1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackums]

Aylyese wrote...

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.

The point is that a lot of anti-Synthesis members aren't acknowledging their claims as speculation.

And even still, I see no strong implications of brainwashing, huskification -- etc. -- in the epilogue. It can all be interpreted in a variety of ways. There is nothing implied strongly enough to support any one theory.

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

[Carlthestrange]

Forbry wrote...
Enjoy!

Already am.

[obZen DF]

You can't just force evolution. That's against nature.

[Aylyese]

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 

That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.

[Kyneris]

obZen DF wrote...

You can't just force evolution. That's against nature.

Yes and no, The Catalyst said it was inevitable, I'd rather get there through natural means than to Force everyone and everything into it.

[Malditor]

Caenis wrote...

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 and 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.

No it can't be applied to Destroy, you are making one single decision still. You leave it up to whomever comes up against the similar situation again to make their own decision. The only time you get caught in a loop of making decisions is Control because you are now immortal and in control of the Reapers.

[Shadowvalker]

Malditor wrote...

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.

Not at all. My departure from life gives those still around room to grow. Again - simple.

[memorysquid]

RebelReya wrote...


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.

Because who cares?  I was born into this body; no one asked me upfront if I was cool with that.  I couldn't care less what it is made of.  If it was made of replaceable toaster parts, I'd live longer, which would be nice.  My consciousness is what I find important about life; not living in a body made of meat.  Synthetics evolve too; you watch it happen in the game.  Further, I don't live to evolve; I live because life is enjoyable.

[obZen DF]

Kyneris wrote...

obZen DF wrote...

You can't just force evolution. That's against nature.

Yes and no, The Catalyst said it was inevitable, I'd rather get there through natural means than to Force everyone and everything into it.

Yes, that's what I meant. It is inevitable. But, it must happen naturally.

[The Angry One]

memorysquid wrote...

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.

Treating race, or in this case, what you are (organic/synthetic) as a meaningful guide to behaviour is EXACTLY what the Catalyst does, and exactly what synthesis does.
It supposes that organics and synthetics must behave and think certain ways, and these ways are incompatible, therefore they must be made the same, all their differences removed.

That is reprehensible, and for all you know, that *is* the author's intent, which makes it even worse.

[Aloren]

The Angry One wrote...
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?

Well, this kind of reasoning works both ways though...
According to Synthesis and Destroy, organics and synthetics will never get along.
Therefore the solution is to kill all synthetics, or to allow synthetics and organics to be "mixed".
Replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice, and your problem just got even worse... cause extermination by principle of one group by the other sure looks a lot more racist to me than unavoidable "miscegenation" of both .

[RebelReya]

Aylyese wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 

That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.

Exactly! +10

[Forbry]

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.

Oh come on, I'm sure you live your life in utter contradiction with anything you've just written there.

[Welsh Inferno]

General User wrote...

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.

I can understand that. Infact I was part of Retake for a while, so I hated the endings(all of them) and the writing as much as anyone. But quite frankly the endings are now as good as they are ever gonna get, time to let go of irrational hatred and make the most out of the space magic or move on. I was perfectly ready to move on before the EC came out but it made it just... acceptable. Just.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I used to be pro-synthesis. But now, I'm leaning more towards paragon control. I don't hate Synthesis but I just like Control more.

If Synthesis is the 'final evolution' of life, let it happen. My Shepard just removed the reapers from the equation without commiting genocide against the Geth. Sure Shepard might go insane and kill everyone. Shepard might also NOT go insane and stay as a benevolent guardian who doesn't interfere with free will and all that. That's what I choose to believe.

Just because something can go wrong doesn't mean it will go wrong. This applies to all 3 endings.

[Will-o'-wisp]

Well, to give a short answer to the question of this topic:

1. Synthesis is so full of space magic, it just isn't fun anymore, the other endings seem less unrealistic to me
2. This ending simply doesn't fit the ME-Universe or the storyline (coz too much space magic, change of theme and utopia-crap)
3. I have trouble with the portrayal of Synthesis leading to utopia. If it brings everlasting peace, bla (it comes across like this in EDI's speech) etc. there is definitely brainwashing included but if it doesn't bring peace, synthesis seems useless
4. The implications are simply creepy (sharing thoughts, imortality, husks, effects on less developed cultures,...)

Also, everyone looks like a freak now. No real reason, I know, but... all that green just looks weird... and ridiculous.

IMO it's also a violation of all life everywhere, etc., but that point has been discussed so much I'll only put it down here...

[Baronesa]

RebelReya wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 

That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.

Exactly! +10

+1000

[savionen]

RebelReya wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 

That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.

Exactly! +10

Yep, regardless of any speculations or theories this is enough reason not to pick Synthesis.

[Forbry]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

It's a well-known and often used theme (in one form or another) in scfi, so I don't think many people agree with you on this point. 

[Aylyese]

JackumsD wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

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.

The point is that a lot of anti-Synthesis members aren't acknowledging their claims as speculation.

And even still, I see no strong implications of brainwashing, huskification -- etc. -- in the epilogue. It can all be interpreted in a variety of ways. There is nothing implied strongly enough to support any one theory.

The implication that suddenly conflict does not exist - that there is peace in the universe - causes a question of brainwashing. 

They tried to write a utopia, and this is clearly an implication of the EDI narrative, but they went about it in such an objectional way that almost anyone could poke holes in it all day. In fact, the majority of people do and synthesis is the least popular ending. 

And even Pro-Synth are all for the end of conflict utopia. I had one argue the other day that it was because we all understand each other better by just digging into eachothers minds through the great network in the sky.

Buh Bye privacy!

Another speculation, sure.. but it all stems from the same place. That Synthesis was the rainbows and unicorns ending.. and like unicorns, it is a complete fantasy.

[Shadowvalker]

Forbry wrote...

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.

Oh come on, I'm sure you live your life in utter contradiction with anything you've just written there.

Nope. That it's actually the way I live - sorry to disappoint you.

[o Ventus]

Aloren wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
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?

Well, this kind of reasoning works both ways though...
According to Synthesis and Destroy, organics and synthetics will never get along.
Therefore the solution is to kill all synthetics, or to allow synthetics and organics to be "mixed".
Replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice, and your problem just got even worse... cause extermination by principle of one group by the other sure looks a lot more racist to me than unavoidable "miscegenation" of both .

With Destroy the intent is not that Shepard wishes to destroy all synthetics, only the Reapers. Synthetics just happen to be a very unfortunate side effect, and can be rebuilt.

[RebelReya]

memorysquid wrote...

RebelReya wrote...


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.

Because who cares?  I was born into this body; no one asked me upfront if I was cool with that.  I couldn't care less what it is made of.  If it was made of replaceable toaster parts, I'd live longer, which would be nice.  My consciousness is what I find important about life; not living in a body made of meat.  Synthetics evolve too; you watch it happen in the game.  Further, I don't live to evolve; I live because life is enjoyable.

Because Shepard is forceing it on the entire galaxy!!! That's why. Again, it's the very notion of choice that upset many fans in the ending. They felt they didn't have a choice. None of the trilions of life-forms in the galaxy have a choice.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

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.

The story is written.  Synthesis makes plenty of sense, you just don't like it.  The ideas informing it may be sinister [they aren't] but the act in the game is definitely not sinister, it is very pleasant, stops a war without genocide and allows access to an incredible amount of knowledge for every sentient.  All the imagination in the world isn't going to make a plainly written ending into something else.  At this point there is no way in hell there are going for a 2nd rewrite so we can evaluate ME3 for what it is, rather than what you'd prefer it to be.

[Forbry]

Malditor wrote...

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.

And you honestly think he/she lives that way?