156 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Ah yes. Ethics says the guy who forces a fundamental genetic change on the entire galaxy. 

yes co-existence is such a bad thing! /sarcasm

Your response makes absolutely zero sense. The entire idea behind synthesis is that coexistence is impossible between synthetics and organics. That's like resolving the differences between blacks and whites by making everyone mulatto. Noone truly learns anything, they're just now the same.

YAY FOR RACISM. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[alienatedflea]

NoUserNameHere wrote...


The Geth and Quarians were coexisting just fine (and had been for 5 game-hours) before the writers decided to force some kind of an aesop on us.

depending on your playthrough but you forced/forged an alliance between the turians and krogans just as you did with the geth and quarians...you forced them to play nice...and guess what? it worked...why the heck isnt synthesis viewed this way? because the change is different and non-conventional so it must be feared and demonized because its a possibility that reapers and all other organic civilizations could CO-EXIST!

[Malanek]

miracleofsound wrote...
From what I can see, all it does is link everyone together in a subtle way that gives greater understanding and acceptance of their differences 

I actually agree that it does not destroy diversity, I've never understood that argument. However I certainly don't agree with this statement either. It's difficult to debate synthesis properly because it is probably one of the most unrealistic notions I've ever seen in any science fiction. However it talks about altering every living beings DNA and making organics, inorganic. How this is done is not elaborated on. Is it altering various carbon compunds accross the entire galaxy? That is the best theory I have and that goes way beyond linking everyone together in some sort of galaxy wide ethernet. It is also important to note that synthesis alters everyones natural path of evolution. I strongly believe a peace option would have been significantly better and more realistic than synthesis.

Modifié par Malanek999, 29 juin 2012 - 03:09 .

[Seryl]

Adanu wrote...

A lot of the people here feel morality gets in the way of this choice. They're being silly, but what can you do with close minded fools?

My god ...

I truly hope you're trolling. If not, then I really hope you remember this comment  and in a few years realize exactly how horrifying it is.

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...


The Geth and Quarians were coexisting just fine (and had been for 5 game-hours) before the writers decided to force some kind of an aesop on us.

depending on your playthrough but you forced/forged an alliance between the turians and krogans just as you did with the geth and quarians...you forced them to play nice...and guess what? it worked...why the heck isnt synthesis viewed this way? because the change is different and non-conventional so it must be feared and demonized because its a possibility that reapers and all other organic civilizations could CO-EXIST!

If you cannot understand the sociopolitical themes in what you just posted we're in deep ****.

[nitefyre410]

 Will have I am not as repulse by Synthesis as some... the ending itself brings to mind  the words of one my favorite video game characters. 

"Its not about changing the world  its about leaving it the way that it is."  

While the idea behind admirable... I don't think you need to have the genetic  reboot to achieve the level of understanding.   Thats where my  issue with Synthesis comes in. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 29 juin 2012 - 03:12 .

[alienatedflea]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Your response makes absolutely zero sense. The entire idea behind synthesis is that coexistence is impossible between synthetics and organics. That's like resolving the differences between blacks and whites by making everyone mulatto. Noone truly learns anything, they're just now the same.

clearly you need to watch the EC synthesis scene again...thats not the case

[Sylvianus]

Ug Smash wrote...

The big issue I've always had with synthesis (and still do), is how in the world is it going to affect primitive cultures? Ones that have no concept of life on other planets, let alone synthetic life? I can't see those types of civilizations reacting well to synthesis.
 

Anyways, that's my two cents.

Since it's space magic, I think all the universe is concerned. When they said, no more wars between organics and synthetics, never,, that means no more wars forever. So, it means, even the primitive cultures were changed. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. And synthesis has no point to be used.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 juin 2012 - 03:12 .

[darkiddd]

miracleofsound wrote...

It is quite clear from the slides that synthesis leaves each race and even each individual with their own identity and diversity. Krogan build back their blocky megastructures (and are clearly still able to reproduce organically and naturally), Quarians rebuild their slick, linear Rannoch cities, humans co-operate to rebuild earth... everyone on the Normandy clearly retains their individual personalities.

From what I can see, all it does is link everyone together in a subtle way that gives greater understanding and acceptance of their differences - almost like it just shares the collective knowledge and memory of the many previous cycles with everyone. The green tech effect could almost be seen as a metaphor for this gentle unity - at least that's how I see it.

When people complain about synthesis being exactly what Saren wanted, I feel they are missing the point, no? 

It gives greater understanding because everyone is more alike. Now there's no machine or organic disctintion now. Everyone has a new DNA.

The more different two persons are from each other the more merit there is when they understand and respect each other.

Synthesis gives more uniformity between organics and machines so that understanding won't be difficult, that is a failure in itself. Synthesis is based on the premise that true understanding is impossible because there is too much diversity and differences in the galaxy, especially between organics and machines (just what the reapers believe).

Shepard through his interactions with his squadmates has completely disproven this belief. Undestanding is always possible if we do an intelectual effort because there's always things that are common in all species, and that's what can unite despite the differences. When Shepard chooses synthesis the reapers and their failed logic win, Shepard loses and the symbol of unity Shepard represented is broken. Diversity is killed.

Moral of the story with synthesis: We will never understand each other, there's just too many differences. Let's just kill who we are and make all of us much more equal in every aspect. If we are all the same we won't kill each other right?

Synthesis looks nice on the outside for people who don't believe true coexistence is possible but it is an abomination, if you think about it just a little. 

[WhiteKnyght]

Synthesis is an uplift.

If the Catalyst's logic is to be believed, someone subjected to synthesis should be able to do pretty much everything they would use technology for.

My guess would be that its like having your omitool built in, rather than wearing it on your arm.

[GreyLycanTrope]

alienatedflea wrote...
taboo  I dont understand why you have a bug up your ass about synthesis but its clear to me that you think there is no price too great in order to achieve (what you believe is Shepard's main objective) the destruction of the reaper race in their entirety...that line of thinking provoke some pretty clear unethical motives/ideas

That depends entirely on how one views Reapers as life forms. Say husks for example, they can be made from both living and non living human bodies as stated in the codex. I would therefore define them as already dead, they're bodies have simply been repurposed. Same deal with the larger Reapers repurposed civilizations, effectively already dead. I see Reapers as little more then walking graveyards with lazerbeams so I don't feel like I'm committing genocide in their case. Can't really kill what's already dead, but I can stop the Catalyst from manipulating what was left.

[Ultra Prism]

Sythesis may have ethical and morality issue, but it seems to provides one thing the most .... ultimate freedom and peace .... access to all technology and better lives .... after all the Starchild says it explicitiy, Organics need technology and Synthetics needs understanding of being alive!

[GreyLycanTrope]

Ultra Prism wrote...

Sythesis may have ethical and morality issue, but it seems to provides one thing the most .... ultimate freedom and peace .... access to all technology and better lives .... after all the Starchild says it explicitiy, Organics need technology and Synthetics needs understanding of being alive!

If that is the case we should be able to achieve it on our own, that would be ultimate freedom.

[Tealjaker94]

alienatedflea wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Your response makes absolutely zero sense. The entire idea behind synthesis is that coexistence is impossible between synthetics and organics. That's like resolving the differences between blacks and whites by making everyone mulatto. Noone truly learns anything, they're just now the same.

clearly you need to watch the EC synthesis scene again...thats not the case

If there are no longer synthetics and organics, how the **** can they coexist? Here's a definition for coexist-
2. To live in peace with another or others despite differences
Getting rid of differences cannot lead to coexistence. It's simply existence then.

Modifié par Tealjaker94, 29 juin 2012 - 03:16 .

[Jamie9]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

There is no evidence to the claim that they are forced to co-exist.

That is the base function of Synthesis. To prevent a hypothetical problem.

It gives Synthetics traits of Organics and vice versa so they can coexist.

It's completely and utterly pathetic.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, every ending has Shepard like this.

Destroy - Oh? Guess you don't think synthetics are equal?

Control - The Reapers are synthetic. Not equal?

Synthesis - They have to be more similar. Guess they couldn't get along, eh?

Refuse - They all die.

I believe organics and synthetics can co-exist peacefully without synthesis. That's not why I picked it, even if the Catalyst thinks that. He's wrong.

[Sylvianus]

Freedom isn't a part at all of what offers synthesis. It is more about ultimate peace and better lives according to EDI.

[WhiteKnyght]

Sylvianus wrote...

Ug Smash wrote...

The big issue I've always had with synthesis (and still do), is how in the world is it going to affect primitive cultures? Ones that have no concept of life on other planets, let alone synthetic life? I can't see those types of civilizations reacting well to synthesis.
 

Anyways, that's my two cents.

Since it's space magic, I think all the universe is concerned. When they said, no more wars between organics and synthetics, never,, that means no more wars forever. So, it means, even the primitive cultures were changed. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. And synthesis has no point to be used.

The epilogue slides are meant to display future events and give closure to the story.

- Destroy implies that organics will control the future and rise to meet any enemy that they face.

- Control implies that the Reapers will maintain peace for all eternity.

- Synthesis implies lasting peace and coexistence between all races, including the Reapers who live among the organics, sharing all the knowledge of past cycles.

[Taboo]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Ultra Prism wrote...

Sythesis may have ethical and morality issue, but it seems to provides one thing the most .... ultimate freedom and peace .... access to all technology and better lives .... after all the Starchild says it explicitiy, Organics need technology and Synthetics needs understanding of being alive!

If that is the case we should be able to achieve it on our own, that would be ultimate freedom.

The Catalyst ****ing says this. In his goddamn lines.

There is no need to jump into the beam.

[WhiteKnyght]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Ultra Prism wrote...

Sythesis may have ethical and morality issue, but it seems to provides one thing the most .... ultimate freedom and peace .... access to all technology and better lives .... after all the Starchild says it explicitiy, Organics need technology and Synthetics needs understanding of being alive!

If that is the case we should be able to achieve it on our own, that would be ultimate freedom.

The Catalyst ****ing says this. In his goddamn lines.

There is no need to jump into the beam.

How long do you think it would take for organics to achieve it on their own when the Reapers haven't been able to find a way in BILLIONS of years?

Also there's the Catalyst's whole issue about synthetics surpassing organics and destroying them. In his logic, he doesn't have time to sit and wait.

[Jamie9]

Sylvianus wrote...

Freedom isn't a part at all of what offers synthesis. It is more about ultimate peace and better lives according to EDI.

This is an incredibly difficult topic, no? How should we, as a society, balance laws and freedoms. Too many laws, not enough freedom. Not enough laws, too much freedom, becomes counterproductive and dangerous for people.

Hard finding the balance.

[alienatedflea]

deals are the kind way of forcing people to play nice...Catalysts gives you three deals and you have four options...the fact that people wanted you to lead the march to retake earth and protected your ass to get on the Citadel makes you a representative to the whole galaxy...by that you do have the consent of the peoples of the galaxy...so this ethical argument that you forced this on people is flawed at its base...if proven otherwise then all of our govts and their voting elections are forms of forcing change upon us...if we were outraged by the forced changed upon us...then we would violently uprise...but we do not...so your point is moot Taboo

[Taboo]

The Catalyst presents fallacies. The EC paints him as a fallacious AI. He is a machine like HAL. He looks for a simple solution. His parameters were to save Organics. He was not told he could not kill them.

He never sought a new solution until Shepard arrives. THIS is the point at the end.

[PsyrenY]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Also there's the Catalyst's whole issue about synthetics surpassing organics and destroying them. In his logic, he doesn't have time to sit and wait.

He really doesn't. If it weren't for him, the Geth would have already beaten the clock, a mere 300 years after being born.

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Catalyst presents fallacies. The EC paints him as a fallacious AI. He is a machine like HAL. He looks for a simple solution. His parameters were to save Organics. He was not told he could not kill them.

He never sought a new solution until Shepard arrives. THIS is the point at the end.

 

Because he couldn't. No Crucible, remember?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 29 juin 2012 - 03:22 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Jamie9 wrote...

I agree with you. Unfortunately, every ending has Shepard like this.

Destroy - Oh? Guess you don't think synthetics are equal?

Control - The Reapers are synthetic. Not equal?

Synthesis - They have to be more similar. Guess they couldn't get along, eh?

Refuse - They all die.

I believe organics and synthetics can co-exist peacefully without synthesis. That's not why I picked it, even if the Catalyst thinks that. He's wrong.

Off topic: And this is exactly why I still can't like the ending, we can't escape from these assumptions.

[DRTJR]

From what I understand Synthesis is destroying the culture of every species in the galaxy, removing any and all causes for strife and basically making every man, woman, and child the same to stop all conflict. Removing the great equalizer itself death, and turning us all into (advanced)husks.