219 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hater? How does one "hate" an act of evil rather than see it for what it is?
Moreover, what is there to respond to? That Mass Effect has had some concepts of transhumanism? Yes? And? So? Therefore? That justifies the sickening imposition of it on all life how?

It's hardly as evil as Refusal, and Destroy carries quite a high cost as well. Control is somewhat acceptable, but deeply risky.

think we can all at least agree they are all evil in their own way, well besides control i guess, i mean it kinda is if you think the reapers are anything more then machines. but also as you said it is really risky. after you just heard how the catalyst was created

[Xilizhra]

The things I find most abhorent in Synthesis (and Control) are the husks waking up from being controlled by the Reapers. How horrible would it be to have to live out your life as an abomination? Banshees, Brutes, Praetorians, Scions, etc...bad enough when your form is sort of what it used to be. Worse when you are two species mushed together. I, personally, would prefer death.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to be transformed into a naked mole rat, but the rats are fine with it. I doubt the husks will retain memories of their previous lives, being synthetics themselves. They'll only know existence as what they are.

And every ending option "forces" something upon others...

Quite so.

[Lazengan]

I never chose synthesis

organic evolution is halted, "peace" is achieved throughout the galaxy.

Progress becomes stagnant, the futility of living in this galaxy is proven. There is literally no point in existence anymore.

I don't believe that evolution has an "end goal", it should keep on going. Utopian societies will never progress beyond anything, war and conflict must happen to keep a healthy galaxy.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Knowing the Catalyst it would probably approve of such logic. It loves fallacies of inevitability.

Its logic is valid, but it holds a potentially false statement to be true, namely that synthetics will eventually obliterate organics.  That claim is a premise; logic doesn't evaluate the truth or falsity of premises.  It ensures your conclusions are entailed by your premises.  His are.  Your evidence that in the ME universe that premise is a false one is what?

On that something that's never happened is not inevitable. On that the Geth, EDI and events in the Prothean cycle directly prove it wrong. On the simple fact that unilateral action based on the presumption on inevitability is idiotic.

So you don't have any proof.  The Catalyst has magic quantum bluebox thought; who knows?  I think the writers simply intended for that premise to be a true one in ME.  It doesn't matter if they contradicted themselves, either through earlier writers, inconsistent codex entries, scenes that entail opposite conclusions, whatever.  I think the scene remains literally true.  I can tell you outright that the writers don't understand actual logic, so why are you insisting they must have been internally consistent here? 

Plus your first sentence is false.  I have never dropped a glass, one that hasn't even been made yet for added not happeningness, from the Empire State Building.  If I do make it and then drop it, it is *inevitable* that it will break.

[Bone3ater]

The Angry One wrote...
This is what is stated in the game. They will now be connected to the Reapers.

Interesting. Link to a vid or post from a dev where something along those lines is stated please? If you don't have one, I'll just file this statement in my "BS"-Folder.

The Angry One wrote...
And I wasn't talking about an overlord, so again your point is moot.

Indeed. And I wasn't only talking about an overlord, so again, read carefully.

The Angry One wrote...
I'm insulting you? YOU'RE the one yelling at me for not swallowing your oh so great synthesis and suddenly I'm being insulting because I'm pointing out you're making strawman arguments?

Yes, you did, in a snide and condescending manner you told me to "look up the definiton of  collective mind".
Quote where I was yelling and forcing you to swallow my oh so great synthesis. Didn't find that, and I don't recollect ever writing something like that. I was mereley defending synthesis against seemingly biased conspiracy theories with little to no supporting evidence. And of course against your strawmans. For example:

The Angry One wrote...
With the implication of them all being
connected to the Reapers and with each other, possibly the imposition of
a collective will.

Congratulations, you just created the Borg.

Now tell me if that isn't a "distorted or simplified caricature of your opponent's argument", i.e. Strawman?

The Angry One wrote...
That's the problem.

Wow. Way to contribute to the discussion, you didn't even try to argue with my point that Synthesis is perceived as generally a good thing, as far as we know, considering the little evidence we have from the epilouge. You're cherry picking "evidence" that supports your idea while ignoring contracting evidence. That's confirmation bias.

The Angry One wrote...
Human nature backs me up. People would NOT be happy with a sudden forced change like this.

You're claiming that something is true based on "human nature"? That is in no way a valid argument, even you have to see that. I could as well argue that "human nature" backs me up, and then what? This get's us nowhere.

The Angry One wrote...
It's logical deduction based on human nature. The ending, in it's attempt to be sappy, happy and wholesome wraps around to sinister when you realise no human being acts like this.

Again, human nature, it applies to me as well doesn't it? That's no evidence nor does it give you credibility. Or, maybe I'm not a human because I don't share your beliefs? See where I'm going here?
And again, that's your  biased view on the ending, sappy, happy, wholesome sinister. You put no evidence on the table this time as well.
When do I stop seeing your personal hate and repulsion for the Synthesis in particular and start seeing proof, reference material ect. to support your claim that the ending is "evil" and should be acknowleged as such by everybody even the developers?

The Angry One wrote...
Javik wouldn't be there. He wouldn't be comfortable. At best, he might end up killing himself. He would not be standing there, completely docile and unmoved by the situation.
You don't like what I have to say? Fine, but don't presume to insult me then claim I'm insulting you to bolster your non-existent argument.

How would you know what Javik would and would not do after he was altered by Synthesis? And where else would he be? In the jungle, building a Reaper because he's indoctrinated of course? I don't know where these wild claims come from tbh.
But maybe he's paying his respects to Shepard? It is, after all, still a memorial and Javik was always pretty hard to judge regarding his emotions, one could argue that he was "unmoved" a lot of the time, or so it seemed.

And no, I don't like what you have to say. But that's beside the point here.
It's about you and others trying to enforce your claims with biased speculation that Synthesis is "bad and "evil" whereas you yourself have no arguments whatsoever, only your resentment and hate against Synthesis and everybody who trys to defend it, so it seems. Which makes you seem completely biased.

And I didn't start insulting, don't try to push that on to me.

Modifié par Bone3ater, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:01 .

[ghost9191]

Lazengan wrote...

I never chose synthesis

organic evolution is halted, "peace" is achieved throughout the galaxy.

Progress becomes stagnant, the futility of living in this galaxy is proven. There is literally no point in existence anymore.

I don't believe that evolution has an "end goal", it should keep on going. Utopian societies will never progress beyond anything, war and conflict must happen to keep a healthy galaxy.

exactly how i feel, sucks but it is nature

[Forbry]

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",

[memorysquid]

Lazengan wrote...

I never chose synthesis

organic evolution is halted, "peace" is achieved throughout the galaxy.

Progress becomes stagnant, the futility of living in this galaxy is proven. There is literally no point in existence anymore.

I don't believe that evolution has an "end goal", it should keep on going. Utopian societies will never progress beyond anything, war and conflict must happen to keep a healthy galaxy.

Silliness.  If you think your life is meaningless, if no one is killing someone else, you have issues.

[Shadowvalker]

Okay - back to the original question: What life would be like...

Bad - bad - bad.

My lawn is revolting - It will not submit to my lawn mower!

Same problem in the kitchen! The potatoe peeler would rather be working as a microwave oven.

Damn you Shepard!

[ghost9191]

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",

i am all for peace, i mean the council kept peace for teh most part on their own. synthesis seems like a lie to me, and too peaceful, everyone runs around all unicorns and butterflies,. then one day they find that the krogan are out of control because they are breeding like flies.,

basically i am unsure why i feel this way but it just seems without needing to advance culture would stagnate. and there will always be those that prefer war. i mean what if they achieve the ability to travel to a new galacy, who knows what will be there

[Lazengan]

memorysquid wrote...

Lazengan wrote...

I never chose synthesis

organic evolution is halted, "peace" is achieved throughout the galaxy.

Progress becomes stagnant, the futility of living in this galaxy is proven. There is literally no point in existence anymore.

I don't believe that evolution has an "end goal", it should keep on going. Utopian societies will never progress beyond anything, war and conflict must happen to keep a healthy galaxy.

Silliness.  If you think your life is meaningless, if no one is killing someone else, you have issues.

that's not what I mean

Organic life is constantly evolving and changing. The catalyst for this change is chaos which is promptly solved through war and conflict. Afterwards a slight period of peace for rebuilding and advancement until another conflict arises.

A Utopian society with ever lasting peace brings evolution to a stand still, with no conflict there is no change, no progress. There is no point in living in a world that can never change.

This applies to the real world as well. True peace can never be achieved because that is the moment that we lose the will to live

[Everwarden]

...I'unno. 

We'll likely find out in Mass Effect 4. Or not, as they'll likely just ignore everything that happened in 3 entirely. 

[Tigerman123]

They'd be warmer; presumably the nanites or whatever do work, some of the energy required to do that must be lost as heat, hence a higher mean body temperature

[NM_Che56]

I wouldn't need a new stove. I could just cook food on me!

...synthesis is sounding good now...

[Saans Shadow]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

I see synthesis as giving everybody the ability to understand one another. I see it as freeing the Reapers from the control of the Catalyst to give them a new future. I know a lot of people see it as morally wrong imposing your will on the galaxy but I don't agree with dominating the reapers who I see as a victim of the Catalyst. Destroying the reapers and every synthetic life-form in the galaxy is worse as far as I'm concerned and see it as committing genocide on a scale far larger it should be considered a war-crime. Not only are you killing the EDI and the Geth, at least in my play-through, you are destroying 1000+ different civilizations within the Reapers. The only thing that needed to be destroyed was the Catalyst. The Reapers were victims that needed to be freed of the atrocity of the Cycle and the Catalyst.

This is of course how I view it and certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me but I don't wish to be flogged for sharing my views. :-D

What do u mean by understanding each other? why is understanding in such a way so important? why can't people simply just have empathy and trust?

But the reapers are dead as husks, they are concentrates of minds of people that are long dead

Yes, the reapers are victims, but they are also mad, I would not let them out in the public

Through understanding you gain insight into how and why they are.  You can see from their viewpoint and they can see through yours.  True understanding is in my opinion the only way to achieve true peace.  If you see their views from their perspective you gain understanding, knowledge, and tolerence.  If you truely know someone chances are less inclined to harm them and more inclined to show them empathy and trust.

I don't know about you but from personal experience I've come to trust no one and show very few people empathy because people take advantage of both these days and it's not looking like its going to be getting better anytime soon.  Our world is far from perfect and the values of days past are almost dead.  I believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to peace but thats another discussion for another forum lol

[Bone3ater]

The Angry One wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Synthesis could not possibly be a natural form of evolution. It is not "Inevitable."

It was a forced method, and it ruined the entire cycle of life, in my opinion.

which is funny considering the catalyst said it is something that cannot be forces, or is it ironic

It is incredibly ironic. How can you not force something, that must effectively be forced?

Synthesis as a natural form of evolution would defy logic.

I imagine they mean that synthesis is inevitable for an advanced society.. which is debatable.
But even if it was inevitable.. it's still forcing it! It contradicts itself in a single sentence.

True. He's forcing it. But the choice is circumstantial, Shepard does it to save the galaxy and to effectively break the cycle of organic harvesting by the reapers. It is not born out of evil will or the goal to submit everyone.

And yeah, the statement from the Catalyst is a little bit contradicting. Though I guess what he meant was that he tried it with violence? I dunno for sure. But then again, it doesn't seem to destroy the individual, it just gives all life forms "understanding" and perhaps tolerance? Doesn't seem so bad to me even if it's

[ghost9191]

it's not just war, but if you have nothing to adapt to you don't grow. you just stay the same. i might be in the minority but it would just seem meaningless if you have nothing to work towards

[Baronesa]

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",

One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin

Modifié par Baronesa, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:01 .

[memorysquid]

Lazengan wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Lazengan wrote...

I never chose synthesis

organic evolution is halted, "peace" is achieved throughout the galaxy.

Progress becomes stagnant, the futility of living in this galaxy is proven. There is literally no point in existence anymore.

I don't believe that evolution has an "end goal", it should keep on going. Utopian societies will never progress beyond anything, war and conflict must happen to keep a healthy galaxy.

Silliness.  If you think your life is meaningless, if no one is killing someone else, you have issues.

that's not what I mean

Well it is a literal entailment of what you wrote, but okay. 

Organic life is constantly evolving and changing. The catalyst for this change is chaos which is promptly solved through war and conflict. Afterwards a slight period of peace for rebuilding and advancement until another conflict arises.

A Utopian society with ever lasting peace brings evolution to a stand still, with no conflict there is no change, no progress. There is no point in living in a world that can never change.

This applies to the real world as well. True peace can never be achieved because that is the moment that we lose the will to live

You presume conflict is ... wait for it ... inevitable.  I don't.  I think it is a consequence of miscommunication, misunderstanding and lack of education in proper ethics.

[Forbry]

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",

One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin

I 'm sorry, but I read this and then I already know I can let the rest of your post go...

[Bone3ater]

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",

One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin

It's nowhere stated or hinted at that Synthesis changes everyone into thinking and being the same. I honestly can't stress that enough, I don't know where you guys get that from. Based on the memorial scene (again...) it is clearly shown that everybody retains his own free will and mind.

It's also nowhere stated that a synthetic-organic hybrid has no evolution. Maybe they have? Nobody knows...

[Forbry]

Forbry wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",

One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin

I 'm sorry, but I read this and then I already know I can let the rest of your post go...

[Nerevar-as]

Bone3ater wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Synthesis could not possibly be a natural form of evolution. It is not "Inevitable."

It was a forced method, and it ruined the entire cycle of life, in my opinion.

which is funny considering the catalyst said it is something that cannot be forces, or is it ironic

It is incredibly ironic. How can you not force something, that must effectively be forced?

Synthesis as a natural form of evolution would defy logic.

I imagine they mean that synthesis is inevitable for an advanced society.. which is debatable.
But even if it was inevitable.. it's still forcing it! It contradicts itself in a single sentence.

True. He's forcing it. But the choice is circumstantial, Shepard does it to save the galaxy and to effectively break the cycle of organic harvesting by the reapers. It is not born out of evil will or the goal to submit everyone.

And yeah, the statement from the Catalyst is a little bit contradicting. Though I guess what he meant was that he tried it with violence? I dunno for sure. But then again, it doesn't seem to destroy the individual, it just gives all life forms "understanding" and perhaps tolerance? Doesn't seem so bad to me even if it's

It changes the way people think. It doesn´t ask for their opinion nor even allow them to be angry about it. I can´t think of few worst things to do to someone.

[Shadowvalker]

ghost9191 wrote...

it's not just war, but if you have nothing to adapt to you don't grow. you just stay the same. i might be in the minority but it would just seem meaningless if you have nothing to work towards

Come on ghost9191 - let's look at the good things:

Imagine this: You and your big love standing on the beach a windy autumn day. The lovely taste of salty chips from the sea. You glance at her/him only to watch her/his face be torn apart by the very same salty chipfilled autumn wind.

No - we couldn't ask for a better end!!!!.......

[memorysquid]

Everwarden wrote...

...I'unno. 

We'll likely find out in Mass Effect 4. Or not, as they'll likely just ignore everything that happened in 3 entirely. 

Prequel for sure.