313 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

 I find nohting appealing about Synthesis and here's why:

1) Space Magic.  Enough has been said on other threads so I don't think I have to elaborate

2) It's forced on everybody and everything.  If you want to turn yourself half-Synthetic, fine go ahead.  But don't force it on me "for my own good"  

3) It's demonstrably not necessary, as shown by those of us who had both a quarian and geth fleet in our War Assets and by EDI for the last two games.

So basically, Synthesis is Shepard killing him/herself for nothing.

Honestly,with those reasons,  I can't even think of something that would make Synthesis more appealing to me.  Maybe if the green beam was a Conduit back to London?

[Taboo]

I don't think I'm better. But I'm sure as hell going to tell you what my issues are though.

I want this to be over as much as you do. Don't ever think I enjoy this.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Anything that leaves the Reapers alive, is traitorous/villianous/vile/deplorable/insane/disgusting/idiotic/suicidal..............shall I go on?

[JB27]

ohupthis wrote...

Anything that leaves the Reapers alive, is traitorous/villianous/vile/deplorable/insane/disgusting/idiotic/suicidal..............shall I go on?

yeh...good thing i definitelly didn't choose the green ending then..er .. um...not that I know the synthesis ending was green...um....

[darthoptimus003]

the reason its a green choice is because 2 of the devs watched star trek and it was the borg movie
and said hey lets make this an option
"we are the borg"
but really all three endings are a kick to the quad

[The Angry One]

Synthesis, where the bad guys are:

> Capitulated to.
> Vindicated.
> Set free to do as they please.

Inspiring and uplifting!

And nobody try to lecture me with some pseudo-philosophical claptrap about how the Reapers are not "the bad guys". Yes, they are. They kill, maim and torture entire civilisations based on an illogical agenda. They enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on countless victims.
They are villains, end of story.

[Taboo]

I would label the Reapers the "opposing force". They need to be stopped to ensure the safety of others.

"Bad guy" is a meaningless term here.

They just need to be stopped.

[Catamantaloedis]

Synthesis is abominable to reason and morality.

[Taboo]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Synthesis is abominable to reason and morality.

Thank you Caligula.

[The Angry One]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I would label the Reapers the "opposing force". They need to be stopped to ensure the safety of others.

"Bad guy" is a meaningless term here.

They just need to be stopped.

Usually I'd simply go with antagonists, but the Reapers revel in destroying, murder and torture.
They enjoy spreading fear and shooting down defenceless civilians for fun. They go far beyond what would be necesarry for a clinical and ruthless extermination.
Not saying that would be okay, just pointing out that Reapers are not only the enemy, they're outright villainous, which makes the Catalyst's smarmy sugar-coating of it's actions all the more despicable.

[Taboo]

I'd always seen the Reapers as something that really believed they had a purpose and they do. What they represent to me, is a cold methodical logic that disregards individuals in the name of some perverse "good".

Kind of like Synthesis.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I'm back. =D ... not for real long, though.


[quote]The Angry One wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm not telling him to kill people, I'm making the best of the cards I've been dealt.[/quote]

The point is the Catalyst is killing people, and the only way it's willing to stop is if you do what it says and follow it's philosophy.
So instead of resisting this spiteful little bastard, we're forced into being it's tool to start it's "next solution".[/quote]

... like I said, I'm making the best of the cards I've been dealt.




[quote]

[quote]Another argument for another time.[/quote]
The point is it's undeniably made itself the enemy, even more so than Harbinger because it controls Harbinger.
Therefore nothing it says is to be trusted.[/quote]

He may have once been an enemy. As of the beginning of this scene, though, he isn't one. But again, I'm not going there, I'll go off on a tangent not relevant to the subject.



[quote]
[quote]It is clear that you don't understand "figurative" apart from "literal" interpretation. It's only, what, a 3rd grade reading skill?[/quote]
Why would the Catalyst start being figurative now when it wasn't doing so before?[/quote]

For the same reason it speaks English.


[quote]
[quote]Again, figure out the difference between literal and figurative speech, then we'll talk.[/quote]
I know the difference. You appear to not be aware when figurative speech is required and when it isn't.[/quote]

There are no rules involved in it. It's not unnecessary for him to use that language. If anything, it's an attempt at being less complicated.


[quote]

[quote]Also, there's a tell. The pause before he says "DNA." It's there to make sense of what he's saying. No different than the fact that he's speaking English, or calling the Reapers by their colloquial name rather than "that which you know as Reapers."[/quote]

And here I am looking down on indoctrination theorists for making leaps in logic and weird assumptions about dialogue pauses, and here you come along to top them.[/quote]

I editted my post, let me help you out a little.

[quote]A pause would imply brief thought, or emphasis. Meaning the word choice is distinct from anything else he is saying - it's carefully chosen. Crafted.[/quote]

Writers put those things there for a reason. Go back and see it in the subtitles, the line is written like: "a new... DNA."

It's a "tell" ... to use Poker terminology. You see a guy on the table with his cards leaning forward a bit. You may not see his cards, but you can pick up on the subtle action to figure something out. He's got a good hand, most likely, and is eagerly to bring that out.






[quote]The last one is dialogue consistency, which despite my Harbinger example you somehow still don't get.[/quote]

You know how trivial a complaint that is?

It is established that no aliens speak English, they're using translators, and we meet lots of aliens - particularly turians - that use our figures-of-speech beginning with "you humans say, ___" a number of times. Yet the dialogue is still completely rife with aliens using human figures of speech despite this, and can understand exactly what other humans mean when they use them.

What does that prove? In-universe, nothing. Out-of-universe, dialoge inconsistency on the part of the writers. Who cares? No one. In fact, it's probably for the best because writing otherwise would just be a pain in the ass - for them to write, for us to understand.

Why does it matter so much when the Catalyst is guilty of such an inconsistency? Because fans need to antogonize it to cope with dissatisfaction. But, fans are being emotional and not thinking straight. Otherwise they would make sense of it as easily as we make sense of many other inconsistencies that do not matter.




[quote]

[quote]I ignored nothing.[/quote]
Yet you deny there's been a significant change. You can't have it both ways.[/quote]

No, I'm sure there's a significant change too.

Just, maybe not to the magnitude of what others alledge. Like "METAL PARTS! FLESHY SYNTHETICS!" EDI and Joker both prove that wrong.

[Taboo]

If there was only some kind of future!

And these Cerulean skies!

Something in our skies!

Something in our skies!

Something in our blood!

Something in our skies!

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 10 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[Jenonax]

Taboo-XX wrote...

If there was only some kind of future!

And these Cerulean skies!

Something in our skies!

Something in our skies!

Something in our blood!

Something in our skies!

Are you feeling okay, Taboo?  

[Torga_DW]

synthesis is a pointless nonsense. The idea that you stop one group of lifeforms from killing another group of lifeforms by making them genetically identical is rediculous. The killing is still going on, you've just removed a largely meaningless point of distinction.

Its a bit like when they make the employment figures look better by changing how they classify unemployed. He still doesn't have a job, but we're putting him into a different category so that he isn't counted. hooray.

[Bill Casey]

It's a bit like that Futurama episode where that sentient rock alien genetically neuters everyone because the men and women keep fighting, and then switches everyone's gender...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 10 juin 2012 - 12:59 .

[d-boy15]

It's just an option... the one of three option.

but we know bioware try to make players choose it because they like it, may be they think it's an art.

[vurtual3]

Synthesis is desirable because it stops the reapers kiling everybody.
Also synthetic life once it exists as in ME universe will either have to be destroyed and not recreated (unlikely as organics will create it to give themselves an edge over other organics) or it will become vastly more intelligent than organic intelligence,relatively very quickly. It WILL be superior. Combined with the fact that it will have been created to either serve organics or aid in war between organics how exactly does this end well for organics?
Synthesis in ME3 solves this by presumably somehow integrating the ability to network intelligence into organics and giving synthetics the ability to experience the individual organic experience evolution gives us. Do I really understand it? No. And the games clearly state that neither I nor Shep can understand it prior to it happening. Does this mean that it makes all lifeforms the same/ends reproduction/has anything to do with some kind of fascism?! The ending sequences ,flawed as they may or may not be clearly show none of these things are true.
I have no problem with people not liking it,I just think it's strange that people can't accept that Bioware might just have had the idea that none of the endings are right or wrong,other than that they are all 'right' because they all stop the reapers,who could not have been stopped without the catalyst. The game is explicit about this .

[Epic777]

vurtual3 wrote...
The ending sequences ,flawed as they may or may not be clearly show none of these things are true.
I have no problem with people not liking it,I just think it's strange that people can't accept that Bioware might just have had the idea that none of the endings are right or wrong,other than that they are all 'right' because they all stop the reapers,who could not have been stopped without the catalyst. The game is explicit about this .

This is were I call BS. Bioware, shoves synthesis as the most desireable option in the face of the player.

Modifié par Epic777, 10 juin 2012 - 02:34 .

[Vigilant111]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Maybe that's because some of your criticism doesn't look all that reasonable from the other side. For instance your argument about the singularity (let's not get into that) or the nature of the Catalyst. Pure speculation. 

I accept the moral problem with Synthesis. I've tried to deal with it in my scenario, tweaking it in order to minimize its impact. Enough to justify it to myself. And yes, it is a risky choice, a jump into the unknown. I make that choice nonetheless. Others choose Destroy to avoid the risk, and I understand that.

But every other anti-Synthesis argument I've seen is based on false assumptions and/or insufficient data. Just as every single anti-Control argument, btw. All of them are based on insufficient data (no data in many cases), interpretations their opponents don't share, philosophies their opponents dislike (like I dislike "we shouldn't have that power"), or just plain nonsense. People will, of course, disagree about all that, but nobody has a reason to feel superior because of it. It's this insufferable certainty I can't stand.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd" -- Voltaire

1. u r no less speculating than us, technological acceleration to singularity is not a law, it seems u WANT it to be true rather than it IS true

2.No u haven't tweaked, from my understanding, u simply has dismissed morals

3. Lighten up, we are only criticising your fan fiction, to make it better:wizard:

4. No doubt, just wonder...sometimes misgivings are important in shaping better opinions, doubt leads us to search for the truth and then make better decisions

Modifié par Vigilant111, 10 juin 2012 - 06:16 .

[Ieldra]

@Vigilant111:
I am partly consequentialist. Within certain limits, I believe that the end justifies the means. I also support the genophage. I have tweaked my scenario to make the change reversible on an individual basis, and yes, that's pure speculation, but it's enough for me to justify it. It may not be enough for you, but we are different people with different value hierarchies.

As for the singularity, I have no problem accepting it as a premise in a fictional universe. I don't need real-world "proof". I have more problems accepting ME's take on FTL. The thing is, things like the singularity are beyond our current scientific knowledge. SF always expands science into the unknown, and sets more or less arbitrary rules there. I can see absolutely no problem with that as long as they're internally consistent. The problems start when the science used in SF intersects with current science, contradicting it. That's why I have a problem with the "explanation" of ME's FTL and with inter-species sex, and that's why everyone has problems with the "New DNA" and the "final evolution of life". Because there, we actually know something, and contradicting it shouldn't be done lightly if at all. But the singularity? Really, I have no idea why people can't accept that.

Or rather, I may have: they are looking for reasons for not having to accept anything about the endings because they're emotionally dissatisfying. Well, if you look for such things, you will find them. In any story. I haven't come across a story that's 100% plot-hole proof yet. ME3's ending is incredibly easy to dissect, but it's still people's own decision whether they want to be constructive and build something out of the wreck of ending we've got or stick to a destructive attitude.

When I see certain people's behaviour, it reminds me of children throwing a tantrum. "I hate this sandbox. I'll destroy everything anyone builds in it." Perhaps that's not surprising given Mac Walters' attitude "It's my sandbox, and I'll rather destroy it than let others play in it", but it's still immature.

[Vigilant111]

Fear alone will stifle the want of building an AI that is capable of singularity, as there are other ethical issues that need to be satisfied.

As with the ending, gamers could not accept it because it deviates from the main theme of the game, so far our resistance is directed at the reapers, it seems now the game used synthetics as scapegoats and attempt to preach about this higher principle about making peace with synthetics which originally was not an issue. The gamer was never revolved around beating evil synthetics, it is the reapers that need to be destroyed. People are complaining because the game pulled a 180...

As with your interpretation of synthesis, people criticizes it because if that were to happen in our world, it would be abhorrent...but u are entitle to guess that in the ME world, people don't care about such issues and are perfectly okay to subject a certain idea or imposition

[Nightdragon8]

Synthesis imo, was forced... at really only let those who wanted Edi and Joker get it on and be able to have a baby.

Honestly I thought it was going to reduce everyone to promoridal goo and make it so then it was a combo of the 2.

the funny part is that it will now make it so that the Reapers could then have Reaper babies. And then you can have Reaper human babies and so on and so forth.... so in reality it made it so everyone can have a huge space orgy...

*sigh* someone stop me PLZ!!!!!

[M Hedonist]

Reapers are something far worse than just bad guys or an opposing force, they're Lovecraftian horror creatures. The derelict reaper in ME2 showed us that. Even the derelict reaper kept indoctrinating people and doing terrible things to them. That's their very essence and it's possible they can't stop being that. And that's why any attempt at peace with them is foolish. They cannot be trusted or reasoned with like normal conscious beings.

Of course, the ending neuters them into tools used by the Catalyst. But still, even without doubting the trustworthiness of the Catalyst, we don't know whether they can just stop being what they are or whether they really can be repurposed. Which is why I find the Control ending "too good to be true". I fear Shepard would eventually be indoctrinated by the Reapers over time. Or the Reapers would continue passively indoctrinating people without Shepard's consent.

But I guess if you're willing to take on the risk of Synthesis you're also willing to take on the risk of letting the Reapers live. If you're already gambling with the laws of nature, what's gonna stop you from going even further? You're already playing god, you might as well trust the devil, too.

Edit: While I'm already at the subject of linking to tropes, please take attention of Evil Is Not a Toy, too.

Modifié par Sauruz, 10 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[Ieldra]

@Sauruz:
The Reapers stopped being Lovecraftian horrors as soon as Legion told us their nature, which was confirmed by the Catalyst in ME3. They're not intrinsically beyond understanding. The perception as Lovecraftian horrors was created by the visual presentation and the methods of their creation, but those are not intrinsic in how they come to be and what they are. What the Reapers are, they could come to be through less viscerally repulsive means, though of course the fact that they destroy "the old form" would still remain. The impression of Lovecraftian horrors is an artifact of the presentation. The story challenges us to look beyond that.

So, yes, the Reapers *are* nothing more than an opposing force, albeit a super-powerful one.

Also, I do not subscribe to the notion that there are powers we should not aspire to.