685 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

KDD-0063 wrote...

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?

Who said the theme changed? It only changes if you beleive the star child ...You haveno reason to. The star child is the voice of the reapers.....Are you really going to belevie him?

[hot_heart]

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

You could say the same about all the ending choices though. Once again, it
comes down to how you perceive and choose to interpret things.

Modifié par hot_heart, 02 juin 2012 - 03:11 .

[dreman9999]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

You mean the one based on baseless assumptions....I'm fine, thanks.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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

So if I knocked you out and replaced your arms with cybernetic ones without your consent, you'd be perfectly okay with that?

Also.. polio? What?

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.

So, headcanon.

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

Speculate all you like. Just don't accuse me of headcanoning when that's all you're doing.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juin 2012 - 03:10 .

[Jenonax]

hot_heart wrote...

You could say the same about all the ending choices. Once again, it comes down to how you perceive and choose to interpret things.

Absolutely, and I have said that.

All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

[KDD-0063]

dreman9999 wrote...

KDD-0063 wrote...

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?

Who said the theme changed? It only changes if you beleive the star child ...You haveno reason to. The star child is the voice of the reapers.....Are you really going to belevie him?

but even then...what is seen can't be unseen.

[The Angry One]

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.

Yes and how the hell are they going to alter their DNA back to the way it was, then do it to all the eco-systems in the galaxy that have also been affected?

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juin 2012 - 03:13 .

[dreman9999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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.

It matter not what I beleive. If you can't disuse what assuptions you beleive...It's baseless. I don't ven beleive thatyou understand the cause of the conflict in the first place but you so willing to sasy synthesis does.

In truth, it does solve the problembut how it does you just don't get it because you don't know what the problem is.

If you understand what the problem is and how synthesis solves it, you would never pick it.

[Theodoro]

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

You make it sound like the organics' current existence is a form of a disease that must be cured, when in fact everybody was far better off when the Reapers hadn't arrived and massacred nearly every world with the purpose of achieving Synthesis.

[dreman9999]

KDD-0063 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KDD-0063 wrote...

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?

Who said the theme changed? It only changes if you beleive the star child ...You haveno reason to. The star child is the voice of the reapers.....Are you really going to belevie him?

but even then...what is seen can't be unseen.

But what you see can be illusions, tricks and lies.  Can you really trust whats being saidfrom machine who know how to manipulate organics.

[hot_heart]

Jenonax wrote...
All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

Glad to see we agree. My earlier post in here probably covers everything I mean to say but, essentially, it is: BioWare provided three endings through which player's could reflect their own beliefs. Each has been left vague enough so there is the possibility that all 'solve' the problem if considered in a positive light. All have their own drawbacks.

Oh, and all are full of inconsistencies, most likely spawned from the drastic alteration of the script.

No need to attack people for their choice. Live and let live.

[dreman9999]

Jenonax wrote...

hot_heart wrote...

You could say the same about all the ending choices. Once again, it comes down to how you perceive and choose to interpret things.

Absolutely, and I have said that.

All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

Think  of it this way...WHo is the only one who understands how works synthesis and who is left to apply it?

[dreman9999]

hot_heart wrote...

Jenonax wrote...
All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

Glad to see we agree. My earlier post in here probably covers everything I mean to say but, essentially, it is: BioWare provided three endings through which player's could reflect their own beliefs. Each has been left vague enough so there is the possibility that all 'solve' the problem if considered in a positive light. All have their own drawbacks.

Oh, and all are full of inconsistencies, most likely spawned from the drastic alteration of the script.

No need to attack people for their choice. Live and let live.

I see the choices like the battle of wits scene from the priness bride....The star child is the man in black...
 

[Jenonax]

hot_heart wrote...

Jenonax wrote...
All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

Glad to see we agree. My earlier post in here probably covers everything I mean to say but, essentially, it is: BioWare provided three endings through which player's could reflect their own beliefs. Each has been left vague enough so there is the possibility that all 'solve' the problem if considered in a positive light. All have their own drawbacks.

Oh, and all are full of inconsistencies, most likely spawned from the drastic alteration of the script.

No need to attack people for their choice. Live and let live.

Absolutely.  I hate them all in almost equal measure.  Hurray for the middle ground!

And yeah, live and let live and all that.  Viva la revolucion! 

[Vigilant111]

@Optimystic_X: well, I am not an avowed IT believer and I do not pre-emptively reject synthesis as a real choice, but so far none of the pro-synthesis arguments has successfully convinced me, u guys only made me feel bad about killing the Geth and EDI, which later other gamers comforted me by saying no, they didn't die one way or another

[wright1978]

Jenonax wrote...

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.

I was always planning on kicking the reapers in the 'daddy bags' so to speak. Did that mean genocide? Only if they didn't surrender/leave/ etc. I would be open to a 'good interpreation' synthesis(such as propsed by Ieldra etc)  as an option for future development if A) There was a sane theory behind the reapers actions and/or an explanation why good synthesis would address this problem the proposer of synthesis was not to be a genocidal insane midget intent on finding a new way to address his nutty theory. Given the current state of A & B the only logical conclusion i can come to is that this synthesis it proposes isn't an improvement but a turning all life both synthetic and organic into a dronelike species that won't have the temerity to create new AI's.

Modifié par wright1978, 02 juin 2012 - 03:22 .

[StrawberryJam]

Just a quick thought on this - I've just skimmed over the thread, so, sorry if this has been brought up already - but, to those that consider Synthesis the 'racist' ending:

First of all, I agree, to an extent. It does seem racist and anti-diversity (we're not actually informed on how this Synthesis will look like in detail), which is probably against what most people had their Shepard fight for. However, I'd argue that the racism is not (only) inherent in the Synthesis ending, but in all three of them and in the whole assertion of an everlasting Organics vs. Synthetics conflict that they are based on. Effectively, you can either agree with that assertion on the basis that the Catalyst is speaking the truth, or disagree, because, obviously, you have repeatedly witnessed harmony between synthetics and organics. Disagreeing won't help you a whole lot, though, because all of the endings are based on that assertion, which I, personally, find disappointing.

After being presented with the choice, I was thinking "erm.. I don't want any of this." Destroy would have resulted in genocide on the synthetics, and my Good Shepard wouldn't have any of that; similarly, Control sounded to me like an interstellar apartheid-regime - again, not cool, what with my Shepard asserting throughout the series that synthetics are not tools, but individuums. And I have to admit, I chose Synthesis because of a somewhat naive "well, it seems that everyone will stop killing each other"-thought process, thinking of the extreme stance against free will and diversity only later on. In that sense, I should probably apply for Klan membership tomorrow. Anyhow, I don't regret it, because I'm not sure if I'll be motivated enough on my '**** Shepard'-run to amass the required points to make that option available.

Still, I do not think you can elevate one ending over the others on moral grounds based on some sort of equation looking like "Racism - Racism against organics = Less evil racism."

They're all pretty evil.

Modifié par StrawberryJam, 02 juin 2012 - 03:22 .

[hot_heart]

dreman9999 wrote...
I see the choices like the battle of wits scene from the priness bride....The star child is the man in black...
 

Well, it's subjective, you see.
Though I think we can both agree that were are at an impasse. Don't try to poison me, OK?

[Jenonax]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

hot_heart wrote...

You could say the same about all the ending choices. Once again, it comes down to how you perceive and choose to interpret things.

Absolutely, and I have said that.

All of them way, way too vague.  Destroy is the least vague but I still take issue with why all synthetics had to die.  The Geth had the reaper code, I get it, but really why all of them?

I perceive that all of them are bad and choose to hold out for the EC.  After which I will rant or praise to my heart's content.

Think  of it this way...WHo is the only one who understands how works synthesis and who is left to apply it?

No one.  No one is in control of that ending in its current state.  Shepard's not in control.  He's not bloody doing anything, is he?  The Catalyst, is he in control?  Well no not really, he shoves his hands in the air and gives up.  The crucible has changed me!  I can't implement anything!  And me, the player, am I in control of the ending.  No, I didn't want any of the bloody endings.

Rant over.  

I guess the Catalyst could be said to be in control and that is a fundemental flaw.  If the villain is in control of the ending than it wasn't a victory.  But then that leads into a debate of was the Catalyst a villain and that's not the point of the thread.  I think he is, others think he is sympathetic.  Again, not the point.

[azerSheppard]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

So eugenics is evil? And IF evolution is guided, the proprietors of said genealogical changes are therefore evil?


We don't know enough about synthesis to state anything about altered brainpower, but the real hypocricy lies in your assupmtion that it's evil. You (and Optimist) don't know anything about it and therefore cannot make an educated guess about it's nature.


And your example of the "Aryan race" is misguided at best, as the genetic portion has very little to offer improvementwise. Not that "aryan" is even remotely considered to be a genetic thing. (I suggest you read up on mitochondrial DNA)

Consider this: A widespread epidemic is about to kill billions, and even if we survive a great drought lies ahead. I have a device that will change the genetic structure of all humans, rendering them unable to fall for diseases, grow weak, hungry or thirsty. Would i be EVIL for using said device? How strange for you to call that which people all over the world dayly pray for to their GOD(S), an act of evil... 
Ofcourse we could discuss the worth of said intrinsic notion of good and evil, or should i say extrinsic?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

[dreman9999]

hot_heart wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
I see the choices like the battle of wits scene from the priness bride....The star child is the man in black...
 

Well, it's subjective, you see.
Though I think we can both agree that were are at an impasse. Don't try to poison me, OK?

I'm saying all the choices are bad choices because their controled by the starchild.

[wright1978]

Jenonax wrote...

No one.  No one is in control of that ending in its current state.  Shepard's not in control.  He's not bloody doing anything, is he?  The Catalyst, is he in control?  Well no not really, he shoves his hands in the air and gives up.  The crucible has changed me!  I can't implement anything!  And me, the player, am I in control of the ending.  No, I didn't want any of the bloody endings.

Rant over.  

I guess the Catalyst could be said to be in control and that is a fundemental flaw.  If the villain is in control of the ending than it wasn't a victory.  But then that leads into a debate of was the Catalyst a villain and that's not the point of the thread.  I think he is, others think he is sympathetic.  Again, not the point.

Yep Starbrat is the cancer that infects the whole ending sequence.

[jtav]

I've had a few months to mull this over. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*I don't believe the Catalyst. That is, the notion of a technological singularity leading to extinction was so poorly set up that I don't regard it as a threat.
*No option leaves Shepard with clean hands. Pretending humility is hypocritical at best.
*Within the context of the universe, synthetics are clearly people.
*Genocide is evil always and everywhere, regardless of the consequences. I cannot morally choose Destroy.
*Synthesis is problematic. If you don't believe the Catalyst regarding the Singularity, then the justification becomes the possible benefits. Which aren't clearly stated.
*I'm a Paragon. I like playing characters that do the right thing regardless of the consequences. If all my lecturing about second chances and mercy are to mean anything, I better be willing to extend that mercy even to people I hate.
*Related, I have an obligation to save as many lives as I can.

So the moral superiority of the Destroy faction confounds me. Given what we know, I choose Control. Synthesis is problematic mostly because it seems like it wandered in from a different story.

[Vigilant111]

StrawberryJam wrote...

Just a quick thought on this - I've just skimmed over the thread, so, sorry if this has been brought up already - but, to those that consider Synthesis the 'racist' ending:

First of all, I agree, to an extent. It does seem racist and anti-diversity (we're not actually informed on how this Synthesis will look like in detail), which is probably against what most people had their Shepard fight for. However, I'd argue that the racism is not (only) inherent in the Synthesis ending, but in all three of them and in the whole assertion of an everlasting Organics vs. Synthetics conflict that they are based on. Effectively, you can either agree with that assertion on the basis that the Catalyst is speaking the truth, or disagree, because, obviously, you have repeatedly witnessed harmony between synthetics and organics. Disagreeing won't help you a whole lot, though, because all of the endings are based on that assertion, which I, personally, find disappointing.

After being presented with the choice, I was thinking "erm.. I don't want any of this." Destroy would have resulted in genocide on the synthetics, and my Good Shepard wouldn't have any of that; similarly, Control sounded to me like an interstellar apartheid-regime - again, not cool, what with my Shepard asserting throughout the series that synthetics are not tools, but individuums. And I have to admit, I chose Synthesis because of a somewhat naive "well, it seems that everyone will stop killing each other"-thought process, thinking of the extreme stance against free will and diversity only later on. In that sense, I should probably apply for Klan membership tomorrow. Anyhow, I don't regret it, because I'm not sure if I'll be motivated enough on my '**** Shepard'-run to amass the required points to make that option available.

Still, I do not think you can elevate one ending over the others on moral grounds based on some sort of equation looking like "Racism - Racism against organics = Less evil racism."

They're all pretty evil.

Bolded text not true, not everyone, just between organics and synthetics

[StrawberryJam]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Bolded text not true, not everyone, just between organics and synthetics

Indeed. Bad wording on my part, I was implying that (alleged) conflict with "everyone".