1256 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

We know only a few things about Synthesis. Synthetics acquire organic traits and vice versa. This will, in the mind of the Catalyst, stop a technological singularity from occurring, Beyond that is guesswork. I feel confident in saying personhood is retained because personhood is precisely what the geth and EDI attain over the course of the game. DNA becoming partly synthetic is a biological and physical impossibility, so metaphor is far more likely here.

As for the Reapers, the Catalyst refers to itself as a controller not a leader. They have their own personalities, but the will is subverted. Once they are blasted with the green light, they leave. It changed them too. Since their controller just got blown up, I can only assume they are free.

The problem as you admit is beyond your first  2 sentences everything else you say is your positive interpretation which is no better or worse than someone else's negative interpretation. I disagree with it all and see a much darker interpretation as being the logical conclusion. All 3 endings suffer from the same lack of facts and are open to interpretation which was the intent as evidenced by Walters 'speculation' comments.

[lillitheris]

wright1978 wrote...

The problem as you admit is beyond your first  2 sentences everything else you say is your positive interpretation which is no better or worse than someone else's negative interpretation. I disagree with it all and see a much darker interpretation as being the logical conclusion. All 3 endings suffer from the same lack of facts and are open to interpretation which was the intent as evidenced by Walters 'speculation' comments.

False equality. Leaving out the moral questions about the choice is fine, it’s a more subjective topic, but Synthesis is objectively worst of the three:

Both Destroy and Control can be explained somewhat reasonably with in-game mechanics. Destroy deletes all of the Reaper code in existence; Control creates some type of a control program or AI based on (or actually being) Shepard.

The entire idea of Synthesis, as explained in the game, is absurd. It doesn’t work on any level. Furthermore, it doesn’t even solve the problem it purports to solve. The actual mechanics of the synthesis are exactly as ludicrous as one would expect from trying to realize an absurd concept.

[KingZayd]

lillitheris wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

The problem as you admit is beyond your first  2 sentences everything else you say is your positive interpretation which is no better or worse than someone else's negative interpretation. I disagree with it all and see a much darker interpretation as being the logical conclusion. All 3 endings suffer from the same lack of facts and are open to interpretation which was the intent as evidenced by Walters 'speculation' comments.

False equality. Leaving out the moral questions about the choice is fine, it’s a more subjective topic, but Synthesis is objectively worst of the three:

Both Destroy and Control can be explained somewhat reasonably with in-game mechanics. Destroy deletes all of the Reaper code in existence; Control creates some type of a control program or AI based on (or actually being) Shepard.

The entire idea of Synthesis, as explained in the game, is absurd. It doesn’t work on any level. Furthermore, it doesn’t even solve the problem it purports to solve. The actual mechanics of the synthesis are exactly as ludicrous as one would expect from trying to realize an absurd concept.

Actually not all synthetics possess reaper code. So it could be that it targets anything emitting AI heurisitics.

[Ieldra]

@lillitheris:
I have created one plausible Synthesis scenario. I've never said it was canon. It can't be, because there is no canon. But if you want to answer the question what Synthesis actually does, you need to speculate, because what the game gives is vague and contradictory. With nothing but what's written, we have nothing to go with but one sentence. Or wouldn't you agree that "final evolution of life" and "new DNA" (taken literally) are nonsense and can't be used for a plausible Synthesis scenario?

What you object to is my method of speculation. Here, I'll spell it out again.

(A) Main premise: Core of the Synthesis concept is the idea of combining organics and synthetics. A Synthesis scenario that makes sense must fulfil certain conditions:
(1) It must combine organics and synthetics
(2) It must resolve the organic/synthetic problem
(3) It must get as close to the in-game presentation as possible without losing coherence.

( Additional premise: Every ending is a "good" ending within the constraints set by what's explicitly told us in the game.

From this, I have built one possible scenario out of an infinity of other possible scenarios which would fit the premises. jtav has created another. And Heeden another. All these are valid solutions. There is no single, canonical Synthesis. The question "what will happen" has no single answer. In this, Synthesis is structually very different from Destroy. If you choose Destroy, most consequences are clear. An interpretation that makes the geth survive in Destroy is on the same level of plausibility as an interpretation of Synthesis where Shepard survives, because Shepard's death is a clear consequence of Synthesis. I actually have such a headcanon, but there's a reason why I don't bring it into these discussions.

Basically, what I've done is discard what doesn't make sense and replace it with elements taken from the underlying themes. You may not agree with my methods, but it's the only way to make sense of things. Yet again, I challenge you to create an alternative scenario that's closer to the phrasing the game gives us. And makes sense.

Of course, you can brush it all off, say it makes no sense as written (which it doesn't - there, I've said it). I find that approach unsatisfying. I'd rather set myself the task "MAKE it make sense!" using the main premises given above.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juin 2012 - 12:46 .

[NedPepper]

InHarmsWay wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

And if the EC doesn't add clarification...maybe it's time, as hard as is may be...to just let it go.  Think of Mass Effect as a really great, inventive series that was a lot of fun until the last five minutes turned everything into a illogical mess. 

And then we shall see how well DA3 does. Mass Effect 3's price went down by close to fifty percent in many store locations due to the ending.

People won't just let it go without a grudge. Fans have been burnt one too many times. Dragon Age 2, Old Republic, and now this.

See, in a way, I'm STOKED for Dragon Age 3.  Say whatever about Dragon Age 2 (I love the game as much as Origins and played it more than all three MEs combined.), the narrative made sense and ended with an interesting cliffhanger.  I care nothing about an MMO, and I'm distressed at the rumors that DA 3 is on the back burner to fix SWTOR. 

Back to the point.  So, if the EC does disappoint, and we still have all of this dissatisfaction, and what you say is true about fans' interest in Bioware's products, what does Bioware do?

Create a new ending?  Go with the ID theory, have a Shepard wake up and continue fighting the Reapers?  This EC has not been advertised that way, so that would mean Bioware would have to once again go back to the ending.  And this time, I imagine you'd have to pay for it.  Would you pay for it is the question? ( I would, actually.)

Will they put more time and money into an ending if the EC fails, though?  I doubt it.  I think they will simply tell you do exactly what I said and move on.  Priestly has already said as much. 

BUT, I do hope the EC provides some clarification and we never have to get to these what ifs.  I think the fact that it's taken longer than we expected may point to some of this.  But we'll see and keep fingers crossed.

Modifié par nedpepper, 13 juin 2012 - 12:42 .

[InHarmsWay]

nedpepper wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

And if the EC doesn't add clarification...maybe it's time, as hard as is may be...to just let it go.  Think of Mass Effect as a really great, inventive series that was a lot of fun until the last five minutes turned everything into a illogical mess. 

And then we shall see how well DA3 does. Mass Effect 3's price went down by close to fifty percent in many store locations due to the ending.

People won't just let it go without a grudge. Fans have been burnt one too many times. Dragon Age 2, Old Republic, and now this.

See, in a way, I'm STOKED for Dragon Age 3.  Say whatever about Dragon Age 2 (I love the game as much as Origins and played it more than all three MEs combined.), the narrative made sense and ended with an interesting cliffhanger.  I care nothing about an MMO, and I'm distressed at the rumors that DA 3 is on the back burner to fix SWTOR. 

Back to the point.  So, if the EC does disappoint, and we still have all of this dissatisfaction, and what you say is true about fans' interest in Bioware's products, what does Bioware do?

Create a new ending?  Go with the ID theory, have a Shepard wake up and continue fighting the Reapers?  This EC has not been advertised that way, so that would mean Bioware would have to once again go back to the ending.  And this time, I imagine you'd have to pay for it.  Would you pay for it is the question? ( I would, actually.)

Will they put more time and money into an ending if the EC fails, though?  I doubt it.  I think they will simply tell you do exactly what I said and move on.  Priestly has already said as much. 

BUT, I do hope the EC provides some clarification and we never have to get to these what ifs.  I think the fact that it's taken longer than we expected may point to some of this.  But we'll see and keep fingers crossed.

And I'm saying they can do that. They can tell me to move on. Which is what I'll do.

This is what many people will do.

This will be reflected in DA3 when its sales will be no where near as high as ME3 or DA2. People don't trust them anymore. Their reputation will be ruined and they become one of the many studios that have fallen since their union with EA like Westwood.

Modifié par InHarmsWay, 13 juin 2012 - 12:52 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

From this, I have built one possible scenario out of an infinity of other possible scenarios which would fit the premises. jtav has created another. And Heeden another. All these are valid solutions. There is no single, canonical Synthesis. The question "what will happen" has no single answer.

The plants glow the same as Joker glows the same as his hat glows. The Catalyst says it's a new DNA. These are canon, but you throw them out.

Ieldra2 wrote...
In this, Synthesis is structually very different from Destroy. If you choose Destroy, most consequences are clear. An interpretation that makes the geth survive in Destroy is on the same level of plausibility as an interpretation of Synthesis where Shepard survives, because Shepard's death is a clear consequence of Synthesis. I actually have such a headcanon, but there's a reason why I don't bring it into these discussions.

Actually, a Destroy scenario in which the geth survive is identical to your rambling premise-based Synthesis scenario. In fact, there is even more evidence that the geth and EDI aren't destroyed than you have for any of your premise-based scenario.
1. None of the geth or EDI are shown dead.
2. One of the beings mentioned specifically by the Catalyst as implied to be destroyed is in fact not destroyed (Shepard), increasing the possibility the others whom he never even mentions specifically are not destroyed either.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Basically, what I've done is discard what doesn't make sense and replace it with elements taken from the underlying themes.

Basically, what you've done is just write some fanfiction.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 13 juin 2012 - 02:05 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think that synthesis only has the aura of being an option that serves the greater good or whatever you want to call that. And that is because it is rotten to its core. Here is why:

So far the reapers have reproduced themselves by genocide using the most horrific methods imaginable. They use genocide because the civilizations harvested cease to exist in their current form. Whatever they were before, they will be dead and gone by turning them into a goo, before they will be turned into something new. That process is, what the reapers call, "ascension through destruction". No matter what the ethics are of the reapers, it does not take into account the ethics of their victims. The same goes for free will and the right of self-determination. No doubt serial killers have ideas about those concepts too, but as a victim I am not really interested in that. Nor should I care. Also, their intentions are irrelevant as well, because, even if any hypothetical foes were proven to exist, then the reapers threatens the existence of those who they claim to preserve. In the end the reapers have become what they were supposed to fight: A bio-synthetic species that threatens the existence of organic life. And if the synthesis option has been chosen then they will get away with their cyclical maniacal genocidal reproduction method to keep themselves at the top of the food chain.

Synthesis itself is also genocide, because the affected races cease to exist and make way for another hybrid one. If that solution is supposed to end the hypothetical organic/synthetic problem then obviously it has to change something in the state of mind and in the physiology of that "new framework" driven race. That means that any free will of those races is altered to make them believe the hypothetical organic/synthetic problem has been solved. Without that, there isn't even a reason for synthesis. Even if a player believes that this new form is the pinnacle of evolution, then again opting for that is a violation of the right of self-determination. Nobody gave their consent for such a radical race transformation.

According to BW's PR, Star Child is supposed to be a "Being of Light" which is supposed to protect organics from "Machine Devils" (see Klencory).

Maybe those machine devils are supposed to be the synthetics we know of. If so then in two consecutive cycles organics have dealt with any problems that these synthetics might have caused. In Javik's cycle the reapers caused that these synthetics turned against their creators and in Shepard's cycle the geth defended themselves against hostilities of the quarians, the reapers turned the geth into hostile heretics and the reapers controlled the geth during the Rannoch war. The protheans dealt with their synthetics by exterminating them, and in "our" cycle the geth were defeated or helped Shepard in the war against the reapers. So, it cannot be those synthetics that caused problems and let's hope the machine devils are not some other hostile race we have not encountered yet. Fact is that in two consecutive cycles the reapers did try to make themselves relevant my turning synthetics against organics.

If those machine devils are something other than the synthetics from the last two cycles then only the codex entries are the link to them. I think it is unlikely, because Star Child's conversation does not mention those directly, but it does mention Rannoch and the geth (which, depending on your choice, it gets totally wrong).

No matter what, Star Child claims that these hypothetical foes, who we have never encountered and for which there is no proof whatsoever, are the true enemies. It presents the player with 3 options which are effectively solutions to a non-existent problem that in one way or another let the reapers off the hook and/or betray Shepard's allies. Two of those options also kill Shepard one way or another and even in the destroy option the geth die and, when the PC does not play MP, Shepard dies as well. To be frank, I do not want to become a martyr of a hypothetical cause, nor do I want to exterminate any allies.

One can argue that, although we haven't encountered those "very dangerous" foes, Star Child does know about them. But so far there is absolutely no reason to believe the brat. He doesn't come with proof and above all it is very hard to trust someone who exterminated countless civilizations in the most horrific way imaginable and almost succeeded in destroying Shepard's cycle. Two of his options let our sweet saviors, the reapers, off the hook and the third kill the geth and all of them most likely kill you. On top of that the brat destroys the complete infrastructure and leaves an entire fleet stranded with starvation as a result. Just to be sure. His malice knows no bounds.

There is only one conclusion possible: Synthesis stinks and we can miss the brat like a toothache.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 13 juin 2012 - 02:43 .

[Shallyah]

http://social.biowar...5277/1#12555700

Modifié par Shallyah, 13 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...
I mean, I tried temporarily putting aside the moral issue (I know how my moral absolutism bothers you) to discuss possible unintended consequences of merging all organic and synthetic life, but you guys just won't have it. Apparently, it simply isn't possible for any bad thing to come of Synthesis. Apparently, we're all just supposed to pat you guys on the back and congratulate you for your wise choice? Instead of having the temerity to disagree with you?

Apparently you missed the point where I quoted ardensia's blog. It's here. Read the second-but-last paragraph. I'm not painting a sunshine-and-rainbows version. There will be conflict, there will be people, perhaps even whole species, who will curse Shepard's name - or would do so if they knew there had been alternatives. There will be new horrors along with new wonders because people just are like that. But that's always the price for having new options, however they come about. With every new option, the number of subcultures will increase. Some of them will be unpleasant. But cultural diversity will increase drastically. The average power and understanding will increase.     

I wasn't talking about political fallout and cultural upheaval, although those things are worth talking about.  How many people will commit suicide? How many people will die in resulting riots?  And how do you measure those numbers against the geth that you saved?

Ultimately, though, that discussion is a dodge. I was asking a more direct question.  More specifically, I was revisiting a comment that Antares made, because it piqued my interest.  I'm paraphrasing a bit, but basically he commented that the process of Synthesis would likely bring about the extinction of some species as their ecological niches disappeared.  The implication being that Synthesis is not free from the genocide criticism that is leveled at Destructionists.

Jtav hand-waved this away with some space-magicky bit about outmoded organisms being re-purposed or something, but I find that to be a highly unsatisfactory explanation.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 03:06 .

[Ieldra]

I have no idea why Synthesis should make anything go extinct. No intelligent species anyway - usually we reserve the term "genocide" for those.
As for others, I'm still awaiting the EC clarification. I hope the EC will do away with the silly notion of half-synthetic plants and stuff.

Or are you talking about certain cultures disappearing? That may happen, but then, this happens all the time as times change. People usually adapt to those changes instead of getting themselves killed.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have no idea why Synthesis should make anything go extinct. No intelligent species anyway - usually we reserve the term "genocide" for those.
As for others, I'm still awaiting the EC clarification. I hope the EC will do away with the silly notion of half-synthetic plants and stuff.

Or are you talking about certain cultures disappearing? That may happen, but then, this happens all the time as times change. People usually adapt to those changes instead of getting themselves killed.

Cultures disappearing? Not only that. Entire races disappear. They cease to exist. They transform into something different. The resulting race is forced to change their state of mind, otherwise there is no use in this being a solution for the brat's hypothetical organic/synthetic problem, is there? So it changes their individual free will too. It also changes their physiology. That's more proof of the original races have gone extinct. Genocide also has a forced element. That's true in this case as well. Synthesis as forced upon them by Shepard also violates their right of self-determination. Nobody asked them what they wanted. There is nothing beneficial into all of this, unless those involved agree on that. There is also an awful lot of violence involved. The races nearly became extinct before the brat would even open up his mouth and force you to choose one of his idiotic solutions to a non-existent problem.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 13 juin 2012 - 04:01 .

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have no idea why Synthesis should make anything go extinct. No intelligent species anyway - usually we reserve the term "genocide" for those.
As for others, I'm still awaiting the EC clarification. I hope the EC will do away with the silly notion of half-synthetic plants and stuff.

Or are you talking about certain cultures disappearing? That may happen, but then, this happens all the time as times change. People usually adapt to those changes instead of getting themselves killed.

Countless flora and fauna species across the galaxy will go extinct because Synthesis forces an instant radical upheaval of the entire evolutionary balance of life everywhere. Biological niches will disappear and species will go extinct.
The EC will not change anything. Synthesis includes plant life. All life everywhere in the galaxy. If you're going to go to such ridiculous lengths to make fanfiction to defend Synthesis, you have to include hybrid non-intelligent life. leldra2's theory is one of parasitic invasion that monitors and controls all life forms.

[clennon8]

antares_sublight wrote...

The EC will not change anything. Synthesis includes plant life. All life everywhere in the galaxy.

Well, it will probably be clarified to not include Joker's hat.    Other than that, though, you're right.  Plant life is included.

[antares_sublight]

clennon8 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

The EC will not change anything. Synthesis includes plant life. All life everywhere in the galaxy.

Well, it will probably be clarified to not include Joker's hat.    Other than that, though, you're right.  Plant life is included.

"Justified" you mean. Hah.

[clennon8]

Random thought: Synthesis = A New God (?)  * That ought to make ieldra bristle. 

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 04:26 .

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

Countless flora and fauna species across the galaxy will go extinct because Synthesis forces an instant radical upheaval of the entire evolutionary balance of life everywhere. Biological niches will disappear and species will go extinct.
The EC will not change anything. Synthesis includes plant life. All life everywhere in the galaxy. If you're going to go to such ridiculous lengths to make fanfiction to defend Synthesis, you have to include hybrid non-intelligent life. leldra2's theory is one of parasitic invasion that monitors and controls all life forms.

Pro-Synthesis head-canon only has to satisfy themes from the ME games. Mass extinctions and hybrid life-forms are fan fiction that don't necessarily draw on the themes of Synthesis.

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Countless flora and fauna species across the galaxy will go extinct because Synthesis forces an instant radical upheaval of the entire evolutionary balance of life everywhere. Biological niches will disappear and species will go extinct.
The EC will not change anything. Synthesis includes plant life. All life everywhere in the galaxy. If you're going to go to such ridiculous lengths to make fanfiction to defend Synthesis, you have to include hybrid non-intelligent life. leldra2's theory is one of parasitic invasion that monitors and controls all life forms.

Pro-Synthesis head-canon only has to satisfy themes from the ME games. Mass extinctions and hybrid life-forms are fan fiction that don't necessarily draw on the themes of Synthesis.

And the glowing plants at the end? "Oh just ignore that"
Catalyst saying ALL LIFE is hybridized? "Oh just ignore that"

Guess what, those are themes from the ME games now.

[Ieldra]

@antares
You have no evidence whatsoever for your assumptions. As for the plant life - I did say I'm willing to discard things that make no sense. If Bioware insists on it, I'll revisit the topic again.

And....if you would please refrain from outright lying about what my scenario entails. That's cheap demagoguery. Not that there isn't enough of that by anti-Synthesis fanatics here already. It's almost your hallmark. For everyone who's interested in what I'm really proposing instead of listening to propaganda, you'll find it here.

@clennon8:
Heeden has speculated that Synthesis will create some kind of galactic superorganism, like the future "Galaxia" in Asimov's Foundation cycle. I'm not particularly fond of this scenario, but it's a possible interpretation.This interpretation has something in common with the theology of Teilhard de Chardin, who postulated that an "emerging noosphere" will increasingly connect all life mentally to culminate in the emergence of God. I'm not particularly fond of that either, but the "final evolution of life" can be interpreted to point there. As opposed to the stuff Synthesis detractors have been posting, it has the definite advantage of being constructive and interesting.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juin 2012 - 04:39 .

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

And the glowing plants at the end? "Oh just ignore that"

Special effects, drawing space magic is hard.

Catalyst saying ALL LIFE is hybridized? "Oh just ignore that"

The Catalyst does not use the word hybridised at all.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@antares
You have no evidence whatsoever for your assumptions. As for the plant life - I did say I'm willing to discard things that make no sense. If Bioware insists on it, I'll revisit the topic again.

And....if you would please refrain from outright lying about what my scenario entails. That's cheap demagoguery. Not that there isn't enough of that by anti-Synthesis fanatics here already. It's almost your hallmark. For everyone who's interested in what I'm really proposing instead of listening to propaganda, you'll find it here.

I have more evidence for my questions and assumptions than you do for your pro-synthesis theory. And BioWare gave more evidence to plant life being synthesized than to the geth or EDI dying, revisit it.

Your nanites lie in wait, monitoring life to become intelligent, and then they activate and radically modify the organism. They're parasites, galactic puppeteers. Your theory requires that these hybrid forms enter a singularity. You state that new pure-synthetics will still be created and possibly reach a singularity. Evolution will make new pure-organics, which will face the exact same dangers organics faced before, except now from *two* singularities.

Ieldra2 wrote...
@clennon8:
Heeden has speculated that Synthesis will create some kind of galactic superorganism, like the future "Galaxia" in Asimov's Foundation cycle. I'm not particularly fond of this scenario, but it's a possible interpretation.This interpretation has something in common with the theology of Teilhard de Chardin, who postulated that an "emerging noosphere" will increasingly connect all life mentally to culminate in the emergence of God. I'm not particularly fond of that either, but the "final evolution of life" can be interpreted to point there. As opposed to the stuff Synthesis detractors have been posting, it has the definite advantage of being constructive and interesting.

To quote yourself, "You/he have no evidence whatsoever for your/his assumptions. "

[clennon8]

I can't help but feel like there's some disingenuousness coming from the pro-Synth side. It seems patently obvious the intent was for plant life - all life - to be included in the Synthesis process. The Catalyst's own words indicate this. Those plant meshes at the end are no mistake. They won't be clarified away. Also, the Catalyst may not use the word "hybridised," but it's patently obvious that that's what he's describing. Come on now, can we be serious and stop playing word games? If you're going to defend Synthesis, then defend it. But defend it as it was presented.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 04:50 .

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

And the glowing plants at the end? "Oh just ignore that"

Special effects, drawing space magic is hard.

Sooooooo.... "just ignore that".

Heeden wrote...

Catalyst saying ALL LIFE is hybridized? "Oh just ignore that"

The Catalyst does not use the word hybridised at all.

The Catalyst saying specifically: "combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA." "Oh just ignore that"

Modifié par antares_sublight, 13 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[jtav]

Do you really want to play this game when cinematics show the relays blowing up Arrival-style? Congratulations, you just destroyed all life in the galaxy! Except we know we didn't. Same with synthesis. We know life continues to exist centuries or millenia later in the Stargazer scene.

[The Night Mammoth]

jtav wrote...

Do you really want to play this game when cinematics show the relays blowing up Arrival-style? Congratulations, you just destroyed all life in the galaxy! Except we know we didn't. Same with synthesis. We know life continues to exist centuries or millenia later in the Stargazer scene.

That's not proof of anything, but okay. 

Supernovas don't destory entire clusters, only systems. 

Not that I believe they went out Arrival-style.