200 réponses à ce sujet

[Baa Baa]

You change everyone whether they like it or not, you give in to your enemy, you let all your friends who you've lost die in vain, Javik is now going to commit suicide, and it's just so silly and far fetched that it's not even funny.

[Quackjack]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

1) synthetics don't have DNA
2) it's not something I think most people would appreciate
3) the epilogue is complete and utter bull****. Don't try to tell me that Javik is fine with being part-synthetic unless he ended up like Winston Smith.

[Baa Baa]

Quackjack wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

1) synthetics don't have DNA
2) it's not something I think most people would appreciate
3) the epilogue is complete and utter bull****. Don't try to tell me that Javik is fine with being part-synthetic unless he ended up like Winston Smith.

I don't even know why I wrote a post when I could have just quoted this

[Icesong]

Random Jerkface wrote...

 Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement.  

People aren't a collective. Unless you're part of a race that's a collective, then okay. Consent is needed for it to not be forced. Even if it's something positive. 

[daecath]

First, it's complete "space magic", which bugs me. There's no precedent for this technology, nothing we've seen even remotely like it, and it makes absolutely no sense. In a sci-fi/fantasy story where you aren't limited by the common laws of nature and technology we're all familiar with, you have to have very well defined limitations on what your universe is capable of, or you lose all aspects of reality, and any sense of challenge or conflict. And especially violating those rules at the end is a complete cop-out that makes it feel cheap.

Second, it is a direct result of a premise that doesn't follow from anything in the rest of the games. "The created will always rebel against their creators." There isn't a single example of this at all. Every hostile synthetic was either hostile due to malfunction, tampering from an outside source, or in self-defense against an oppressor. So the premise is wrong, and everything that follows from it is wrong.

Third, it's insulting. It outright states that the only way to achieve lasting peace is if everyone is fundamentally the same. Sorry democrats and republicans, you might as well just start killing each other now. Let's bring back segregation because any peace between blacks and whites is an aberration and we'll just start murdering each other sooner or later. Every difference - religion, political, race, gender, hell even what your favorite tv show is - all of these are irreconcilable differences that will eventually lead to violence. The only way to ever have peace is if we get rid of our differences. That's a powerful uplifting message right there.

And fourth, when you start digging (and you don't have to dig far), there are so many problems with it. What about all those primitive races that still think fire is a gift from the gods? What happens when they all get weird glowing eyes? Will they assume it's some kind of curse and start sacrificing virgins and children to appease their gods? Will they see it as some kind of status mark, enslaving anyone with less than 3 traces on their right arm because they're lesser creatures?

It's ridiculous, insulting, and goes completely against the spirit of the series.

[noobcannon]

daecath wrote...

First, it's complete "space magic", which bugs me. There's no precedent for this technology, nothing we've seen even remotely like it, and it makes absolutely no sense. In a sci-fi/fantasy story where you aren't limited by the common laws of nature and technology we're all familiar with, you have to have very well defined limitations on what your universe is capable of, or you lose all aspects of reality, and any sense of challenge or conflict. And especially violating those rules at the end is a complete cop-out that makes it feel cheap.

Second, it is a direct result of a premise that doesn't follow from anything in the rest of the games. "The created will always rebel against their creators." There isn't a single example of this at all. Every hostile synthetic was either hostile due to malfunction, tampering from an outside source, or in self-defense against an oppressor. So the premise is wrong, and everything that follows from it is wrong.

Third, it's insulting. It outright states that the only way to achieve lasting peace is if everyone is fundamentally the same. Sorry democrats and republicans, you might as well just start killing each other now. Let's bring back segregation because any peace between blacks and whites is an aberration and we'll just start murdering each other sooner or later. Every difference - religion, political, race, gender, hell even what your favorite tv show is - all of these are irreconcilable differences that will eventually lead to violence. The only way to ever have peace is if we get rid of our differences. That's a powerful uplifting message right there.

And fourth, when you start digging (and you don't have to dig far), there are so many problems with it. What about all those primitive races that still think fire is a gift from the gods? What happens when they all get weird glowing eyes? Will they assume it's some kind of curse and start sacrificing virgins and children to appease their gods? Will they see it as some kind of status mark, enslaving anyone with less than 3 traces on their right arm because they're lesser creatures?

It's ridiculous, insulting, and goes completely against the spirit of the series.

actually it was brought up, saren wanted us to accept synthesis to avoid extinction in ME1. it's just that now there are people who think it's a good idea because space boy brings it up instead of a creepy looking cyborg turian.........suckers

[Icesong]

^ Humans are fundamentally the same.

[Baa Baa]

noobcannon wrote...

daecath wrote...

First, it's complete "space magic", which bugs me. There's no precedent for this technology, nothing we've seen even remotely like it, and it makes absolutely no sense. In a sci-fi/fantasy story where you aren't limited by the common laws of nature and technology we're all familiar with, you have to have very well defined limitations on what your universe is capable of, or you lose all aspects of reality, and any sense of challenge or conflict. And especially violating those rules at the end is a complete cop-out that makes it feel cheap.

Second, it is a direct result of a premise that doesn't follow from anything in the rest of the games. "The created will always rebel against their creators." There isn't a single example of this at all. Every hostile synthetic was either hostile due to malfunction, tampering from an outside source, or in self-defense against an oppressor. So the premise is wrong, and everything that follows from it is wrong.

Third, it's insulting. It outright states that the only way to achieve lasting peace is if everyone is fundamentally the same. Sorry democrats and republicans, you might as well just start killing each other now. Let's bring back segregation because any peace between blacks and whites is an aberration and we'll just start murdering each other sooner or later. Every difference - religion, political, race, gender, hell even what your favorite tv show is - all of these are irreconcilable differences that will eventually lead to violence. The only way to ever have peace is if we get rid of our differences. That's a powerful uplifting message right there.

And fourth, when you start digging (and you don't have to dig far), there are so many problems with it. What about all those primitive races that still think fire is a gift from the gods? What happens when they all get weird glowing eyes? Will they assume it's some kind of curse and start sacrificing virgins and children to appease their gods? Will they see it as some kind of status mark, enslaving anyone with less than 3 traces on their right arm because they're lesser creatures?

It's ridiculous, insulting, and goes completely against the spirit of the series.

actually it was brought up, saren wanted us to accept synthesis to avoid extinction in ME1. it's just that now there are people who think it's a good idea because space boy brings it up instead of a creepy looking cyborg turian.........suckers

I'd prefer thinking it was a good idea by listening to Saren's preaching than Casper. Saren was at least a redeemable character. Casper talks down to Shepard and isn't even a likeable villain.

Modifié par Baa Baa, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:28 .

[daaaav]

Baa Baa wrote...

noobcannon wrote...

daecath wrote...

First, it's complete "space magic", which bugs me. There's no precedent for this technology, nothing we've seen even remotely like it, and it makes absolutely no sense. In a sci-fi/fantasy story where you aren't limited by the common laws of nature and technology we're all familiar with, you have to have very well defined limitations on what your universe is capable of, or you lose all aspects of reality, and any sense of challenge or conflict. And especially violating those rules at the end is a complete cop-out that makes it feel cheap.

Second, it is a direct result of a premise that doesn't follow from anything in the rest of the games. "The created will always rebel against their creators." There isn't a single example of this at all. Every hostile synthetic was either hostile due to malfunction, tampering from an outside source, or in self-defense against an oppressor. So the premise is wrong, and everything that follows from it is wrong.

Third, it's insulting. It outright states that the only way to achieve lasting peace is if everyone is fundamentally the same. Sorry democrats and republicans, you might as well just start killing each other now. Let's bring back segregation because any peace between blacks and whites is an aberration and we'll just start murdering each other sooner or later. Every difference - religion, political, race, gender, hell even what your favorite tv show is - all of these are irreconcilable differences that will eventually lead to violence. The only way to ever have peace is if we get rid of our differences. That's a powerful uplifting message right there.

And fourth, when you start digging (and you don't have to dig far), there are so many problems with it. What about all those primitive races that still think fire is a gift from the gods? What happens when they all get weird glowing eyes? Will they assume it's some kind of curse and start sacrificing virgins and children to appease their gods? Will they see it as some kind of status mark, enslaving anyone with less than 3 traces on their right arm because they're lesser creatures?

It's ridiculous, insulting, and goes completely against the spirit of the series.

actually it was brought up, saren wanted us to accept synthesis to avoid extinction in ME1. it's just that now there are people who think it's a good idea because space boy brings it up instead of a creepy looking cyborg turian.........suckers

I'd prefer thinking it was a good idea by listening to Saren's preaching than Casper. Saren was at least a redeemable character. Casper talks down to Shepard and isn't willing to listen to what he has to say.

I'd go further. Saren WAS a character. Spacebrat is a plot device.

[The_Other_M]

Well..
There's the creepy green-glowing eyes and the glowing circuitry-"veins",

The Reapers suddenly being everyone's new "best friends" despite the whole "galactic genocide" thing, the husks, that "space-juicer" thing from ME2. Ya' know the thing they've been doing until just 10 minutes ago. And everybody is cool with it.

Sheperd STILL being dead.

OR that fact that it's still a terrible, nonsensical, bull**** choice just like Destroy, Control, and now Refuse*

Modifié par The_Other_M, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:50 .

[MetioricTest]

Can I respond via story? Because I am bored of just listing reasons why I don't like the ending.

[The_Other_M]

daaaav wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

noobcannon wrote...

daecath wrote...

First, it's complete "space magic", which bugs me. There's no precedent for this technology, nothing we've seen even remotely like it, and it makes absolutely no sense. In a sci-fi/fantasy story where you aren't limited by the common laws of nature and technology we're all familiar with, you have to have very well defined limitations on what your universe is capable of, or you lose all aspects of reality, and any sense of challenge or conflict. And especially violating those rules at the end is a complete cop-out that makes it feel cheap.

Second, it is a direct result of a premise that doesn't follow from anything in the rest of the games. "The created will always rebel against their creators." There isn't a single example of this at all. Every hostile synthetic was either hostile due to malfunction, tampering from an outside source, or in self-defense against an oppressor. So the premise is wrong, and everything that follows from it is wrong.

Third, it's insulting. It outright states that the only way to achieve lasting peace is if everyone is fundamentally the same. Sorry democrats and republicans, you might as well just start killing each other now. Let's bring back segregation because any peace between blacks and whites is an aberration and we'll just start murdering each other sooner or later. Every difference - religion, political, race, gender, hell even what your favorite tv show is - all of these are irreconcilable differences that will eventually lead to violence. The only way to ever have peace is if we get rid of our differences. That's a powerful uplifting message right there.

And fourth, when you start digging (and you don't have to dig far), there are so many problems with it. What about all those primitive races that still think fire is a gift from the gods? What happens when they all get weird glowing eyes? Will they assume it's some kind of curse and start sacrificing virgins and children to appease their gods? Will they see it as some kind of status mark, enslaving anyone with less than 3 traces on their right arm because they're lesser creatures?

It's ridiculous, insulting, and goes completely against the spirit of the series.

actually it was brought up, saren wanted us to accept synthesis to avoid extinction in ME1. it's just that now there are people who think it's a good idea because space boy brings it up instead of a creepy looking cyborg turian.........suckers

I'd prefer thinking it was a good idea by listening to Saren's preaching than Casper. Saren was at least a redeemable character. Casper talks down to Shepard and isn't willing to listen to what he has to say.

I'd go further. Saren WAS a character. Spacebrat is a plot device.

^^Or this.

[alienatedflea]

MB957 wrote...

for me , synthesis doesnt work because it is forced upon the galaxy without its consent. I like the idea of utopian peace and harmony....

but not at the cost of every living things free will.

you can NOT use the consent arguement...any end-game decision is FORCED upon the galaxy without its consent!!!

[alienatedflea]

OdanUrr wrote...

Two reasons why I personally don't buy it:

1) It makes no sense. The idea of synthetics turning into organics has not been explored in the Mass Effect universe before and has no scientific basis for it that I'm aware of. I'm not sure it even qualifies as science fiction.

2) Shepard is effectively turning everyone into a new species without their consent. If it were the only way to defeat the Reapers, it would've presented an interesting dilemma: are you prepared to save the galaxy even if it means taking away their free will?

Nonetheless, I respect it as a choice that suffered from a serious lack of exposition as did the majority of the ending and, to some extent, ME3 as a whole.

huh? maybe you need to watch the synthesis EC ending again...that doesnt happen...

[Zardoc]

legion999 wrote...

Everything.

[alienatedflea]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Evebrey wrote...

I still feel like the whole " It's not a thing you can force" part is very important.

How are you not forcing it?

lol how are you forcing it? lol thats like saying fans force air to blow? lol no one was strapped down and operated on...it was voluntary on the part of shepard to mix his essense with the catalyst to synthesis the polar opposites...organics and synthetics...if anything...this option is extraordinary...

[alienatedflea]

Icesong wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

 Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement.  

People aren't a collective. Unless you're part of a race that's a collective, then okay. Consent is needed for it to not be forced. Even if it's something positive. 

having peace doesnt mean people become a collective...

[daaaav]

alienatedflea wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

 Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement.  

People aren't a collective. Unless you're part of a race that's a collective, then okay. Consent is needed for it to not be forced. Even if it's something positive. 

having peace doesnt mean people become a collective...

Yes there's just peace...

We'll just set aside the fact that we currently have NO idea how to achieve permanent, unyeilding peace. As far as we know humanity isn't capable of peace. So if we did have 'peace', then if not a collective, what are we?

Because we are no longer human anymore...

[D24O]

My problems with synthesis are first that it just creeps me out on a visceral level, more-so with the husk scene in the EC. But also I have a problem with it on a metatextual level, if really what they were trying to tell us is that synthetics are an invalid form of life, why even waste our time with EDI, Legion, the Heretic/Orthodox Geth, and Rannoch. I don't like the fact that is almost invalidates some of the best parts of 3, and two characters entire development arcs.

[Genetic Destiny]

alienatedflea wrote...

MB957 wrote...

for me , synthesis doesnt work because it is forced upon the galaxy without its consent. I like the idea of utopian peace and harmony....

but not at the cost of every living things free will.

you can NOT use the consent arguement...any end-game decision is FORCED upon the galaxy without its consent!!!

Wasn't the plan of everyone who fought the reapers in ME3 (if not, then mostly everyone) to...destroy the reapers? Wouldn't that in a way represent their consent since that's what they wanted?

[Urazz]

I didn't mind that it changed the organics and AIs but having the reapers get along with them and galactic society going into a golden age just seemed like bad writing to me since things never end that well.  I personally, never choose synthesis because of that and the fact that only you get to decide to dramatically change everyone's physiology just seemed wrong.  It also stopped the point of defeating the reapers.  At least with control you destroy the 'controller' of the reapers and take it's place.  With Synthesis, you don't even do that.

Modifié par Urazz, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:20 .

[OdanUrr]

alienatedflea wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Two reasons why I personally don't buy it:

1) It makes no sense. The idea of synthetics turning into organics has not been explored in the Mass Effect universe before and has no scientific basis for it that I'm aware of. I'm not sure it even qualifies as science fiction.

2) Shepard is effectively turning everyone into a new species without their consent. If it were the only way to defeat the Reapers, it would've presented an interesting dilemma: are you prepared to save the galaxy even if it means taking away their free will?

Nonetheless, I respect it as a choice that suffered from a serious lack of exposition as did the majority of the ending and, to some extent, ME3 as a whole.

huh? maybe you need to watch the synthesis EC ending again...that doesnt happen...

It was implied in the original endings and strengthened now with the EC, particularly in this scene:

[Icesong]

alienatedflea wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

 Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement.  

People aren't a collective. Unless you're part of a race that's a collective, then okay. Consent is needed for it to not be forced. Even if it's something positive. 

having peace doesnt mean people become a collective...

I was trying to say that each individual would have to decide for themselves to be synthesized for it not to be a "forced advancement".

Modifié par Icesong, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:29 .

[Plasma Prestige]

 I think the Synthesis ending brings up the most meaningful discussion of all the choices. There is a clear reason to choose this ending over others. The Space Child says that organics use synthetics as a means to improve themselves, and synthetics use organics as a means to gain fuller understanding. The Synthesis ending is the only ending which effectively resolves this core issue of synthetic vs. organic; by erasing the line between the two, the synthesis serves to give organics full depth and bredth of knowledge while giving synthetics the experiences of a living creature, a sense of understanding.

This ending is the only ending which resolves not only the Reaper threat, but something more significant than the Reaper threat. The Reapers are simply a tool to address a bigger problem; while Control and Destroy relieve a symptom, Synthesis addresses the problem itself. 

However, with all this, comes a great cost. Is it worth synthesizing all organic life in the galaxy with synthetics without consent, if it means that the conflict will never arise again, and millions of lives will be spared? Is this really a question of free will? Is it more "human" to die fighting for the right to choose one's own fate, or implement a harsh solution which will end the problem for good?

This fact alone - that the Synthesis ending addresses the core, not the symptom (the Reapers) - makes the Control and Destroy endings seem inadequate. When I first played through ME3, I chose Destroy, if only as a gut-reaction. But with the EC, and further contemplation, I chose Synthesis. The only other option I could see working is Refusal, but I think it is more selfish to make the decision for the entire galaxy to die just to preserve one's own "destiny." Making that decision is a bigger violation of free will than synthesizing.