461 réponses à ce sujet

[Krunjar]

Calling synthesis the final evolution I can only see as a big mistake by the Dev's since in the synthesis ending EDI more or less states that evolution is still continuing. I am a fan of synthesis but that final evolution statement gets to me. Perhaps he is referring to it being the final evolution of synthetic and organic life since after synthesis there will no longer be synthetic and organic. Therefore for those forms of life it is the final evolution. But that does not necessarily or even believably stop the new form of life from continuing to evolve. I think that is probably it but it should have been made much more clear.

[Fawx9]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

 it never says anything about everyone becoming " the same" it says every living being and every synthetic being will understand...
 its not racial cleansing..
 i cant believe people can parallel it to a situation like the holocaust... wow.
 im not criticising you poster, im just adding on to the comment. i know thats not what you are saying, but others do.

Comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust are all too common among hardcore trolls. Anyone who compares something to Hitler has already lost the arguement.

As for me, Ieldra's feelings on Synthesis are similar to how I feel.

Honestly, I would have preffered the Reapers reasons for reaping be what tehy were implied to be in ME2. Their version of reproduction. Makes them much more Lovecraft-esque. But instead, BW had to go into philosphical territory.

To be fair the undertones of the synthesis ending are farily radical and not exactly pretty. The reason there is so much talk of Hitler, the holocaust and ethnic cleansings is because of those undertones.

Star Jar proposes that two races (organics and synthetics) can never peacefullly co-exist. The ultimate solution he comes up with is to forcible merge the two to be the same hybrid race(like his superior race of reapers). In his mind this is the only way to truely end the conflict. 

What this says is just wrong, instead of learning about each other as we have done with the Geth and EDI, we now are told that we must be forecefully changed at a racial level in order to live together.

There is so much wrong with that outlook that its no wonder star jar is being compared to the likes of dictators and ethnic cleansers.

Modifié par Fawx9, 06 juillet 2012 - 04:56 .

[Krunjar]

Thing is Fawx9 that them simply being synthetics changes the playing field. Between organics and organics it is entirely possible that understanding is all that will be needed but in the world of ME the tech singularity exists. Which requires a fundamental re examining of morality itself. Honestly people on this forum dis the mass effect ending. But the amount of controversy that simple choice created may just make it go down as one of the best endings ever XD. At least in my book. If it makes people think this hard about first causes and the reasons for morality then it can't be all bad. Personally I  am fine with synthesis because I believe in the real world freedom is relative. And that absolute freedom is not something anyone would want anyway. I am not advocating totalitarianism but ultimate freedom is simply chaos.

Modifié par Krunjar, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:02 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

It's not submission. To say that it is requires willfully ignoring everything that the game actually tells you about it.

It's kind of sad that people will go to such lengths to heap hate on a choice they don't personally like.

I'm aware of what the game tells me about it, to be honest. I still don't see how it isn't submission. I mean, it's literally what the Reapers want.

Just because the Reapers want it doesn't make it bad. That is textbook Association Fallacy.

Synthesis has innate benefits independent of which party considers it desirable. The original endings didn't elaborate on what those benefits were, leaving them entirely to speculation; EC did. And nowhere in either of them is submission to Reapers shown or implied.

I don't know, I think going by your enemy's idea of an "ideal" solution whilst disregarding everything else is, at least in some sense, submission.

You may have good intentions, and you may be doing what you think is best for the future of the galaxy, but you're also playing a VERY dangerous game. Shepard says as much to Saren on multiple occasions in ME1. The Catalyst argues that synthetics and organics can never co-exist - that's fine and all, but didn't we just prove the opposite on Rannoch (assuming you went full Paragon and united the geth and quarians)? That, to me, throws the Catalyst's assertion right out the window.

Synthesis requires altering the very essence of organic life in the name of peaceful co-existence. It is a solution, yes, but one among many. If you have to alter who you are to make peace possible, you're just not thinking thoroughly enough.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

It's not the so called 'similarities' to Hitler's ideals. It's the fact that some people are comparing an ending of a video game to one of the most true horrible event in Human history. It's just insulting. And I'm not even Jewish so I'm not playing the "I'm Offended" card.

[Fawx9]

Krunjar wrote...

Thing is Fawx9 that them simply being synthetics changes the playing field. Between organics and organics it is entirely possible that understanding is all that will be needed but in the world of ME the tech singularity exists. Which requires a fundamental re examining of morality itself. Honestly people on this forum dis the mass effect ending. But the amount of controversy that simple choice created may just make it go down as one of the best endings ever XD. At least in my book. If it makes people think this hard about first causes and the reasons for morality then it can't be all bad.

Except the threat of a tech singularity never existed until the last 5-10 minutes. We were able to come to terms with the Geth. We built a real realtionship with EDI (hell she fell in love). There was nothing to suggest that we couldn't overcome the differences between us and synthetics. 

And yet at the end we are told by star jar that what we have experienced is wrong and the only way to survive is a rewrite of the two races on a fundamental level. That's not learning, or understadning. Thats just forcing the parties to be the same.

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

It's not the so called
'similarities' to Hitler's ideals. It's the fact that some people are
comparing an ending of a video game to one of the most true horrible
event in Human history. It's just insulting. And I'm not even Jewish so
I'm not playing the "I'm Offended" card.

They're comparing the ideals presented by star jar to Hitler's and the likes ideals though. Not that the ending was literally as bad as the Holocaust.

Modifié par Fawx9, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:08 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

We are discussing mass effect 3's endings not real life. Therefore what is said in game is in fact MORE relevant than current scientific theory.

No it's not. Had ME created its own fictional definition of "evolution," then you'd be right. As it is, every time evolution is discussed, it is within the conventional parameters (hell, Mordin even has a miniature rant about environmental pressures).

Thus, the writers claiming that synthesis is "evolution" is wrong. It is change, yes, but not evolution. It is directed enhancement. And the phrase "final evolution of life" is not only wrong and betrays either a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution on the writer's or characters' parts, but also oxymoronic.

It may seem like quibbling, but it isn't when "inevitability" is one of the cornerstones of the Catalyst's argument, inane as it is.

[darkpassenger2342]

i just beat the game 4 days ago, then i watched the other endings on youttube. if i had any clue whatsoever that the synthesis ending was THIS hated i dont know if i would have posted about it at all. I doubt i will change my mind, but its not like i hate the other endings entirely, everyone can have a preference and i respect it.
i dont want people to fight like crazy. if i offended anyone it isnt personal
btw i obviously changed the thread name so not to incite immediate anger towards anyone with an anti-synthesis stance.
 I never saw the ending without the extended cut, perhaps some of you did and thats why you hate it. i dont know what the differences are, but it seems plausible.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:16 .

[Krunjar]

That depends on how you define evolution. If you define evolution as the simple result of natural selection then yes the argument is inane. But many philosophers include the results of intellect in evolution. Our brains where created from the same natural selection and therefore like larger teeth ,faster legs the advantage it gives is is also an evolutionary advantage. The catalyst the reapers and therefore the solution all derived ultimately from the intellect of organics. And so by one definition of evolution IS evolution.

EDIT : Yeah im not  trashing the other endings at all. But lets face it there isnt one ending that dousn't have some kind of bad side. That's the idea I think. To make you think on a different field  of  morality and try to make a choice that at least you can live (or die) with. I am just defending synthesis because it's my favorite and I feel that it gets alot of unjustified flak. If you notice sometimes I post on the anti refuse/destroy/control threads and what I always say it's youre game youre choice youre ending. Don't trash other peoples choices when they don't affect you in the slightest.

Modifié par Krunjar, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:21 .

[Priss Blackburne]

I think the biggest problem is the catalyst is a synthetic. and advanced very old AI but still just an AI with no idea what it means to be organic.

It thinks the best way to preserve organics is to place them into reaper form. Someone on the forums did a good comparison ( wish I could remember handle ). To the catalyst it's like backing up software onto a hard-drive to save the data.

In a way it's kinda sad since the Geth and EDI have a better understanding of organics then it does.


And to Darkpassenger: you should try the forum post in support of the synthesis ending you will find a safer more friendly atmosphere. There are others who like the ending and have defending it in very compelling ways.

http://social.biowar.../index/12153660

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:18 .

[darkpassenger2342]

Random Jerkface wrote...

We are discussing mass effect 3's endings not real life. Therefore what is said in game is in fact MORE relevant than current scientific theory.

No it's not. Had ME created its own fictional definition of "evolution," then you'd be right. As it is, every time evolution is discussed, it is within the conventional parameters (hell, Mordin even has a miniature rant about environmental pressures).

Thus, the writers claiming that synthesis is "evolution" is wrong. It is change, yes, but not evolution. It is directed enhancement. And the phrase "final evolution of life" is not only wrong and betrays either a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution on the writer's or characters' parts, but also oxymoronic.

It may seem like quibbling, but it isn't when "inevitability" is one of the cornerstones of the Catalyst's argument, inane as it is.

the only one that ever thought that the debate was over the literal defintion of evolution was you.
btw i dont know who you are trying to quote there, but it wasnt mine.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:57 .

[Krunjar]

That quote was from me.

[What a Succulent Ass]

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

the only one that ever thought that the debate was over the literal defintion of evolution was you.

The debate is not over the literal definition of evolution. The debate is over the logic and morality of the synthesis choice and the Catalyst's justification and description of it.

You can't analyse an argument without clearly defining the meaning and context of its rhetorical components.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:25 .

[darkpassenger2342]

the only thing i ever did was use words from the game but you seem to insist on proving something else. I said that it was used in the game... remember the initial comment? you pasted one sentence about me saying that edi says its the final evolution and here we are.
i dont care what the definition of evolution is for this particular set of circumstances, because rewriting human beings with the code of synthetics would redefine it anyway. so again, all i said was that edi and the catalyst use the term evolution and you can't let it go. i have infinite access to dictionaries,I dont need you to define a word for me.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:33 .

[Krunjar]

True but as i pointed out your definition and even the definitions provided by real life scientists are only a matter of opinion. And if you truly are scientific about it they are subject to correction in the face of new relevant information. Honestly though if we really want to define every relevant term to this discussion it will simply devolve into huge walls of text. These are big questions and the answer to them is not readily clear. How you define these concepts often determines how you view the choice. Making us think in this way is I think one of the best points of speculative sci-fi. We are not holding a scientific debate here is what I think you do not understand. We are engaging by default seeing as this is based in the ME universe in an exchange of speculation. Limiting that by adhering to only one definition of concept is just limiting the discussion in favor of a single doctrine of opinion. You can try doing that if you  like .. but not everyone is going to be agreed to be bound in ascribed definitions and so we arrive back at square one. No one  is ever going to be able to completeley dismiss or prove their ending to be superior or others inferior by the simple nature of the argument.

So jus play the game and let others make of their ending what they like

Modifié par Krunjar, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:42 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

I think the biggest problem is the catalyst is a synthetic. and advanced very old AI but still just an AI with no idea what it means to be organic.

More than that, I don't think it understands other synthetics, either.

Its entire argument is based on the idea that synthetics will inevitably destroy their creators.  If even one synthetic feels differently, like, I don't know, EDI and the Geth perhaps, then the Catalyst is wrong.

The Catalyst says that synthesis will allow organics and synthetics to share perspective, but they will only share his own warped  versions of what he thinks those perspectives are.

Personally, I think that the Catalyst's problem is ego and self-serving bias.  It was created to bridge the gap between organics and synthetics but failed.  Rather than accept its own shortcomings it reached a conclusion that conveniently shifted blame onto everyone else and justified destroying anyone who might have held it accountable for its failure.

[Gogzilla]

The Angry One wrote...

Synthesis is a violation of all life,

Define life first,
Tell me what you think can de considered life

then we can talk about what vilolates it.

The Angry One wrote...
and it spits on every being that sacrificed everything to fight the Reapers.

sacrificed to Fight them ?

The war is more about survival than any one ideology
If you could consider delaying the inevitable a sacrfice, then they are dieing so that other can live,

And unless your definition of life is considerably differnt to mine people are alive at the end of synthesis

[Malditor]

Any discussion thread about synthesis is an overall pointless pursuit since the people who are typically against it are very vehement in their belief and can not be persuaded to see differently. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that, but many belittle or attack anyone who feels differently.

The Angry One wrote...
and it spits on every being that sacrificed everything to fight the Reapers.

The same can be said about Refuse and Control.
Refuse sacrifices everyone because you don't want to compromise/sacrifice anything to end war and Control *depending on the person playing shepard* still has the Reapers around as a weapon to be used however is seen fit.

As stated many times by many people, there is no wrong choice only opinions about what is right for each individual making the choice.

[What a Succulent Ass]

the only thing i ever did was use words from the game but you seem insistant to prove something else. I said that it was used in the game... rememeber the inital comment? you pasted one sentence about me saying that edi says its the final evolution and here we are.
i dont care what the defintion of evolution for this particular set of cricumstances, because rewriting human beings with the code of synthetics would redefine it anyway. so again, all i said was that edi and the catalyst use the term evolution and you can't let it go. i have infinite access to dictionaries,I dont need you to define a word for me.

ITT: Completely missing the point.

No. The point I was making is that it's wrong even within the context of the game. It's no secret that the ending contradicts the rest of the series at every turn, but the issue is that the Catalyst founds its arguments on fallacies and misrepresentation, meaning it is at best stupid (or just bad writing) or at worst disingenuous. Rhetoric, particularly diction, can be used to obscure meaning or make distasteful things more palatable. It's a tool of persuasion. Take a few of its lines, for example:

1. "It's inevitable [because you will eventually evolve this way]"
2. "Synthesis is the final evolution of life" - This is not how evolution works.
3. "Why not? Synthetics are already a part of you."

In all of these, the Catalyst attempts to paint synthesis as the natural choice by associating it with something natural (evolution). According to him, you are simply speeding along a process, merely "improving" yourself to the "inevitable", (his) ideal form. We can ignore that this understanding of evolution is hilariously off (and that the series cautions against uplifting without wisdom), but whatever argument anyone makes, they should be hiding "enhancement" under the mask of evolution - it's disingenuous. Make no bones about it, synthesis is eugenics.

Here are some (not all) simplified reasons I don't like synthesis - I won't pretend to speak for anyone else:

- Violation of consent: First, I am not some anti-transhuman sh*t-throwing, treehouse-living neo-Luddite. Trying to paint everyone who dislikes the thematic message synthesis sends is just childish. I don't, however, agree with eugenics. In any capacity. I'm firmly of the mind that our bodies are our only real pieces of property, and our only real freedom is the ability to decide what is best for ourselves - even if we are impeded from executing it. Anything other than these two things is illusory and can be taken away from us either by force or the flick of a pen. So when someone presumes to know what is best for my body (because obviously his/her ideal is correct, amirite?), and seeks to change it to conform to their idea of "perfection" without my permission or regard for my own morality and philosophies, of course I'm going to be up in arms about it. The fact that BioWare provides the option to do this to every single being in the galaxy down to a micro-genetic scale--and not only that, presents this as a good decision, the right decision--without even acknowledging the snarl of ethical problems that it is, is not only juvenile writing but genuinely horrifying.

- Evidently, the only way for people to get along with each other is erasing their differences: I don't think we need a long discussion as to why the Catalyst's logic concerning synthetics is 100% wack bullsh*t. The crux of the matter is that synthetics and organics are different from one another (even though the rest of the series says otherwise). As per the ending narrative, this is a problem, and the Solution (THE ACTUAL WORD CHOICE. YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE THIS UP.) is either to kill the people who are different from you, or homogenise everyone. Synthesis legitimises this idea. So much so, in fact, that it alters mental processes. You can argue that it doesn't, but the fact remains that BioWare's intention is to portray a perfect utopia in which there is no conflict, despite the fact that being forcibly changed on a fundamental level (at the prerogative of an enemy, no less) is not something most people would be pleased about. Honestly, there is nothing beautiful or noble about it. They are ships of Theseus. To me, being alive--being sapient--isn't about processing sensory data or the mechanism by which you do so. Hell, it isn't even emotions. It is logic and self-awareness. It is the ability to reason, to formulate opinions. A peaceful coexistence is not about completely understanding or agreeing with one another; it is about acknowledging those differences and having the wisdom to work past them anyway. If there is no single presence of dissenting opinions, then they are not alive. As far as I'm concerned, they are just automatons following their programming.

Lastly,

- Nothing about synthesis makes any damn sense: Srsly.

That's the Sunday school version of it anyway.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 06 juillet 2012 - 06:53 .

[The Angry One]

I'll say again, I'm a transhumanist and I loathe synthesis.
In fact I dare say the more you understand the concept of transhumanism, the less you like synthesis, because it's not only a nonsensical mess, it's a complete violation of self, of personal rights and of future potential, because everyone is now set on this singular path by the Reapers.

No thanks.

[Saans Shadow]

After watching the EC version of Synthesis I stopped seeing the Reapers as mindless killing machines and started seeing them as victims of the cycle and the catalyst itself.  Am I the only one in this belief? *please note the word belief*   

I personally couldn't commit genocide on a larger scale than just EDI and the Geth.  I saw each and every one of the Reaper deaths as a form of genocide but that is how I feel.  I already know many of you will disagree with me and start screaming how the reapers are horrible evil monsters that need to die.  I just don't feel that way anymore.  "They aren't the boogymen they used to be" to quote anderson, in my eyes.  I think over the course of the three games we have been "guided" to inherently hate the reapers and everything they stand for, whether this is intentional or not is pure speculation and will probably never be answered.  Because I feel this way towards the Reapers I would never dominate them for the very same reasons.

I DO realize that I am forcing everybody to change on a physical level but I don't believe that thier personalities and free-will have been altered but thats the sacrifice I'm willing to make. Refuse is not an option in my book.  I love the ME universe peeps to let them die and turned to goo.  This is, ofcourse, a matter of opinion which for some odd reason people tend to forget on here and want to hate on you for it.  Some of the comments I've seen are just downright nasty.  It's just a game folks :innocent: granted one that has sparked debates of "interesting" proportions.  If you have raging problems with my beliefs thats your problem

[Krunjar]

Seems a rather privileged opinion to be honest. When we make war on others do we ask the inevitable (if few) civilian casualties if its ok to destroy their bodies? Yet people accept this as inevitable because there is no other way. It seems a delusion of the western world that we live our lives without having outside value systems forced on us everyday. Sometimes even changing the core of our lives or ending them completely. From the moment Shepard is given the choice by the catalyst he must choose for the entire galaxy. Even refusal is a choice in itself. Violation of Consent applies to everything it is however at that point utterly inevitable.

@ SaansShadow

Not in the least there was a topic a while back The Truth: The Reapers wan't Shepard to Succeed. That made a very good argument for this case and it's one I ascribe too. It is certainly more solid than IT is atm.

Modifié par Krunjar, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:16 .

[The Angry One]

Krunjar wrote...

Seems a rather privileged opinion to be honest. When we make war on others do we ask the inevitable (if few) civilian casualties if its ok to destroy their bodies? Yet people accept this as inevitable because there is no other way. It seems a delusion of the western world that we live our lives without having outside value systems forced on us everyday. Sometimes even changing the core of our lives or ending them completely.

That's why war is generally regarded as, you know, a bad thing.

Not in the least there was a topic a while back The Truth: The Reapers wan't Shepard to Succeed. That made a very good argument for this case and it's one I ascribe too. It is certainly more solid than IT is atm.

Yeah that's like saying JFK conspiracy theorists are more credible than Princess Di conspiracy theorists.

[Krunjar]

The Angry One wrote...

Krunjar wrote...

Seems a rather privileged opinion to be honest. When we make war on others do we ask the inevitable (if few) civilian casualties if its ok to destroy their bodies? Yet people accept this as inevitable because there is no other way. It seems a delusion of the western world that we live our lives without having outside value systems forced on us everyday. Sometimes even changing the core of our lives or ending them completely.

That's why war is generally regarded as, you know, a bad thing.

Not in the least there was a topic a while back The Truth: The Reapers wan't Shepard to Succeed. That made a very good argument for this case and it's one I ascribe too. It is certainly more solid than IT is atm.

Yeah that's like saying JFK conspiracy theorists are more credible than Princess Di conspiracy theorists.

Didn't say war was a good thing ... only that it is inevitable. Sorry I edited my post so you may want to look at what I added to it. Cos I didn't think I made the best case for my opinion before.

Modifié par Krunjar, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:18 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

There's one thing I don't understand about synthesis. Does it affect everything in galaxy? Does trees for example become part synthetic too?