1300 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

translationninja wrote...

Actually, I have mentioned before, I am a war veteran,  and I have seen combatants turn huggy sobby in a snap.

Combatants are a different matter. People fighting for their nations can tend to not have animosity for each other, from my observations. Even in brutal situations like the trenches of world war I.

I do however have no trouble believing that for some the concept of understanding leading to non-hostility is a bit much to grasp

It is very hard to believe, because these aren't regular combatants. The Reapers perform unspeakable atrocities.
Bombing civilians, death camps, indoctrinations.
In world war 2, allied soldiers would sometimes shoot surrendering ****s because of the unspeakable things they were doing to prisoners and civilians. Not to mention the civilians themselves here would be traumatised beyond words. But no no everybody just gets along instantly.

[Caenis]

 WELL up until recently I was an avid Synthesis supporter. I had valid arguments for it, as it was the 'idea' of Utopia and that's all it represented. In the Sci-Fi universe utopia comes out in the form of Technology and Transhumanism.
But then I got to writing my character's story "After Shepard" for Non-Canon Control, and I actually found myself coming to like Control more and more, because I realized it had all the success of Synthesis AND more.

• You Character can work to rebuild civilization (using collective knowledge of the past just like Synthesis), and help guide and watch over humanity (organic) while also helping them get to a point where they CAN take care of themselves. "If you give a man a fish then you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Shepard's philosophy (my femSheps) is that she wants life to be self-sustaining to be fully capable, and if they truly are ready they'll get there faster, and if they're not...in this way they EARN transhumanism, naturally. (Edit: They'll earn transhumanism or posthumanism, or whatever else occurs on their own terms, NOT the Catalyst's, who yeah I have to admit did have some pretty flawed logic).
• In control your character CAN (re)build themselves a platform. Similar to Shepard from ME2. So if Shepard wanted after successfully repairing the world and after getting life to where it needed to be, if Shepard didn't see another threat, Shepard could do that.
• Shepard can watch over friends and LI, and if Shepard wanted could make her LI (in my case Liara) a goddess OR help her with her agenda as she'll live a long time and hey maybe she'll live long enough for Shepard to get to the end and then become a Goddess just before she dies like Shep.
• You can order the Reapers to Destroy themselves OR set them free when you are finished using them as a tool.
• You get the best of DESTROY and SYNTHESIS except nobody has to die, AND everyone can have their Utopia in the end.

So you can live, be immortal, aid humanity (all organics) into going down a path of their choice, equipping them with the skills to decide, and you can get rid of the reapers if you want in some way or another. So originally I wasn't against Synthesis I was for it, but then I realized it could be carried out more tactfully in Control, WITHOUT creepy green glowing eyes. It used to be my Canon, and I sometimes quote myself saying it's my Canon choice, but once I finish developing my ideas it will be my Non-Canon choice with my Canon choice being Control.


The idea is that Shepard made the ultimate sacrifice---to become a Reaper, so that billions more didn't have to, with the goal of relinquishing control and equiping. It's just epic when you think about it over the long run. Because everybody wins in the end EVEN Shepard.

Modifié par Caenis, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:31 .

[memorysquid]

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

Nature's own evolution results in extinction sometimes.  It's better to intervene and create solutions that suit us than ignore that the universe is unintentional and uncaring.

[Forbry]

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

So, it just better to kill people then?

[Carlthestrange]

JackumsD wrote...

I never claimed any of the pro-Synthesis arguments weren't speculation. Please, quote me.

I'm simply defending the fact that both pro and anti Synthesis arguments are speculation.

My apologies. I clearly misread your posts and thought you were trying to claim that there was evidence of one side and not of the other.

[translationninja]

The Angry One wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Actually, I have mentioned before, I am a war veteran,  and I have seen combatants turn huggy sobby in a snap.

Combatants are a different matter. People fighting for their nations can tend to not have animosity for each other, from my observations. Even in brutal situations like the trenches of world war I.

I do however have no trouble believing that for some the concept of understanding leading to non-hostility is a bit much to grasp

It is very hard to believe, because these aren't regular combatants. The Reapers perform unspeakable atrocities.
Bombing civilians, death camps, indoctrinations.
In world war 2, allied soldiers would sometimes shoot surrendering ****s because of the unspeakable things they were doing to prisoners and civilians. Not to mention the civilians themselves here would be traumatised beyond words. But no no everybody just gets along instantly.

You know what, on second thought I have to agree with you on that one. I have superimposed my own perspective there and stand corrected...

[RebelReya]

You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

[Ieldra]

memorysquid wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...
Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

Nature's own evolution results in extinction sometimes.  It's better to intervene and create solutions that suit us than ignore that the universe is unintentional and uncaring.

Indeed. There's nothing sacred about natural evolution. It's an excellent way to explain how life develops, but it's value-neutral. It just is, like the rest of the universe. Human biology is a mess. A very efficient mess, but a mess. We're running around with a stone age legacy in our bodies - and our minds, as some comments in this thread clearly show. I can see no reason why we shouldn't intervene in our own evolution.

[Welsh Inferno]

Wow, this thread. So many wrong assumptions about what Synthesis is. Y'all just WANT to hate it dontcha?

Fact is the only true negatives you can claim are that it is morally wrong(along with all the endings) and that it isn't what would be considered the "natural" course of evolution(Which is debatable). Space Magic to achieve it is also a negative but hey thanks to the mess that is the Crucible all the endings are space magic. 

All this stuff about brainwashing, becoming a husk, everyone being exactly the same, eugenics & whatever else is pulled out of your own ass to justify your hatred for the ending. Half of you seem to do it as if you are rebelling against BioWare.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:35 .

[Malditor]

Caenis wrote...

 WELL up until recently I was an avid Synthesis supporter. I had valid arguments for it, as it was the 'idea' of Utopia and that's all it represented. In the Sci-Fi universe utopia comes out in the form of Technology and Transhumanism.
But then I got to writing my character's story "After Shepard" for Non-Canon Control, and I actually found myself coming to like Control more and more, because I realized it had all the success of Synthesis AND more.

• You Character can work to rebuild civilization (using collective knowledge of the past just like Synthesis), and help guide and watch over humanity (organic) while also helping them get to a point where they CAN take care of themselves. "If you give a man a fish then you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Shepard's philosophy (my femSheps) is that she wants life to be self-sustaining to be fully capable, and if they truly are ready they'll get there faster, and if they're not...in this way they EARN transhumanism, naturally.
• In control your character CAN (re)build themselves a platform. Similar to Shepard from ME2. So if Shepard wanted after successfully repairing the world and after getting life to where it needed to be, if Shepard didn't see another threat, Shepard could do that.
• Shepard can watch over friends and LI, and if Shepard wanted could make her LI (in my case Liara) a goddess OR help her with her agenda as she'll live a long time and hey maybe she'll live long enough for Shepard to get to the end and then become a Goddess just before she dies like Shep.
• You can order the Reapers to Destroy themselves OR set them free when you are finished using them as a tool.
• You get the best of DESTROY and SYNTHESIS except nobody has to die, AND everyone can have their Utopia in the end.

So you can live, be immortal, aid humanity (all organics) into going down a path of their choice, equipping them with the skills to decide, and you can get rid of the reapers if you want in some way or another. So originally I wasn't against Synthesis I was for it, but then I realized it could be carried out more tactfully in Control, WITHOUT creepy green glowing eyes. It used to be my Canon, and I sometimes quote myself saying it's my Canon choice, but once I finish developing my ideas it will be my Non-Canon choice with my Canon choice being Control.


The idea is that Shepard made the ultimate sacrifice---to become a Reaper, so that billions more didn't have to, with the goal of relinquishing control and equiping. It's just epic when you think about it over the long run. Because everybody wins in the end EVEN Shepard.

While what you say is very well put the only problem I foresee with Control is in the event that a conflict does arise and you are force to step in who do you chose as the side that is right in the fight? Is it fair to chose one over the other? You are forcing your decision on all whether they all agree or not. It's a circular problem because while with synthesis/destroy you are making one decision that affects everyone in Control you could very well make infinite decisions affecting everyone since you are immortal.

[Forbry]

KingZayd wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Erg1 wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Escocido wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Erg1 wrote...

 I have one question: what if Catalyst was right about the unevitable organic and synthetic war?
It was programmed AI, but so advanced and with so high intelligence that it's all even beyond our imagination. He could think about every possibility of every action in galaxy, but he was still artificial and he couldn't see things in ways as we see it. So, what if he was right about organic and synthetic war, but he just took wrong way to prevent it?

Quarians are normal, organic beings. Geths are typical synthetic beings. Right now, they can easily cooperate and live together. But hey, look, their technological level is equal. But even Tali said that geths are able to do same things in weeks as organic (she was talking about quarians, but it's same for every known organic) would do them in years. This means that Geths would reach higher technological levels faster than any known organic being. Some day Geths would come to an idea that is identical to many sci-fi AIs antagonists, and that idea is "Organic beings are slowing us, we must do something with them".

Looking from this perspective, I think that synthesis is overall the best ending. It prevents organic and synthetic war. Why? Because now, organic is equal to synthetic. Well... the old known term 'organic' is gone, same goes to 'synthetic'. They both morphed to create something new, I don't even know how to call this new form, because they aren't organic and they aren't synthetic. Just like Catalyst said - it's a new DNA, it consists of best advantages of organic and best advantages of synthetics.

Even now, in our time, you see some of the dangers of synthetics to humans/humanity. For example: There are people who loose their job, because machines haven taken over.

You are seeing it the wrong way, those are people that are now not needed to produce enough for the rest. If most things could be done by machines, a lot of people would not have a job, but that's because society would not need then working to produce enough for everyone. This means that strictly speaking they would not need to work and could still receive resources. 

But we live in a crazy society were everyone MUST have a job even if it means overproducing. 

Don't fool yourself. Technological advancement brings many good things to this world, but could also grow to be a real thread to humans or humanity. Maybe from an entire angle (I'm often not that good in coming up with examples): think of cloning for instance, doesn't that take away a human's individuality if you really think about it?

Clone is still a human, same as his 'father', just created in a way different that procreation 

Nope. Do not agree with that. In some sense, it takes away individuality. I'm not saying in a horrific way per se (don't know), but it sure does.
But these weren't the best examples. There are many sci-fi stories with examples that could become truth in the future and where you already see little signs of in this lifetime.

Identical twins are natural clones.

Doesn't change what I think, but as I said this also wasn't the best example. Fact is that their are really many reasons to fear synthetic progress (albeit there are also many reasons to love it).

[Shadowvalker]

memorysquid wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

Nature's own evolution results in extinction sometimes.  It's better to intervene and create solutions that suit us than ignore that the universe is unintentional and uncaring.

Indeed it does. But I was born a human - lived as a human - and died as a human! I have accepted that simple fact and am at peace with it. No regrets!

That is also why I only choose destroy. People that can't face the simple fact of life - that it is a constant battle and one of necessity if any evolution are to continue - well then they are doomed.

[Jackums]

Caenis wrote...

 WELL up until recently I was an avid Synthesis supporter. I had valid arguments for it, as it was the 'idea' of Utopia and that's all it represented. In the Sci-Fi universe utopia comes out in the form of Technology and Transhumanism.
But then I got to writing my character's story "After Shepard" for Non-Canon Control, and I actually found myself coming to like Control more and more, because I realized it had all the success of Synthesis AND more.

• You Character can work to rebuild civilization (using collective knowledge of the past just like Synthesis), and help guide and watch over humanity (organic) while also helping them get to a point where they CAN take care of themselves. "If you give a man a fish then you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Shepard's philosophy (my femSheps) is that she wants life to be self-sustaining to be fully capable, and if they truly are ready they'll get there faster, and if they're not...in this way they EARN transhumanism, naturally.
• In control your character CAN (re)build themselves a platform. Similar to Shepard from ME2. So if Shepard wanted after successfully repairing the world and after getting life to where it needed to be, if Shepard didn't see another threat, Shepard could do that.
• Shepard can watch over friends and LI, and if Shepard wanted could make her LI (in my case Liara) a goddess OR help her with her agenda as she'll live a long time and hey maybe she'll live long enough for Shepard to get to the end and then become a Goddess just before she dies like Shep.
• You can order the Reapers to Destroy themselves OR set them free when you are finished using them as a tool.
• You get the best of DESTROY and SYNTHESIS except nobody has to die, AND everyone can have their Utopia in the end.

So you can live, be immortal, aid humanity (all organics) into going down a path of their choice, equipping them with the skills to decide, and you can get rid of the reapers if you want in some way or another. So originally I wasn't against Synthesis I was for it, but then I realized it could be carried out more tactfully in Control, WITHOUT creepy green glowing eyes. It used to be my Canon, and I sometimes quote myself saying it's my Canon choice, but once I finish developing my ideas it will be my Non-Canon choice with my Canon choice being Control.

+1. These are similar to my reasons for choosing Control. No-one is sacrificed/killed. No-one is forcefully altered. No technology is destroyed. Shepard "lives". The Reapers become an aiding force, and as a result, rebuilding becomes easier and faster. And the Reapers' technology remains, theorectically allowing organics to advance in terms of technology as they did upon discovering the relays. It's the ideal ending, from my perspective,

Carlthestrange wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

I never claimed any of the pro-Synthesis arguments weren't speculation. Please, quote me.

I'm simply defending the fact that both pro and anti Synthesis arguments are speculation.

My apologies. I clearly misread your posts and thought you were trying to claim that there was evidence of one side and not of the other.

It's no problem.

Modifié par JackumsD, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:38 .

[Forbry]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Forbry wrote...
*jealous*

I normally don't bother with breakfast or lunch, so it is quite a pleasureable experience.

Ha, ha... it is almost evening now, where I live

[Shadowvalker]

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

So, it just better to kill people then?

Yes! It's the universal law of life

[Carlthestrange]

Forbry wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Forbry wrote...
*jealous*

I normally don't bother with breakfast or lunch, so it is quite a pleasureable experience.

Ha, ha... it is almost evening now, where I live

Late afternoon here, so its kinda a late lunch.

[Ieldra]

RebelReya wrote...
You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

Retconned as of the Extended Cut. "Organics are perfected by integrating with synthetic technology, synthetics will finally gain full understanding of organics". EDI says the line may disappear in future but it still exists.

[savionen]

memorysquid wrote...

It increases understanding; it doesn't fiat the end of conflict forever.  It's pretty simple to understand, if you are not completely blinded by the idea that you didn't get to blow up the Reapers and retire with your LI.

Increasing understanding doesn't completely resolve conflict.

"I killed robbed your family because I really needed the money" probably isn't enough to sate the victim because it's still a deplorable act even if it's out of desperation.

Many wars and conflicts are also because multiple parties want the same things. There's no way that Synthesis can end all conflict. The only reason it can potentially end "the war" is that Reapers are no longer wanting to destroy organics, so I don't really see the point of Synthesis.

[Welsh Inferno]

I have a question.

How many of you who do not like/pick Synthesis are religious? Don't say what religion, I'd rather not derail the entire thread into that...

[The Angry One]

Ieldra2 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...
You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

Retconned as of the Extended Cut. "Organics are perfected by integrating with synthetic technology, synthetics will finally gain full understanding of organics". EDI says the line may disappear in future but it still exists.

Which is contradictory nonsense. Why is Shepard needed as a template? How do synthetics gain "understanding"? Even by that sentence, organics are still altered forever.
In fact if what you're saying is true, organics are still gone. Synthetics remain the same. So now we have hybrids and synthetics.

Wait what?

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:40 .

[memorysquid]

RebelReya wrote...

You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction.  It doesn't make everyone one or the other or even a mix of both.  It is transcendent.  That's not even my headcanon, Mike Gamble actually tweeted that there's no distinction post-synthesis, just 'life.'  The writers' intention has been plain since pre-EC.  It's Hegelian dialectic. 

The writers viewed AND wrote synthesis as a way to overcome the old organic/synthetic dichotomy.  You can disagree with their premise, but the writing is clear enough that the fiction is clear.  You just don't like the fiction then, which is better to deal with than continually demanding everyone accept your headcanon rewrite as what ME3 REALLY means.

[Carlthestrange]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I have a question.

How many of you who do not like/pick Synthesis are religious? Don't say what religion, I'd rather not derail the entire thread into that...

I guess you could say i'm anti-synthesis (Though i'm in the position of respecting those who like it) , and I bow to no gods.

[The Angry One]

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction.  It doesn't make everyone one or the other or even a mix of both.  It is transcendent.  That's not even my headcanon, Mike Gamble actually tweeted that there's no distinction post-synthesis, just 'life.'  The writers' intention has been plain since pre-EC.  It's Hegelian dialectic. 

Hence the original life is gone, in it's place a hybrid mush. "Just life"? Is that the only way for peace? How awfully racist.

The writers viewed AND wrote synthesis as a way to overcome the old organic/synthetic dichotomy.  You can disagree with their premise, but the writing is clear enough that the fiction is clear.  You just don't like the fiction then, which is better to deal with than continually demanding everyone accept your headcanon rewrite as what ME3 REALLY means.

The writing is bad and they should feel bad.
The implications are clear, you're just hiding behind author intent to not deal with them.

[Caenis]

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

So, it just better to kill people then?

(I am assuming this post is saying it's worse to kill people than to press the button on evolution...based on past posts, this below is just to elaborate on some ideas)

According to nature it is better to kill people. Ask the fire going on in colorado if they care about people, ask tornadoes, and the 98% of life that has gone extinct before us and they'll say, apparantly it is. While I am not a supporter of 'violent' Genocide (the way it is done in Destroy), I do understand "Selective Breeding" i.e. Eugenics, we do it with dogs and other domestic animals, but when "Humans" get into all that stuff they do it with flawed logic, we end up getting things like the "Holocaust", "Armenians", "Assyrian Genocide", "The Rwandan Genocides", and MORE...based on flawed logic, like 'my hair is prettier thany ours', and 'blonde, blue eyed people are just mentally superior and deserve to live', usually related to physical beauty and 'demonization'.

When Nature does it, she does it fair. Synthesis is like a "Catalyst", it is "forcing one form of Evolution out of many" onto everyone in a FAIR way. It's better than 'killing' people violently, AND even if it isn't the BEST path or the only path, it is a path, one that isn't that bad when you compare it to the alternatives. It's probably the 'middle ground', compromising between Reapers.

Whereas in Control you become the Enemy to save the people, "There is wisdom in harnessing the power of your enemy." I'd say Control is Paragon, and Destroy is Renegade, and that doesn't mean 'bad', it just means blowing **** up to get things done with an extra punch in the face .

[Malditor]

Shadowvalker wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

So, it just better to kill people then?

Yes! It's the universal law of life

Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.