other options. If you think that this overrules all other considerations then we have a fundamental disagreement. As I see it, circumstances matter, and results matter. I'm not saying I'm 100% comfortable with the choice - but it's a comparably good outcome, all things considered.

Also, in my interpretation, the change is reversible on an individual basis (see the thread I linked below the OP). That would surely mitigate the situation...

If its reversible then what was the point and what does it solve?

It solves the problem nonetheless because a few billion dropouts don't matter. Most intelligent life in the galaxy will stay upgraded. Most people will be too relieved that the Reapers are gone and they're still alive to lament about synthetic symbionts which are actually useful.  

Circumstances and results do matter, and we don't have enough data from a reliable source to justify any of the choices imo.

And that's why I say all choices are good or bad depending on interpretation and personal ideology. Personally, I don't understand the people who "just want to kill Reapers". It's an alien mindset to me. But you don't see me running around and saying it's a terrible choice.

[Vigilant111]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Altering sapient beings without their consent on an irreversable genetic level = Bad.
If you think that's good.. for any reason.. you scare me.

It is good. Nobody asked your opinion when they eliminated polio and smallpox either.

The Angry One wrote... 
It's slower. It's not upgradable. It's not as versatile.
You're now just wildly guessing as to what a synthesized brain can do anyway. This hypocrisy is getting on my nerves.

Again, there are minimum things it must do for us not to need AI to do our thinking for us anymore. If it does not do these things then it was a waste of time. I choose to believe it was the solution it is presented as.

1. So organic properties equal to smallpox?

2. That's no better than just planting a chip in brain which we already got

[PsyrenY]

Vigilant111 wrote...

1. So organic properties equal to smallpox?

Our inherent weaknesses can be compared to an illness to be removed, yes.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
2. That's no better than just planting a chip in brain which we already got

No we don't. The only organic in ME who can potentially outthink an AI is David Archer, and he is a very unique case. 

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Stop talking about upgrades as if that will convince me. Once again, I am a transhumanist. I fully believe in and endorse the benefits of cybernetic upgrades. I do not however believe that forced upgrades are justifiable by any meeans.
You simply don't have that right. Nobody does. Ever.

You can make similar statements about the other options. If you think that this overrules all other considerations then we have a fundamental disagreement. As I see it, circumstances matter, and results matter. I'm not saying I'm 100% comfortable with the choice - but it's a comparably good outcome, all things considered.

Also, in my interpretation, the change is reversible on an individual basis (see the thread I linked below the OP). That would surely mitigate the situation...

If its reversible then what was the point and what does it solve?

It solves the problem nonetheless because a few billion dropouts don't matter. Most intelligent life in the galaxy will stay upgraded. Most people will be too relieved that the Reapers are gone and they're still alive to lament about synthetic symbionts which are actually useful.  

Circumstances and results do matter, and we don't have enough data from a reliable source to justify any of the choices imo.

And that's why I say all choices are good or bad depending on interpretation and personal ideology. Personally, I don't understand the people who "just want to kill Reapers". It's an alien mindset to me. But you don't see me running around and saying it's a terrible choice.

1. You can't even properly point towhat the problem is. How can you say it solves it.
2.It matter not on our personal interpertation or ideology. We never are the ones that apply it based on out beleifs. The star child does. His the only one that nows how it works and the only one laft to trigger the crusible because Shepard is well dead once it triggered. What every we think the vague statemenst means is an illusion and distraction.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 juin 2012 - 03:00 .

[Vigilant111]

When Catalyst said:"why not, synthetics are already part of you..."

We should ask:"why yes to synthesis if we already got synthetics in us???"

[Jenonax]

Optimystic_X wrote...



Given the attitudes of both the Salarians and Quarians, this is highly unlikely. And there are definitely humans that would, if only to keep an eye on the other synthesized races.

With those three doing it, at least a few Turians and Asari would. Pretty soon you would have members of every race staying implanted.

Absolutely possible.  Once people understood what the hell had just happened to them.  I can't imagine that anyone will be too thrilled at first to find their bodies have fundementally changed.  Can't imagine that everyone will survive the process either.  But hey, anythings possible.

Another good reason to keep yours. Can't let only bad people have greater mental capability.

But not everyone will.  I don't deal with absolute musts.  Not everyone will keep them.  I'm sure the Amish and Jehovah's witnesses to name a couple might want their pure organic bodies back asap.  Greater mental capacity?  You don't know that.  

Too bad for you; I like to speculate and I'm going to keep doing it until EC explains things more, possibly even afterwards.

What have I been doing other than speculating?  I take issue with people speaking in definite terms over something so unpredictable.  I'm enjoying speculating and bantering really.

[PsyrenY]

Vigilant111 wrote...

When Catalyst said:"why not, synthetics are already part of you..."

We should ask:"why yes to synthesis if we already got synthetics in us???"

Either he was being more general there (i.e. he really meant "part of your lives"), or he was specifically referring to Shepard, who still has an organic mind.

[Veneke]

JakeJynx wrote...

And lo, he did open a large can of worms...

Welcome to the forums mate.

It's always interesting to read the reasons why people picked Synthesis, I've a vested interest in it myself as it was my choice too. Unfortunately, you've managed to reopen a debate that has gripped the BSN forums with almost as much vigour as complaints of the endings as a whole (read: Hahaha, you poor bugger. You have no idea what you've just done.). Having already been involved in one debate on Synthesis I have no intention of getting into another. It's also rather pointless because such commentary will typically devolve into 'why' you should or should not pick a particular ending, and quite frankly there is nothing more insulting than being lectured by someone on why what you did was wrong, or how you 'raped' the galaxy etc.

Your reasoning seems pretty agreeable though.

The problem is lack of resolution. With both Paragon and Renegade,
nothing is resolved. You still have the issue of an impending
destruction via synthetic uprising. They merely suspend the inevitable.
In Control, you yourself, controlling the Reapers, will have to one day
figure out a solution to the problem, the chaos. In Destroy, chaos
remains, and life will eventually succumb to synthetics. This is a
pretty prevalent idea in sci-fi and AI theory, and I think that's sort
of what Bioware was borrowing against. So I pretty much accept the
"synthetics destroy advanced life before it has a chance to destroy all
life" explanation at face value. I don't take the Geth and Quarians
getting along, and EDI helping your cause, as being an argument against
this inevitable conclusion. I view it as hope and optimism--right now,
it's not a threat. In the future, it will be, especially when synthetics
far surpass organics.

This paragraph is pretty dead on. If you accept the veracity of the Catalyst's argument then Synthesis is the best ending available to you right now to solve the longer term problem completely.


Personally, I don't much care about the Catalyst nor the high notions that exist in each of the endings. I don't care for them now and I didn't care for them at the time. I remember ruling out Control out of hand because of TIM. In hindsight, I should have given it far more thought. I ruled out Destroy immediately because it meant the destruction of EDI and the Geth and I couldn't bring myself to destroy what Legion had sacrificed himself to save. The result? Synthesis or defeat (wait for the critical mission failure screen). I took defeat the first time round. Still reckon it's the best option.

My point? My point is that at the end of it all it doesn't matter a toss what your reasoning is; high-minded notions or personal attachments, the lack of resolution means that it doesn't matter what you pick, nor why.

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

1. So organic properties equal to smallpox?

Our inherent weaknesses can be compared to an illness to be removed, yes.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
2. That's no better than just planting a chip in brain which we already got

No we don't. The only organic in ME who can potentially outthink an AI is David Archer, and he is a very unique case. 

1. If you can identify what weakness we have that solve the problem, then I'll take you seriously.

2.So you never heard of gray boxes and the trans organics the salarians have.

[Vigilant111]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

1. So organic properties equal to smallpox?

Our inherent weaknesses can be compared to an illness to be removed, yes.

Vigilant111 wrote... 
2. That's no better than just planting a chip in brain which we already got

No we don't. The only organic in ME who can potentially outthink an AI is David Archer, and he is a very unique case. 

U are being wistful about having some quick bodily enhancement instead of keeping fit and eat well persistently

...and what do u mean weaknesses, it is exactly those weaknesses that made u human, maybe even worth surviving

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

When Catalyst said:"why not, synthetics are already part of you..."

We should ask:"why yes to synthesis if we already got synthetics in us???"

Either he was being more general there (i.e. he really meant "part of your lives"), or he was specifically referring to Shepard, who still has an organic mind.

In ether case, it still means we already have it. We wouldn't need his synthesis.

[PsyrenY]

Dreman, I see no point in debating synthesis with you when you are an avowed IT believer. You've pre-emptively rejected Synthesis as a real option and instead see it as just an elaborate way of Shepard losing his mind. So trust me when I say that you're wasting your time calling me out.

[Jenonax]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It solves the problem nonetheless because a few billion dropouts don't matter. Most intelligent life in the galaxy will stay upgraded. Most people will be too relieved that the Reapers are gone and they're still alive to lament about synthetic symbionts which are actually useful.  

You don't know that.  You can't see into the future on something so vague.

And that's why I say all choices are good or bad depending on interpretation and personal ideology. Personally, I don't understand the people who "just want to kill Reapers". It's an alien mindset to me. But you don't see me running around and saying it's a terrible choice. 

And I agree with you.  

Except the whole point of the trilogy was to get rid of the Reapers.  Up until the last few minutes the only interpretation of get rid of them was to destroy them.  Putting more solutions at the eleventh hour with no explanation, even some explanation which directly contradicts the lore of the universe is unacceptable.  Therefore I do have sympathy with people who just want to kill them, even if I do think its heavy handed.

[KDD-0063]

Ieldra2 wrote...

KDD-0063 wrote...
First, the whole point of synthesis is to avoid AI singularity.

No, that was the point of the Cycle.

The point of Synthesis is to prevent non-synthetic life from being made extinct by post-singularity synthetics.

So a little problem with the endings first: why the hell should Shepard care about this problem anyways?
Of course you could argue that the reapers force him/her to care, and solving this problem will solve the reaper threat.
However that is precisely what gives people this jarring feeling, especially when we want to blow them up in the most badass, brutal and satisfying way.

I get that some people feel that way. The thing is, I do not feel that way. I do not want to "blow them up in the most badass, and brutal way" because that is most emphatically not a satisfying outcome for me. And I'm getting seriously upset by people telling me I should feel that way, or that Shepard feels that way regardless of how I roleplay them. For some time, destroying the Reapers appeared to be the only way to end the threat. I've always found that regrettable, for ever since Legion explained what the Reapers were, I've found them interesting. Now that I have other options, I'd rather end the war by making peace with them. Synthesis will ensure that civilization will soon be powerful enough to stand against them should they cause problems again, and even so, with the Catalyst gone they aren't a unified force anymore.

but even if there should be alternatives, the sudden change of theme is still jarring, and the endings are still unsatisfying.

Is destroy satisfying? My reaction is 'yeah, remotely'.
and...what if the destroy option doesn't destroy the geth? My reaction would still be only remotely satisfying. The endings will still be weird.

In the end it still has to go back to the basics: why the sudden change of theme? Why is there a deus ex machina that defeats all reapers in one single battle?

[Taboo]

If we take into account the nanite theory that Ieldra2 proposes it makes sense, at least in execution. Read the topic he created. It makes FAR more sense than what Bioware gave us.

At least to us plebs who haven't read all of the comics.