1300 réponses à ce sujet

[77boy84]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

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.

How about the fact that everything about synthesis is just so nonsensical?
I mean, they're all silly, but synthesis is on it's own level of absurdity here.

[memorysquid]

savionen wrote...

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.

The implication is that increased understanding and empathy would lead away from situations where those kinds of conflicts would occur.  The robber would be less likely to rob, rather than being productive; the other people would be less likely to ignore his plight in emergencies, etc.

It's called compromise, bubba.  That is how friendly people deal with wanting the same thing.  They share.  You  can't figure out sharing as an alternative to war among a people with instant access to billions of years of historical mistakes?  

No one said synthesis is a straightjacket eliminating all conflict, that I saw.  EDI is expressing hope for how things turn out, much as Shep and Hackett do in their narrated endings.  They tell you exactly what synthesis does, and it isn't what you say it does.

[Malditor]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

You pull racism from nothing. Salarians are still salarians, turians are still turians et al. The races remain.

[Forbry]

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 wondered that myself too. I'm pro-synthesis (well given the 4 options) and to be honest, I hate religion.

[RebelReya]

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.

So? I don't see how that changes anything. No one has a choice. They are all forced to change into this one singular stagnant definition of 'prefection,' you know. Against their will. Given no choice. Kinda like how a significant portion of fans felt about the ending. 

Eliminating organic life is what the Reapers have been doing since ME1, and no it's okay because your given these 'prefect' screenshots of everyone magically getting along. Because every orgnic character is now magically both organic and sythetic, just like a reaper. 

Your okay with forcing the entier galaxy into the reaper's definition of perfection?

[translationninja]

I think there is a basic misconception of evolution here. There is no "natural" and "unnatural" evolution, only evolution.

The cause of a mutation is absolutely irrelevant in the big picture, the only question is, is the resulting mutation more suitable to survive than the previous one.

[The Angry One]

Malditor wrote...

You pull racism from nothing. Salarians are still salarians, turians are still turians et al. The races remain.

Not getting the subtext are you?

According to synthesis, synthetics and organics will never get along. Therefore the only solution is to make them the same.
Now, replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice. See the problem now?

[memorysquid]

77boy84 wrote...

How about the fact that everything about synthesis is just so nonsensical?
I mean, they're all silly, but synthesis is on it's own level of absurdity here.

So what?  That doesn't mean you get to invent a whole new story and demand that it be reality!  Talk about entitlement.  The writers were plain enough about what synthesis was that all this headcanoning nonsense is just making a different story.  So write another story then.  See who will buy it.  But stop demanding that internal fiction be accepted as the actual meaning of a fairly plain work.

[Fawx9]

You know that pokemon episode where Ash realizes its wrong to force Pikachu to evolve against his will?

I guess no one at Bioware watched it.

[Shadowvalker]

Malditor wrote...

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.

Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

[Forbry]

The Angry One wrote...

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?

Maybe you can play ME another time and then come back to discuss?

[The Angry One]

memorysquid wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

How about the fact that everything about synthesis is just so nonsensical?
I mean, they're all silly, but synthesis is on it's own level of absurdity here.

So what?  That doesn't mean you get to invent a whole new story and demand that it be reality!  Talk about entitlement.  The writers were plain enough about what synthesis was that all this headcanoning nonsense is just making a different story.  So write another story then.  See who will buy it.  But stop demanding that internal fiction be accepted as the actual meaning of a fairly plain work.

It seems to me the only thing they're demanding is that the writers write a story that makes sense.
Synthesis makes none, it's magical, it's sinister and it's flat out stupid.

[Aylyese]

JackumsD wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

JackumsD wrote...

Nothing supports the notion that Synthesis is indoctrination/brainwashing.
Nothing supports the notion that Synthesis turns everyone into husks.
Nothing supports the notion that the Reapers will negatively impact the galaxy, post-Synthesis.

Except that Javik has not thrown himself out an airlock.
Except that the concept of the husk is more complex than "it is the ugly thing from the spike".
Except that the reapers caused the 'need' for synthesis, which is in and of itself a negative via our definition. 

Funny. (Assuming you're not really trying to pass that as evidence of anything)
That's nothing more than a theoretical concept in itself.
They didn't cause a need for anything. Synthesis is not the only option.

Okay? So Javik is just fine with being half synthetic in your head canon?

Okay take two? You know the Asari version of a husk is called a Banshee. Look, it is already more complex past theory.

Then synthesis is the wrong option? /thread.

Did we see the remainder of Javik's life post-Synthesis? No. Is the potential for change in mindset non-existent within Javik? No. Then how is this evidence of anything?

I fail to see any evidence of civilisation becoming husks in the Synthesis ending. How is any of what you're going on about right now indisputable fact of galactic civilisation becoming husks?

Then all of your anti-Synthesis arguments you're claiming as canon are nothing more then speculation. /thread

Speculation is one way of looking at it, but the implications and the intentions of the narrative cannot just be dismissed out of hand because it is inconvenient. If you take the nuances out of a story, it might as well be a childs My First book.

[Krunjar]

translationninja wrote...

I think there is a basic misconception of evolution here. There is no "natural" and "unnatural" evolution, only evolution.

The cause of a mutation is absolutely irrelevant in the big picture, the only question is, is the resulting mutation more suitable to survive than the previous one.

Our intelligence is  a product of  natural evolution so therefore anything intelligence creates can also be thaught of as a product of natural evolution. Its an opinion i ascribe to  however THAT is a philosophical tarpit that I  don't think anyone wants to step on ... do they ?

Modifié par Krunjar, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:51 .

[Malditor]

The Angry One wrote...

Malditor wrote...

You pull racism from nothing. Salarians are still salarians, turians are still turians et al. The races remain.

Not getting the subtext are you?

According to synthesis, synthetics and organics will never get along. Therefore the only solution is to make them the same.
Now, replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice. See the problem now?

That doesn't make it racism, that's discrimination. You can't take racism and apply it to a non-racial situation. Also, they are not the same after synthesis.

[Forbry]

memorysquid 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.

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.

+ 10

[Caenis]

Malditor wrote...

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.

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.

This same question can be applied to "Destroy", what do you do when humans build Synthetics, and the cycle continues again war and peace, and then someone after billions of years decides to create a Catalyst for peace, except this time the Catalyst goes buggy and starts protecting humanity by harvesting them and turning them into massive machines to 'save' them, and stop the violent cycle.

Same logic, you are forcing your decision to kill ALL technology, and sentient beings onto the geth. And since 'science' isn't really advanced (edit: compared to what they could be + being diminished)  you wouldn't have the backup knowledge of the collective, it would take much longer if not thousands of years to rebuild any of that WITH the chance of that turning into another 'Geth-Quarian' war, leading to the above comment.

But what's that I hear? It MIGHT not happen? It's a hypothetical question in a fictional world? Oh darn! Same thing with Control, it might not happen, and people's methods of dealing with it are as varied as there is diversity. And stepping in doesn't necessarily mean "killing" everyone and "imposing" death, it could simply mean doing what Shepard did in the game, acting as a diplomat. Paragon Shepard is pretty verbally persuasive, and being 'God' now and all...I'm sure the majority would support her.

Modifié par Caenis, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:54 .

[77boy84]

memorysquid wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

How about the fact that everything about synthesis is just so nonsensical?
I mean, they're all silly, but synthesis is on it's own level of absurdity here.

So what?  That doesn't mean you get to invent a whole new story and demand that it be reality!  Talk about entitlement.  The writers were plain enough about what synthesis was that all this headcanoning nonsense is just making a different story.  So write another story then.  See who will buy it.  But stop demanding that internal fiction be accepted as the actual meaning of a fairly plain work.

I don't even give a hoot about new endings anymore.
I'm just letting it be known, what we got is terrible. You can talk about entitlement all you want, but I'm entitled to voice my problems with something, just as you're entitled to disagree.

Sounds fair, right?

[Forbry]

Carlthestrange wrote...

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.

Enjoy!

[General User]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

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.

I'd say that stems from the perception that the Catalyst is acting as a moutpiece for the writers (ie Bioware).  When something tries to shove a half-baked philosophy down your throat, a gag reflex is only to be expected, healthy even.

Modifié par General User, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:54 .

[Malditor]

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

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.

Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

Wow... What a sad life to live to just resign yourself to death and not fight against it.

[RebelReya]

memorysquid 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.

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.

Yeah, that's my point. Their are no more organic beings in the universe. How can you be okay with that? 

I generally go with destory. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that people would actually trade the organic, evolving nature of life for stagnat unchanging sythesis, because of some pretty images.

[Carlthestrange]

Fawx9 wrote...

You know that pokemon episode where Ash realizes its wrong to force Pikachu to evolve against his will?

I guess no one at Bioware watched it.

Haha, I remember watching that one.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

Malditor wrote...

You pull racism from nothing. Salarians are still salarians, turians are still turians et al. The races remain.

Not getting the subtext are you?

According to synthesis, synthetics and organics will never get along. Therefore the only solution is to make them the same.
Now, replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice. See the problem now?

There is no problem.  Treating "race" or even "ethnicity" as if they are meaningful guides to behavior/character judgement is the root of prejudice.  There is no racial subtext here.  I wasn't aware that there was some race another race had cobbled together out of toaster parts.  There is nothing, however insane, you won't say to get people to revile the endings you don't prefer.

[savionen]

memorysquid wrote...

savionen wrote...

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.

The implication is that increased understanding and empathy would lead away from situations where those kinds of conflicts would occur.  The robber would be less likely to rob, rather than being productive; the other people would be less likely to ignore his plight in emergencies, etc.

It's called compromise, bubba.  That is how friendly people deal with wanting the same thing.  They share.  You  can't figure out sharing as an alternative to war among a people with instant access to billions of years of historical mistakes?  

No one said synthesis is a straightjacket eliminating all conflict, that I saw.  EDI is expressing hope for how things turn out, much as Shep and Hackett do in their narrated endings.  They tell you exactly what synthesis does, and it isn't what you say it does.

Part of human nature is to want things. Theres a finite amount of resources in the universe. There's a finite amount of readily available resources. 10 people want the same job, only one gets it.

What happens to the Reapers in Synthesis? 
What happens to the husks and banshees?
Are people no longer mad at the Reapers?
Do Ceberus operatives no longer want to kill other races?

How does Synthesis even stop a Tech Singularity?

It's naive to think that Synthesis would solve anything, especially when it's forced. It just seems wrong every way I look at it.