450 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

[Mcfly616]

Can't believe I'm reading this for the first time. Brilliant OP Jshepppp.

I pretty much knew most of this, but you put it all so thoroughly. Kudos. It was all pretty much spot on. Even the parts you were being speculative, I was of the same opinion. One of the best post I've read in awhile. Can't believe I hadn't seen it until now.

[Mcfly616]

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Forcibly making everyone half-robot to serve the Reapers better so they wont kill us all? 

I knew it was a stupid thing to put in the game, but damn. 

[The Night Mammoth]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

This is true actually! I remember playing mass effect 1 Saren wanted to synthesize organics and machines right? I remember cause i renegade dialogued him

Not in the same way, and not for the same reason, and he was indoctrinated. 

[Mcfly616]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Forcibly making everyone half-robot to serve the Reapers better so they wont kill us all? 

I knew it was a stupid thing to put in the game, but damn. 

it isn't "forced"

[Mcfly616]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

This is true actually! I remember playing mass effect 1 Saren wanted to synthesize organics and machines right? I remember cause i renegade dialogued him

Not in the same way, and not for the same reason, and he was indoctrinated. 

ofcourse he was indoctrinated. And what was happening to him(his transformation) was not "synthesis". But when he speaks of the Reapers plans and what they really aspire to achieve, he's speaking of synthesis. The Catalyst even confirms that its the ideal solution to the eternal problem of conflict.

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Forcibly making everyone half-robot to serve the Reapers better so they wont kill us all? 

I knew it was a stupid thing to put in the game, but damn. 

it isn't "forced"

Saren's synthesis or the Catalyst's synthesis? 

Because both would undoubtedly be forced, the former because I doubt a lot of people want to be combined with cybernetics, with possible indoctrination thrown in, and the latter because, well, no one has heard of the idea or cared about the problem it supposedly solved, and no one was asked if they want it. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 12 décembre 2012 - 12:17 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Mcfly616 wrote...
ofcourse he was indoctrinated. And what was happening to him(his transformation) was not "synthesis". But when he speaks of the Reapers plans and what they really aspire to achieve, he's speaking of synthesis. The Catalyst even confirms that its the ideal solution to the eternal problem of conflict.

Sure, but Saren's synthesis isn't the same idea, isn't for the same reason, and he was indoctrinated and insane.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 12 décembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[Mcfly616]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

So basically the catalyst is like a fault tolerance A.I that went wrong?...i like

sorta.. kinda... Not really.

The Catalyst didn't go wrong. It has a mandate to find a solution to impossible problem at any cost. Its parameters are not bound the same moral compass as ours. It never went "wrong". It is the way it is because of the lack of parameters and its mandate to achieve its goal "at all costs"

[The Night Mammoth]

I should visit these forums more. I understand this now. Two sides are fighting so fusing them will be the only way to stop the conflict is to merge them so that they both contain all the qualities that they do not like about each other. In conclusion everyone is trhe same way thus bring peace.. It might be my new favorite ending

How the hell can anyone think that's a good thing? I'd rather jump off that bridge and let the Reapers kill everyone. 

No, that's not what Synthesis is though. It's not about removing differences, it's about forcing acceptance of said differences on everyone. Take that as you will. 

[Ghost]

Lots of work put into this thread.

[Mcfly616]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

This is great, but how does synthesis work within the mass effect lore? is it mass effect field powered nanomachines?

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Forcibly making everyone half-robot to serve the Reapers better so they wont kill us all? 

I knew it was a stupid thing to put in the game, but damn. 

it isn't "forced"

Saren's synthesis or the Catalyst's synthesis? 

Because both would undoubtedly be forced, the former because I doubt a lot of people want to be combined with cybernetics, with possible indoctrination thrown in, and the latter because, well, no one has heard of the idea or cared about the problem it supposedly solved, and no one was asked if they want it. 

forget about Saren for a minute. I was referring to the ending choice when I say it isnt "forced". Not the way the Catalyst means "forced" anyways. The OP actually explains it pretty well, but I'll throw in my two cents.....


First off, I don't expect you to agree with me. Nor am I trying to convince you. I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong, because taking the ending literally how you see them with your own two eyes, I can see how it may seem "forced". 1 man deciding for the rest of the galaxy isn't exactly taking all of its inhabitants opinions on the matter into account

However, the entire ending (literally, from the moment youre beamed up to the Citadel, til the point you make your choice) is filled to the brim with symbolism, metaphors and what not. Shepard is the avatar of the cycle. He represents everybody fighting the war. He's the spear, the symbol of our last hope. He/she embodies everybody's blood, sweat and tears as well their hopes and dreams of survival. His choice is everybodys because everybody is counting on him to win them their future. They empower him by looking to him to save them. It is not "forced" because We(Shepard: the avatar of the cycle) are ready. Shepard proves we are ready. The completion of the Crucible proves it.

Also, its not the Catalysts synthesis(it has never been able to achieve true synthesis because it was an outsider and Forced it. Shep is one of us. And even something "more".) The Crucible is of organic design. Not the Catalysts. Only we can make synthesis possible.

Edit: I should also add that out of my 12 playthroughs of ME3, I've only chosen Synthesis 2 times. I like all the EC endings but Synthesis is my least favorite. (It's just a little too "happy". Still, a trippy sci fi ending).

Destroy is my Canon. (I didn't second guess myself at the last moment. I steeled myself and did what I set out to do. It also has realistic consequences).

Control is a vintage dark sci fi ending filled with irony(personally, if the game released with no ending choices and Control was "The" Ending, I would not have been surprised. Having to become the central consciousness of the entities he's been trying to stop all this time. Pretty f*ckin deep. )

Modifié par Mcfly616, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[kal_reegar]

Mcfly616 wrote...

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Saren : Synthesis = firecracker : nuclear bomb

the first doesn't explain/justify the second, if not at a mere intuitive level...

[Dubozz]

Nice post OP. But i guess everyone pretty much more or less figured this out even with the original endings. The thing is - people do not satisfied when they finish the game. Feeling of victory? I don't think so. Disappointment? Yes - to put it mildly. I really do appreciate bioware efforts to fix the whole thing but you can't make your first impression twice. And lets be honest, starbrat/synthesis space magic still suck pretty hard, and the whole concept of ending is just rediculous. I may only wish Bioware some day will stop "explain" ending and will let us beat the game.

Modifié par Dubozz, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:16 .

[Mcfly616]

kal_reegar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Saren : Synthesis = firecracker : nuclear bomb

the first doesn't explain/justify the second, if not at a mere intuitive level...

never said it "justified" anything....huh?

I was simply stating Saren that alluded to it. Nothing more. It's been apart of the lore since the first game. I was stating a fact. Not explaining it in any scientific way. Its called science "fiction". Some things in it are not possible in our own world. Consequently, not all things involved will have in depth real world scientific explainations for what occurs in this theater of fiction. Some people call it "space magic". Call it whatever you want. It can be found in mostly any work of science fiction in any medium. I'm sure someone on this forum has some sort of "encyclopedia" or something on it.....sort of like this thread is with the Catalyst.

[FREEGUNNER]

Great read. I think at the end of the day the leviathans are to blame because they irresponsibly implemented a powerful yet poorly programmed AI to solve such a complex problem without thinking about the possible ramifications. The catalyst can be compared to VIKI from iRobot. Say what you will about the movie but the AI in iRobot was very similar in that it was given certain conditions and then an unprecedented amount of computational power to expand it's knowledge and understanding in a procedural manner.

But at their very core they lacked moral values so they failed to understand the need for conflict and that people don't want to survive, they want to live.

[Mcfly616]

FREEGUNNER wrote...

Great read. I think at the end of the day the leviathans are to blame because they irresponsibly implemented a powerful yet poorly programmed AI to solve such a complex problem without thinking about the possible ramifications. The catalyst can be compared to VIKI from iRobot. Say what you will about the movie but the AI in iRobot was very similar in that it was given certain conditions and then an unprecedented amount of computational power to expand it's knowledge and understanding in a procedural manner.

But at their very core they lacked moral values so they failed to understand the need for conflict and that people don't want to survive, they want to live.

iRobot is inspired by a short story by Asimov. The ending of Mass Effect is inspired by one of Asimovs book series.

The similarities are there. However, the Catalyst wasn't poorly programmed. If anything it followed its programming perfectly. Though, the mistake of giving it an "at all costs" mandate, was surely a poor decision on the Leviathans part.

[kal_reegar]

Mcfly616 wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

how does it work within the lore? It's been a part of the lore since day 1. Since Saren and ME1. People just never saw it coming as a possible conclusion to the entire trilogy.

Saren : Synthesis = firecracker : nuclear bomb

the first doesn't explain/justify the second, if not at a mere intuitive level...

never said it "justified" anything....huh?

I was simply stating Saren that alluded to it. Nothing more. It's been apart of the lore since the first game. I was stating a fact. Not explaining it in any scientific way. Its called science "fiction". Some things in it are not possible in our own world. Consequently, not all things involved will have in depth real world scientific explainations for what occurs in this theater of fiction. Some people call it "space magic". Call it whatever you want. It can be found in mostly any work of science fiction in any medium. I'm sure someone on this forum has some sort of "encyclopedia" or something on it.....sort of like this thread is with the Catalyst.

not the same thing.
if you introduce "space magic" (like biotic powers or relays or mass effect) in the beginning, I can accept almost everything. You say: my lore works this way and this way, these are the rules, these are the axioms (for example: space travel is possible and easy, but time travel is impossible). It's not "magic" anymore, in that lore's contest.

but if you introduce something like synthesis in the last 5 minutes, something that nobody ever mentioned as possible (because implantig reapers technology or building a huge machine with genetic material is very different than completely e definitively changing the DNA of every living creature in the galaxy, to change how evolution works)... well, that's space magic. Because you've broken the rules of your own lore. An allusion is not enough, IMO.

[Ieldra]

Mcfly616 wrote...
However, the entire ending (literally, from the moment youre beamed up to the Citadel, til the point you make your choice) is filled to the brim with symbolism, metaphors and what not. Shepard is the avatar of the cycle. He represents everybody fighting the war. He's the spear, the symbol of our last hope. He/she embodies everybody's blood, sweat and tears as well their hopes and dreams of survival. His choice is everybodys because everybody is counting on him to win them their future. They empower him by looking to him to save them. It is not "forced" because We(Shepard: the avatar of the cycle) are ready. Shepard proves we are ready. The completion of the Crucible proves it.

That's what it's supposed to mean, I agree. The problem is that this isn't grounded in in-world logic. The Crucible is a real machine doing real things, it doesn't run on symbolism. Not in an SF universe. Such things might work in fantasy universes because in those worlds there often is an intrinsic, metaphysical connection between a symbol and that which it represents. In an SF universe a symbol is just an image and doesn't have any real power except in the mind of the one who considers it. 

In other words, if your hypothesis is true that would make the accusation of "space magic" 100% correct. If the writing of the endings depends on a real connection between a symbol and that which it represents, this is magic. You can, of course, use technology to create such a connection, resulting in "sufficiently advanced technology", but the symbolism used in the ending depends on a pre-existing connection. It works as this was a magical universe with instrinsic symbolic connections on a metaphysical level. Not for the first time I get the impression that the writers didn't consider the kind of universe they were writing for.

I rather use my own rationalization.

Also, its not the Catalysts synthesis(it has never been able to achieve true synthesis because it was an outsider and Forced it. Shep is one of us. And even something "more".) The Crucible is of organic design. Not the Catalysts. Only we can make synthesis possible.

I agree about the Crucible. But the rest depends again on symbolism. Shepard is not identical to everyone potentially affected by Synthesis, so if he makes the choice for everyone, it *is* forced. That Shepard makes the decision instead of the Catalyst is supposed to be important, but that doesn't change the basic problem that Synthesis is forced - my opinion that an overwhelming majority of people would adapt rather quickly to the change and accept it notwithstanding.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 décembre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Warrior Craess]

 Sorry but the whole premis that the catalyst is in any way right is complete hogwash.  The Catalyst deals in absolute statements. Unless you subscribe to the who "our fate is fixed" ideology, anything that states an absolute outcome is false. 

There are too many variables to even just the futute of humans, let alone any other potential species in the galaxy. 

[Maniccc]

We know that the catalyst thinks it's right.  We have no reason to believe that the catalyst thinks its conclusions or solutions are wrong.  It's a machine, and it's following its programmed function, no more or less.  So if you are saying that the logic (and I mean formally) is correct, then maybe so, but that really doesn't mean anything.  A valid argument is not necessarily a right argument. 

And if the catalyst is basing part of his argument on false or incomplete information (the fact is, the created do not always rebel against the creators, take the Geth for instance, the Quarians started both those wars), then while his logical argument may be valid, his conclusion is false, because his premises are false.

This is the basis for why people say the catalyst's statements make no sense: his assertions contradict reality.  It's not really a matter of logic, but sense.  Then again, people often confuse the meaning of what "logic" is.  When I think "logic" I think formal logic, and I understand that this is a tool for organizing thought and arguments, and arriving at conclusions from premises.  But logic is just a tool, it cannot tell us if something is true, only if an argument or conclusion is valid (logically valid).

For this reason, I think of the catalyst not as illogical, but as astonishingly stupid.  It does not understand organics, it does not understand why the wars between synthetics and organics start, it does not understand that its solution is perhaps the worst solution it could have devised.

However, there is one logical problem that pops into my head:  the catalyst is synthetic.  According to it, it is not rebelling against organics.  If not, then the catalyst itself invalidates its chief premise (that the created will always rebel against the creator).

In short, the catalyst is poorly conceived, poorly defined, and amazingly stupid.  The race that created it is also astonishingly dumb.  Really, the whole idea is just awful.