231 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

[Vigilant111]

Heeden wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

U mean Krogans wiping out Turians entirely? I don't want that

No, I mean the technology boost will allow military objectives to be secured / denied more rapidly, but also the fact we do all have this lovely new tech means there will be less reasons for conflict.

I do not understand what you mean by "denied", people are idiots, they are eager to try out the new weapons they develop, synthesis does not magically stop people being spiteful and greedy, some people will always try to outperform the other, this is a nature of life

No, people become more complacent when they thought they are invincible cos they got this new tech, and when that happens, disparity between strengths will occur

[The Angry One]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

The Catalyst has tried synthesis before, it's their true goal.

[mass perfection]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

They've tried it before,but it failed.Their leader straight up says that synthesis is the ideal solution.

[Monarchos915]

Romaka wrote...

Monarchos915 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Monarchos915 wrote...

Because, while I'm sure there was an initial shock to the the Reapers chillin around every one all non-chalant and all, they are no longer trying to harvest them and slaughter them.

They are now the embodiement of billions of souls, freed from their endless torment, and they too have been freed from the cycle. I'd imagine that the since everyone now has the capabilty to connect minds and share information with everyone else at will, old hatreds and prejudices based on limited experience and the inability to "walk in another's shoes" will die quickly. New perceptions are available to the individual now, and it will be obvious the reapers are no longer an existential threat.

I agree with this, but watch as TAO labels this as either "ridiculous", "not supported by canon", or just outright calls it headcanon again.

Do forgive me for calling headcanon what it is, and for recognising that normal human beings will not care about the anguish of the giant metal monster that was turning their friends into goo a week ago.

They are no longer "normal human beings" at least not by pre-synthesis definitions and are not subject to a incredibly limited viewpoint. An entirely new perspective will be available to those who survive, with selfish vengeance obviously pretty down on the list, and tolerance pretty high on the list. Given the entirely new ability to literally "walk in another's shoes."

It really is a game changer.

Imagine how many real world conflicts would have been avoided if one side could understand EXACTLY what it's like to be the other side, and vice-versa. If I could make that happen today, you bet your ass I would.

That right there says that people are no longer who they were anymore.  Thought processes change, personality change.  Removal of who they were and replacing it with something else.  That is the way that looks to me.

Hmmm, are you the same person that you were 1 minute ago, 10 minutes ago, 5 hours, agao, yesterday, 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Even at the atomic and molecular level you are constantly changing. Everyone is constantly changing, more often than not against their will.

Perspective changes through what you experience in life, even the most minute of experiences can "change" you. I'd say the synthesis event is a pretty monumental shift, and will significantly alter the perspective of anyone who experiences it. It is not "removal" of who you were, and there is no "replacing," which is a very important distinction. It is simply an augmentation, and opening into an entirely new avenue of experiences to be had. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. You may, obviously, feel different. But to blatantly misrepresent what actually happens is a different offense that needs to be addressed.

[Romaka]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

Then why does the Catalyst want you to choose Synthesis?  The Catalyst is the collective conciousness of the Reapers as it stated.  That means the Reapers want Synthesis.  Although as I stated in the opening that removes their function and on my personal opinion a failure in the duty that they had.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

They've tried it before,but it failed.Their leader straight up says that synthesis is the ideal solution.

That still doesn't change the fact that the only loosers are the Reapers. 

[UberDeanski]

I love that this dicussion is even happening.  I love that the Mass Effect universe is so rich and textured that we are able to have what amounts to a philosophical debate about the meanings of the endings.  Questions like what is means to be alive, what it means to be free, what would YOU do if faced with a choice that meant the destruction of a species...  this is why I love this game.

Surely the endings show us that no decision is easy, and that when given true power there is no choice that can be made that will give us a happy ending.  In a sense, someone loses something in each of the endings.  Each of the endings do achieve Shepard's goal - but there has to be a loss somewhere, it's our choice to balance that loss against our goal.  What is our goal?  Is it to defeat the Reapers or to achieve lasting galactic peace?

To go back to the original question, no I don't think everybody loses in Synthesis.  Synthesis forces everybody into a compromise that reels back some freedom in the name of lasting galactic peace.  Destroy and Control both succeed in defeating the Reapers while impling an unstable or temporary peace, whereas Synthesis argues that it can achieve a lasting galatic peace through co-operation - even if that co-operation is forced upon the galaxy's inhabitants by forcing them to work alongside their once-mortal foes.  Again, whichever way the decision goes, there must be compromise to achieve the goal we've get ourselves - there is no free lunch.

I don't think there is a right answer here.  But the fact that this kind of mature and existential debate about moral relativism can arise from a video game is fantastic.  I'll be bringing this up next time someone tries to tell me games are only for kids.

[Romaka]

Monarchos915 wrote...

Hmmm, are you the same person that you were 1 minute ago, 10 minutes ago, 5 hours, agao, yesterday, 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Even at the atomic and molecular level you are constantly changing. Everyone is constantly changing, more often than not against their will.

Perspective changes through what you experience in life, even the most minute of experiences can "change" you. I'd say the synthesis event is a pretty monumental shift, and will significantly alter the perspective of anyone who experiences it. It is not "removal" of who you were, and there is no "replacing," which is a very important distinction. It is simply an augmentation, and opening into an entirely new avenue of experiences to be had. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. You may, obviously, feel different. But to blatantly misrepresent what actually happens is a different offense that needs to be addressed.

Gradual changes do occur over time but as I said in another post do you honestly expect everyone would just stop fighting and start working together disregarding everything that happened prior?   That is impossible unless there is removal of individuality or free will.

[RiouHotaru]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

THIS.  That the Catalyst tried before meant it was one of his options to try and solve the problem, but he couldn't get it to work.

Therefore, his current solution is harvest and store life.

Also, JUST BECAUSE HE TRIED IT ONCE DOESN'T MAKE IT INHERENTLY A BAD IDEA.

[mass perfection]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

They've tried it before,but it failed.Their leader straight up says that synthesis is the ideal solution.

That still doesn't change the fact that the only loosers are the Reapers. 

They actually succeed.

[Romaka]

UberDeanski wrote...

I love that this dicussion is even happening.  I love that the Mass Effect universe is so rich and textured that we are able to have what amounts to a philosophical debate about the meanings of the endings.  Questions like what is means to be alive, what it means to be free, what would YOU do if faced with a choice that meant the destruction of a species...  this is why I love this game.

Surely the endings show us that no decision is easy, and that when given true power there is no choice that can be made that will give us a happy ending.  In a sense, someone loses something in each of the endings.  Each of the endings do achieve Shepard's goal - but there has to be a loss somewhere, it's our choice to balance that loss against our goal.  What is our goal?  Is it to defeat the Reapers or to achieve lasting galactic peace?

To go back to the original question, no I don't think everybody loses in Synthesis.  Synthesis forces everybody into a compromise that reels back some freedom in the name of lasting galactic peace.  Destroy and Control both succeed in defeating the Reapers while impling an unstable or temporary peace, whereas Synthesis argues that it can achieve a lasting galatic peace through co-operation - even if that co-operation is forced upon the galaxy's inhabitants by forcing them to work alongside their once-mortal foes.  Again, whichever way the decision goes, there must be compromise to achieve the goal we've get ourselves - there is no free lunch.

I don't think there is a right answer here.  But the fact that this kind of mature and existential debate about moral relativism can arise from a video game is fantastic.  I'll be bringing this up next time someone tries to tell me games are only for kids.

Eloquently put.  Problem is it is "forced".  Forcing someone to do something against their will breeds hate and resentment usually.  In the long run that would probably lead to even more conflicts.

Again though.  Eloquently put.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

You save everyone, so no, nobody looses. Except for the Reapers.

Synthesis is what the Reapers want.

No, the Reapers want to harvest everyone and turn them into Reapers. 

THIS.  That the Catalyst tried before meant it was one of his options to try and solve the problem, but he couldn't get it to work.

Therefore, his current solution is harvest and store life.

Also, JUST BECAUSE HE TRIED IT ONCE DOESN'T MAKE IT INHERENTLY A BAD IDEA.

You're forgetting that the Catalyst is super evil!! It gives you these three options to save everyone, but man, is he evil. Don't trust him. Don't listen to anything it says!

[v TricKy v]

Monarchos915 wrote...

Perspective changes through what you experience in life, even the most minute of experiences can "change" you. I'd say the synthesis event is a pretty monumental shift, and will significantly alter the perspective of anyone who experiences it. It is not "removal" of who you were, and there is no "replacing," which is a very important distinction. It is simply an augmentation, and opening into an entirely new avenue of experiences to be had. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. You may, obviously, feel different. But to blatantly misrepresent what actually happens is a different offense that needs to be addressed.

You can try to make it look possible all you want. It doesnt change the fact that YOU have no right to decide MY future. If you want to build your own country with people who think like you than that´s ok for me.
But the very moment your are forcing people to see it the way you think is best you are crossing a line that is not acceptable. There was a man 70 years ago who thought also it just would be the best.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

mass perfection wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...
That still doesn't change the fact that the only loosers are the Reapers. 

They actually succeed.

Uhm, no they don't? Their goal is to harvest all advanced organic life, and turn them into new Reapers, only so that they can return and do the same thing in another 50.000 years. By choosing synthesis, you stop them from achieving their goal. You win, they lose. 

Modifié par Brovikk Rasputin, 10 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...


THIS.  That the Catalyst tried before meant it was one of his options to try and solve the problem, but he couldn't get it to work.

Therefore, his current solution is harvest and store life.

It tried it after it determined that solution.

Also, JUST BECAUSE HE TRIED IT ONCE DOESN'T MAKE IT INHERENTLY A BAD IDEA.

Yes, it does. It's the goal of the Reapers, the main antagonist and enemies of all life. The end.

[Peranor]

Well... You can't aruge with headcanon. And Bioware wants headcanon, so I'll give them headcanon.

And in my headcanon the entire glaxy falls in to chaos after Shepard commits the atrocity that is know as Synthesis.
After being raped on a genetic level, organic throughout the entire Milky Way starts to go insane and loose their mind. And soon after the realization of what actually has happened starts to hit people, waves and waves of mass suicides takes place. Hundreds and thousands of people die by suicide. If not immediately then soon thereafter due to injuries sustained during the attempt. And that is just in the few first hours.

Following in the wake of the mass suicides governments starts to collapse and war breaks out all over the galaxy killing millions upon millions.
The synthetics also realize, based to their "new understanding of organics", that this is no way to live. EDI falls in to prostitution and severe drug abuse. And the Geth collective gather their remaning platforms and fly in to the nearest black hole. The few Geth still remaining in the Milky Way soon gets killed in the war or simply shut down.

And that is how I know that my canon Synthesis ending played out. This is fact. It is how synthesis ends in my canon.

Modifié par anorling, 10 juillet 2012 - 10:33 .

[UberDeanski]

Romaka wrote...

Then why does the Catalyst want you to choose Synthesis?  The Catalyst is the collective conciousness of the Reapers as it stated.  That means the Reapers want Synthesis.  Although as I stated in the opening that removes their function and on my personal opinion a failure in the duty that they had.

Interesting isn't it - does the fact that the Catalyst wants Synthesis make it the wrong choice?  Let's think about what the Catalyst / Reapers want.  Do they want to kill everyone?  Certainly it would seem that way - but at a deeper level isn't what it really wants galactic peace?

Is the Catalyst really a-priori evil?  Perhaps it's just that the means through which it wants to achieve peace happen to include galactic destruction.  Catalyst made a choice to destroy Humanity to achieve peace.  Catalyst offers us the choice to either follow in its footsteps and kill to get achieve our goal (Destroy option) or compromise, join it and work hard to try to build a better future.

Which option will we choose...

[The Angry One]

UberDeanski wrote...

Is the Catalyst really a-priori evil?  Perhaps it's just that the means through which it wants to achieve peace happen to include galactic destruction.  Catalyst made a choice to destroy Humanity to achieve peace.  Catalyst offers us the choice to either follow in its footsteps and kill to get achieve our goal (Destroy option) or compromise, join it and work hard to try to build a better future.

Which option will we choose...

A "better future" it and it alone has determined. The most prolific murderer the universe has ever known.
When someone comes up with a solution by themselves, who they are and what they've done becomes very relevant.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

A "better future" it and it alone has determined. The most prolific murderer the universe has ever known.
When someone comes up with a solution by themselves, who they are and what they've done becomes very relevant.

Technically, that's an ad hominem.  Just because he's the Catalyst doesn't make his argument invalid.

If a mass murderer comes out and says killing his wrong and comes up with a solution to lower the crime rate, the fact he's a murderer doesn't invalidate his argument.  Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy.

[Romaka]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

A "better future" it and it alone has determined. The most prolific murderer the universe has ever known.
When someone comes up with a solution by themselves, who they are and what they've done becomes very relevant.

Technically, that's an ad hominem.  Just because he's the Catalyst doesn't make his argument invalid.

If a mass murderer comes out and says killing his wrong and comes up with a solution to lower the crime rate, the fact he's a murderer doesn't invalidate his argument.  Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy.

Would you trust whatever a mass murderer told you?

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Romaka wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

A "better future" it and it alone has determined. The most prolific murderer the universe has ever known.
When someone comes up with a solution by themselves, who they are and what they've done becomes very relevant.

Technically, that's an ad hominem.  Just because he's the Catalyst doesn't make his argument invalid.

If a mass murderer comes out and says killing his wrong and comes up with a solution to lower the crime rate, the fact he's a murderer doesn't invalidate his argument.  Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy.

Would you trust whatever a mass murderer told you?

If it gave me the option to save everyone I know and love, sure. 

[RiouHotaru]

Romaka wrote...

Would you trust whatever a mass murderer told you?

Not the point.  If his argument is sound and the logic of it makes sense, then sure, why not?

Again, status doesn't apply.

[elitehunter34]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

If it gave me the option to save everyone I know and love, sure. 

How would you trust that the option that the mass murderer gave you is going to do what he says it does?