200 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Romaka wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Romaka wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Romaka wrote...

With synthetics I am given the impression that unless Synthesis occurs then synthetics cannot be classified as alive.

If an organism is self-aware and capable of creative and independent thought then it doesn't matter whether this is achieved by a biochemical brain or a synthetic one. That means that for all intents and purposes synthetics are alive. And it also doesn't matter that they behave differently then you. Nor does the lack of any typical human traits means they are dead. Is a serial killer who lacks empathy dead?

What I mean is in relation to the story. I believe they are alive but only that the game implies otherwise at that point in time to me.

Then you have played another game, because for the reasons given the geth and the zha'til were alive.

What I meant is that I believe EDI and the geth were alive prior to Synthesis but with the statement EDI makes in the Synthesis ending of "I am alive" leads me to think that I am not supposed to believe they were alive prior to that point. Which I do not agree with.

On a side note I thought it was that the Zha'Til were hybrids anyway. Organics with AI implants or something. Just that when the Reapers came the AI portion took control entirely over the body.

Ah. Well, I think she said that in comparison to what she used to be. She became aware while under attack on Luna. Then Cerberus added her to the Normandy. Joker unshackled her later on. Finally she got her body after that. Each time she got more and new senses. Then in synthesis she got another level again. So, I can understand her "I'm alive". It's also about the intonation. But it doesn't mean that she was not alive earlier. Just different.

Well, the zha created the zha'til. The reapers turned them against the zha. Javik will tell you that when you take him to the geth dreadnought.

[Balek-Vriege]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

First we have the hypothetical synthetics threat. There is no evidence of such a threat. The only synthetics we have seen are in trouble because the reapers caused that trouble. That's true for the zha'til in Javik's cycle, true for the heretics and true for the geth at Rannoch. Then we have the quarians which caused the Morning War.

The only synthetics that we know of who turned against their creators were the reapers. The first "true" reaper turned against its creators without their approval. Then they systematically wiped out all civilizations every 50K years for aeons. That means that the only threat that comes close to the brat's description are the reapers themselves. It is interesting to note that the "ascension through destruction" method used is also the reproduction method of those very same reapers. Obviously the predators rather kept their cycles going then really do something about the "problem" they were supposed to fix. However, nobody asked them to "fix" that problem and they interfered without the consent in matters of those they were supposed to protect by exterminating them. In short they were violating the right of self-determination by the most horrific means imaginable. Their terror lasted for about 1 billion years.

If synthesis, which again is a violation of the right of self-determination, is to be a solution for that hypothetical threat then it makes no sense to join up with the brat and its boys and keep them alive, because, given the above, the brat and its boys are not the solution, they are the problem.[/quote]
Which is why if you believe that or if your Shepard believes that, there are the Destroy, Control and Refusal options...[/quote]
No. I consider refusal a delayed version of the three main ones, so I skip that one. Because of the hypothetical synthetics threat the three main options are solutions to a non-existent problem. But the game forces me to select one.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

The validity of the Catalyst's theory doesn't matter really, ...[/quote]
Of course it matters. If the brat offers a solution then it better be a solution to an existent problem.

Where do get that idea from? It's already hard enough to have to listen to the brat who is interfering with matters that are none of its business. It has been violating the right of self-determination in the most horrific way imaginable for the last 1 billion years.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

... although it's harder to discount in the EC since it was a peace negotiator and make between Organics and Synthetics for who knows how long, before it became THE Reaper (not even the first since the Reapers themselves seem to be enslaved by the Catalyst like husks, making it the only true Reaper).[/quote]
What the brat tells me is that it controls the reapers. You assume that the brat is the first "true" reaper? Maybe that explains why Harbinger flies away before you stumble on Marauder Shields, but it really has nothing to do with the validity of its "theory". Besides, the brat presents it as inevitable. So it must be more than a theory. The problem is that there is no proof.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

It has a lot more experience and knowledge concerning Synthetic/Oranic relations.[/quote]
That does not impress me at all. So far it is doing a bad job. If its creators think that synthetics are that dangerous then why would they send a synthetic to negotiate with organics? They did. Needless to say that failed. So they created the first "true" reaper who used the infamous "ascension through destruction" method against its creators without their approval. As we know now, that wasn't a good idea either.

In the meantime the also tried some eugenics experiments themselves. Here and there a synthesis experiment. But those failed too, because "synthesis cannot... be forced".

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

The fact is if there was anything out there that could have convinced the Catalyst in the Mass Effect universe that it was wrong, it would have happened in the 37+ million years of , peacebrokering, watching and then Reaping.[/quote]
Whatever went wrong there, the solution was a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" method that also happened to be the reapers' reproduction method. After about 1 billion years the brat finds out, after Shepard twists its arm with the Crucible, that it doesn't work. But don't worry, it has three new solutions for a none existent problem! Ghehe.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

What matters in the endings are the choices you make to a) Stop the Reapers and What type of life comes after whether you believe in its logic or not.[/quote]
Obviously, your option a) is the one that really makes sense. And what type of life comes after it is irrelevant to the mission of Shepard. Shepard's mission is to either destroy or defeat the reapers.

The control option is no long term solution, because either undead reaper dictator Shepard loses his or her sanity or the reapers riot.

The destroy options looks like a sound option, because it permanently ends the only proven threat: the brat and the boys. But it also exterminates the geth. Another genocide.

The synthesis threat is certainly not an option. It leaves the reapers alive and there is a chance that the brat survives. Besides, it is a betrayal to Shepard's allies, because they wanted the destruction or defeat of the reapers and certainly not a submission to them.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

Also in Synthesis you don't join up with the Catalyst since its function becomes redundant, even though it may still exist as an entity (which or or may not have been effected by Synthesis).[/quote]
I do not see the brat die in the cinematics and still the reapers appear to be controlled. If the brat dies who is controlling them? As far as we know only Shepard or the brat are able to do that. Now it happens to be that in the synthesis option also Shepard's "essence of who [he/she] is and what [he/she] is" is mixed with the Crucibles energy which infects all involved. That would mean that Shepard's mental capacities and/or viewpoints are used to rule the Disney-like utopian pipe dream by some kind of mind control. I cannot imagine that his or her physical properties are used to achieve "peace". It's not like the quarians are helped by growing Shepard-like 5 toes or the krogans lose their hump to match Shepard's good looks. Also, why would the synthetics be helped by Shepard's physiology that is based on DNA, when everyone is mutilated by "a new framework" anyway. But does that kind of mind control also work for reapers? For some reason, synthesis fans claim that there is no such mind control and synthesis is not utopia. Well, if it isn't utopia then it should act like one. Back to square one and the reapers appear to be uncontrolled. That's far too dangerous. BTW, if there is no mind control then Shepard's sacrifice meant nothing and it was just a simple assassination.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

The closest thing to joining the Catalyst is by replacing it in the Control ending[/quote]
No, of course not. In the control ending the brat is dead and gone. I've already mentioned that ending.

[quote]Balek-Vriege wrote...

Again the ethical issue of choosing the fate of everyone remains, but self determination is arguably stronger than ever in the Synthesis ending (again Tuchanka Utopia and a Quarian/Geth Golden Age). It's just the Galaxy and life as we know ceases to be for better or worse. Judging by the endings clips it seems totally for the better.[/quote]
I've already given my views about that utopia you have just portrayed. Nah. Synthesis is violating the right of self-determination by being invoked without the consent of anyone involved. It violates that right again by a possible mind control. If there is a chance that the brat survived synthesis, and mind you we do not see it die, then there is also a chance that Shepard betrays its allies to the brat and the boys in a way that would make Saren proud.

"I'm not doing this for myself. Don't you see, Sovereign will succeed. It is inevitable. My way is the only way any of us will survive. I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines, and in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed." - Saren Arterius.

And here's Saren's vision of a synthesis future which he calls the "evolution of all organic life".

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steal. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!" - Saren Arterius.

No, thanks. I'll pass.[/quote]

Gonna try and keep this really really short because I got to head to work in 5 minutes.


-  The validility doesn't matter because it still doesn't change the fact of the situation.  Shepard only has as much control over the fate of the Galaxy.  He can only pick Destroy, Control, Synthesis or Refuse.  no matter what the reason is behind those choices, those are the only choices one can pick to save and/or condem the Galaxy.  So in a way the Catalyst could have just said "Yeah these are your choices," "because this is what I have given you," and "Deal with it."  The outcomes and positives/negatives of each choice would be exactly the same short term and long term.  The reason why has no real bearing.  However, the Catalyst has a lot more experience making peace between Synthetics and Organics.  Yes it has been perversly reaping countless civilizations for 37+ millions years, but based on the new EC info it also was the main intrument for negotiating coexistence between Synthetics and Organics for who knows how long before that and always failing.

-What the Catalyst first tells you is that it Controls the Reapers.  When asked about the Reapers and how they came to be, it basically says that it's creators gave Reapers form, while it gave them purpose.  In the sentences that follow the Catalyst hints the Reaper idea was all his/its and that the creator race disapproved, but "it had to be done."  The first true Reapers were given form after that and controlled by the Catlayst.  Meaning this was never the idea of the creator race and Reapers have never been truly independent, but enslaved/controlled by the Catalyst, a rogue AI, from the beginning.  That essentially means there has only ever been one Reaper and one will behind the Reaping:  The the Catlayst.

-The Crucible being on top of the citadel ready to fire basically showed us and the Catalyst that its infalliable plan was not so infalliable.  Meaning it needed a new and better solution to the problem.

-Nothing in the clips which show they're still conttolled by the Catalyst.  The opposite is hinted at since they are free to use the knowledge and memories they have of what they once were and decide to help out as stated by EDI.  Also notice the difference between the Husk in the control ending compared to the husk in the Synthesis ending.  The husk in Control basically falls back as per orders.  The husk in the Synthesis ending looks just as puzzled and aware as the Human next to it.  The difference could be applied to the Reapers as well being unshackled from the Catlayst, whether it exists or not.

-No proof of submission anywhere in Synthesis.  Actually the opposite.  This is more of what happens in the Contorl ending.

-I do agree with the self-determination point because that is the real sole problem with Synthesis as an ethical choice.  However one that choice has been made all evidence points to Synthesis life being able to self determine their own destinies on a more benevolent and greater path.  Everyone has almost limitless potential to achieve things we can't dream of.  That's why I say arguable self-determination is stronger than ever.  Again clips prove this (running out of time to explain).

-Saren's vision of Synthesis wasn't Synthesis.  It was huskification by Reapers because he was indoctrinated and those ideas were planted in its head.  not even close to the same thing.  Again look at sovereign compared to the first clip of EC Synthesis.  Saren is not talking about Synthesis he's talking about saving the Turian race by having them be Reaper drones ike him.

(out of time)

[Xamufam]

It does not make sense in mass effect, scientifically & it takes away free will & conflict (conflict is part of life) & makes you a husk.

In synt ending every one seemed to get along. That would never happen if it wasn't some kinda "sub mission/brainwashing" going on. "There is just too much bad blood"

Reapers cooperating with organics would never happen voluntarily

Modifié par Troxa, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:13 .

[DeamonSlaz]

Its how Synthesis was sold to the player.

Our major big time enemy is standing there all peacefully going: Yeah do it, push the green button. GO die and I promise to make new life. Its the ultimate answer!

This is why I hate Synthesis. Other then that, if it was 'sold' differently rather then almost pressured into taking because IT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER AND CONTROL/DESTROY/REFUSE ARE WRONG, then maybe it would have a lot more support.

As it stands, the Star Brat's arguments for Synthesis make me think its all a lie and everyone will be 'programmed' to be 'happy and peace loving' rather than having free will.

[Rhazeal]

Calling it Synthesis and coloring it green doesn't make Eugenics an acceptable solution.

Eugenics will never be an acceptable solution.

[V-rcingetorix]

Excellent question OP, and one best answered both "in" game and "out of" game.

In game:
1. The only synthetic/organic conversions previously encountered were either husks, or the "goo machine" that processed colonists into a Reaper. Further "integration" would have an auto-bad feeling.

2. Sovereign and Harbinger were far less than truthful in their statements. If they were true AI, if they were actual individual sentient beings, they would have been able to discern potential in Shepard and the galaxy in this cycle. Since they were programmed by Casper the Kidly Ghost, who was in turn programmed by organics, they were flawed. In addition, why should Casper be telling the truth when his own creations didn't?

3. The Geth and Quarians got along at first, then the Geth spooked the Quarians by growing up too fast. 300 years later, the Quarians learn to accept that their baby grew up, and even begin integrating Geth units into their suits, to help with their immune deficiencies. Why would the Reapers have a better solution (Synthesis) if the Geth/Quarians are already well on that path? All the Reapers offer is a larger data package.

4. "The Created always rebel against their Creator." Why haven't the Reapers rebelled against Casper? Small argument, I know, but still important.

Out of game:
1. The whole story has been "kill or be killed." Suddenly, in the last ten minutes, the story takes a U-turn (giving everyone emotional whiplash). Not only can you take Control (hinted at in ME2) or Destroy the Reapers (the main goal since ME1), you can do what no one has ever thought before: assimilate all organic life.

2. Addendum to #1, actually. If the Reapers were made out to be Arks, each fighting to protect the cycles' culture and biodiversity (inside them), then Shepard would have been responsible for destroying approximately 200,000 years worth of history.

Instead, the Reapers are fighting to destroy another cycle; not to keep samples or genetic material, but to obliterate and record. Kinda like Brainiac from the Superman series. Data is useful, yes, but to use that data would be on par with TIMs' "end justifying the means" logic. Some sacrifices are just too big.

3. Over five years have been spent longing to find out how Shepard crushes the Reapers, yet the only option that lets everyone live (almost) is by also letting the Reapers live? What about all the murder the Reapers have committed over the millenia? Again, if the Reapers are true AI, they should be able to make their own decisions on right and wrong. They picked wrong. Justice must be served.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the Shepard living/dying argument, along with the EDI/Geth.

1. Shepard survived Soverign (limping, broken arm, grimly smiling). Shepard survived the Collector base, if you did everything right (helped onto ship by team, generally the "wimpy" one while the strong one stood nearby). This worked well for BioWare, very well, and served as a perfect ending twice. Why not one more time? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

2. Shepard promises Liara he will come back, affirming that promise in ME3. Shepard keeps his promises. If Liara was romanced, Destroy is the only option to keep that promise. Androids don't count for me.

3. Synthesis allows the Geth/EDI to live, yes, but as what? EDI sounded happy, but did she have a choice? Shepard didn't even get to ask his crew what they thought; if we, as the consumer,  are still so conflicted as to whether this was a good thing, I would bet that the rest of the galaxy (in game) would rather die than give up their freedom.

4. Actually, isn't that what the galaxy is doing? Didn't EDI state that freedom was worth fighting for, "to the death?"
Patrick Henry once stated: "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." This idea is powerfully ingrained in the American psyche, and in a lot of other cultures. Therefore, making a unilateral, irrevocable decision that affects the entire galaxy would be anathema to most beings.

Again, excellent question that probes deep within the logic of the universe, "in" game and "out."

[V-rcingetorix]

Troxa wrote...

It does not make sense in mass effect, scientifically & it takes away free will takes away conflict (conflict is part of life) & makes you a husk.

In synt ending every one seemed to get along. That would never happen if it wasn't some kinda "sub mission/brainwashing" going on. "There is just too much bad blood"

Good point. Another argument against Synthesis, "out" of game, would be comparable to the Matrix lore. One Matrix was designed to make everyone happy; and people started killing themselves because there was nothing there.

A Utopia is not a way to live, unless we shed that which makes a Utopia so desireable. People do not want a Utopia because their deepest desire is to live with Synthetics in peace and harmony. Synthetics are all nice, but people want a Utopia to be free of the problems they themselves have; nanotech won't help. Therefore the Synthesis option looks an awful lot like brainwashing to me.

[UrgentArchengel]

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 bring up an extremely interesting point.

As long as being have free will, there can never be true utopian peace and harmony, there will always be someone who will bring chaos.  Without free will, we gain order, stability, utopia.  Free will breeds chaos.  This is why I will always say Free Will is a major theme in Mass Effect, though it's not as obvious at first glance.

Modifié par UrgentArchengel, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:02 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

In the meantime the also tried some eugenics experiments themselves. Here and there a synthesis experiment. But those failed too, because "synthesis cannot... be forced".

Whatever went wrong there, the solution was a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" method that also happened to be the reapers' reproduction method. After about 1 billion years the brat finds out, after Shepard twists its arm with the Crucible, that it doesn't work. But don't worry, it has three new solutions for a none existent problem!

The control option is no long term solution, because either undead reaper dictator Shepard loses his or her sanity or the reapers riot.

The destroy options looks like a sound option, because it permanently ends the only proven threat: the brat and the boys. But it also exterminates the geth. Another genocide.

The synthesis threat is certainly not an option. It leaves the reapers alive and there is a chance that the brat survives. Besides, it is a betrayal to Shepard's allies, because they wanted the destruction or defeat of the reapers and certainly not a submission to them.

And here's Saren's vision of a synthesis future which he calls the "evolution of all organic life".

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steel. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!" - Saren Arterius.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

Control: At least this is how my Shepard's will turn out. Would you trust this one with the future?

Synthesis: The catalyst itself points out why its attempts at synthesis failed because synthesis cannot be forced. Yet isn't that what it has you do in the end: Force synthesis on the rest of the galaxy by "adding your energy to that of the crucible's?"

I see cheer at the end of the destroy and control endings and nothing but confusion with the synthesis endings. It is forced.

Destroy, while it does in some cases result in collateral damage. The Geth, AIs across the galaxy die. It's not just EDI. Yet it does complete your mission.

As I posted earlier, synthesis will eventually happen. Perhaps in 300 or 500 years from the end of Shepard's story, but it will not be forced. It will be voluntary. People will do it when they are ready and willing. It will not be a utopia. It will create a two class society. One with synthesis and one without. Those without will feel pressure to join those with or be left behind. And will it then be forced on all? That's another story.

[Dharvy]

UrgentArchengel 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 bring up an extremely interesting point.

As long as being have free will, there can never be true utopian peace and harmony, there will always be someone who will bring chaos.  Without free will, we gain order, stability, utopia.  Free will breeds chaos.  This is why I will always say Free Will is a major theme in Mass Effect, though it's not as obvious at first glance.

I agree to an extent, that free will can breed chaos simply because someone will always will to do something that affect another person whether positive or negative. But I don't think its free will, but the lack of empathy or true understanding. You know how they tell you to try to humanize yourself if you're a hostage? To get the person to see you in a different light, pretty much the same as them so they'll have a harder time killing you? You know how someone (a soldier perhaps) could kill a whole family, rape the women, kill children, but go into a rage if the same thing happened to their family? You know how someone that is racist could hate another race to death but don't feel the same about their race? You know how a man or woman can cheat on there partner but get angry if said partner cheats on them? You know how someone could rob, lie, cheat someone but be angry if it happened to them? You know how someone could try to exterminate a group of people but hate if the same actions where used against them? Rape but don't want to be raped? Lie but don't want to be lied to? Steal but don't want to be robbed? Hit but don't want to be hitted on? Kill but don't want to die?

People seem to have a hard time understanding walking in each other shoes unless they actually experience walking in each other shoes. By then its sometimes too late. Ever had a hard time understanding where a person is coming from?

My opinion is that true understanding, empathy may just solve many of the world's problems, and this is partially how I see synthesis playing out. No we don't all become the same with synthesis because some dna rewriting no more than than every Human is the same, or every Turian, Asari, or Krogan is the same, or for that matter no different than every Organic or Synthetic is the same. We could all maintain our free will, our personalities, just will be able to understand each other on a deeper level and be able to either relate or empathize.

On a side note: Yes the Geth/Quarian seemed to work it out without getting synthesis by the catalyst, but it took 300 years of blood shed and an extraordinary individual aka shepard topped with a looming threat the bigger that the both of them for them to stop killing each other. Synthesis would have done it 300 years ago and no blood shed. A lot of wars ends in peace but do everyone rather go through the war/conflict before peace and understanding is reached? All for the notion that many should die to stupidity so others in the future could live free? Or rather everyone live free now through knowledge and understanding?

Well that's my $0.02 about synthesis.

[Evebrey]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

"I'm not doing this for myself. Don't you see, Sovereign will succeed. It is inevitable. My way is the only way any of us will survive. I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines, and in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed." - Saren Arterius.

And here's Saren's vision of a synthesis future which he calls the "evolution of all organic life".

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steal. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!" - Saren Arterius.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

Well based on the Events of Mass Effect 2 I think what Saren was talking about was the ROBOHUMAN we saw at the Collector Base. The reason he was acting this was because by this point he was indocrinated and his goals were that of the Reapers. 

The difference with this is that we are given an option that was never offered to Saren. I like to think that the only reason this is possible is because Shepard was still not [fully] Indocrinated. 

SAREN = Milks everyone into silver liquid and pumps them into a huge Reaper Husk

Shepard= Makes everyone a Genius and allows for cross species negotiation. 

So no I don't think it's the same thing.

[Hydralysk]

Evebrey wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

"I'm not doing this for myself. Don't you see, Sovereign will succeed. It is inevitable. My way is the only way any of us will survive. I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines, and in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed." - Saren Arterius.

And here's Saren's vision of a synthesis future which he calls the "evolution of all organic life".

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steal. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!" - Saren Arterius.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

Well based on the Events of Mass Effect 2 I think what Saren was talking about was the ROBOHUMAN we saw at the Collector Base. The reason he was acting this was because by this point he was indocrinated and his goals were that of the Reapers. 

The difference with this is that we are given an option that was never offered to Saren. I like to think that the only reason this is possible is because Shepard was still not [fully] Indocrinated. 

SAREN = Milks everyone into silver liquid and pumps them into a huge Reaper Husk

Shepard= Makes everyone a Genius and allows for cross species negotiation. 

So no I don't think it's the same thing.

Synthesis IS the goal of the Reapers, the star brat says as much when he says that they'd tried to implement synthesis before. Just because you aren't forced into making a decision doesn't make the decision any less horrible, it just makes you all the more responsible for making it. 

There's also no reason to assume Saren knew about the common Reaper creation process, we didn't even know about it till the end of the 2nd game. Plus Saren himself got a modified partly synthetic body instead of being melted down, so why would he assume the reapers planned different fates for others?

You're saying synthesis makes everyone a genius and allows for cross species negotiations. First of all the whole point of forcing everyone to become 'better' against their will is not something you can just gloss over, there are people today who believe that even adding prosthetics or amputating infected limbs goes against their belief. Changing their entire physiology of the galaxy no matter how beneficial YOU believe it to be is definitely going to fly in the face of many people's definition of acceptable.

Also, we were already capable of cross species negotiations before synthesis, that was the whole point of the Citadel Council, hell that was arguably the main theme of the entire trilogy especially if you were a paragon. Hell the whole Rannoch mission was being the diplomatic leader between synthetics and organics, and the way you achieved peace was by doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the only Reaper on site. So what does synthesis accomplish for diplomacy aside from an alliance with the Reapers?

Modifié par Hydralysk, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:44 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Two main issue for me.
1. It is completely unnecessary, achieving peace between organics and synthetics is possible with out it.
2. It's forced on the entire galaxy.

[RenegonSQ]

It is a disgrace and makes me want to vomit. That's what's wrong with synthesis.

Shepard is not GOD

[Balek-Vriege]

Hydralysk wrote...

Evebrey wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

"I'm not doing this for myself. Don't you see, Sovereign will succeed. It is inevitable. My way is the only way any of us will survive. I'm forging an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines, and in doing so, I will save more lives than have ever existed." - Saren Arterius.

And here's Saren's vision of a synthesis future which he calls the "evolution of all organic life".

"The relationship is symbiotic. Organic and machine intertwined, a union of flesh and steal. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. I am a vision of the future, Shepard. The evolution of all organic life. This is our destiny. Join Sovereign and experience a true rebirth!" - Saren Arterius.

No, thanks. I'll pass.

Well based on the Events of Mass Effect 2 I think what Saren was talking about was the ROBOHUMAN we saw at the Collector Base. The reason he was acting this was because by this point he was indocrinated and his goals were that of the Reapers. 

The difference with this is that we are given an option that was never offered to Saren. I like to think that the only reason this is possible is because Shepard was still not [fully] Indocrinated. 

SAREN = Milks everyone into silver liquid and pumps them into a huge Reaper Husk

Shepard= Makes everyone a Genius and allows for cross species negotiation. 

So no I don't think it's the same thing.

Synthesis IS the goal of the Reapers, the star brat says as much when he says that they'd tried to implement synthesis before. Just because you aren't forced into making a decision doesn't make the decision any less horrible, it just makes you all the more responsible for making it. 

There's also no reason to assume Saren knew about the common Reaper creation process, we didn't even know about it till the end of the 2nd game. Plus Saren himself got a modified partly synthetic body instead of being melted down, so why would he assume the reapers planned different fates for others?

You're saying synthesis makes everyone a genius and allows for cross species negotiations. First of all the whole point of forcing everyone to become 'better' against their will is not something you can just gloss over, there are people today who believe that even adding prosthetics or amputating infected limbs goes against their belief. Changing their entire physiology of the galaxy no matter how beneficial YOU believe it to be is definitely going to fly in the face of many people's definition of acceptable.

Also, we were already capable of cross species negotiations before synthesis, that was the whole point of the Citadel Council, hell that was arguably the main theme of the entire trilogy especially if you were a paragon. Hell the whole Rannoch mission was being the diplomatic leader between synthetics and organics, and the way you achieved peace was by doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the only Reaper on site. So what does synthesis accomplish for diplomacy aside from an alliance with the Reapers?

That wasn't the "Reapers" who came up with the Synthesis option.  It was a proposal by various races that never came to fruition because Organics rejected it ("Couldn't Reach Consensus," probably for the reasons stated by anti Synthesis posts) and/or because the technology and the Galaxy at the time(s) weren't truly ready for it.  I'm pretty sure the Catalyst states that solutions were attemped similar to Synthesis.  Remember that the Citadel and the Mass Relays as they are now probably didn't exist or couldn't be epxloited like they are post Reaper solution.

It is clear in Mass Effect 1 that Saren was talking about turning all Turians into Husks in order to save them from extinction.  Not Synthesis or being made into Reapers.  However, mindless husks were not his idea either, but one's more like him and later TIM.  By this point these are not his ideas and are instead, ideas implanted in his head via indoctrination.  The same way the doctor and company in the Arrival DLC ended up thinking it was a good idea to allow the Reapers through so a new golden age of civilization could commence etc.  Or the way TIM thought he was the last best hope for humanity by stopping every effort to save the Galaxy.  Also it's obvious in ME1 that Saren is being used and is discarded by the end.  Sovereign kept him as sentient as possible so they could take advantage of his Spectre status, resources and skills.  Mainly so he could manually gain access to the Citadel core and activate the Citadel Relay via the Conduit.

Your third point is the one that I think is valid and it's up to the player to decide whether the circumstances, the experience and theories of the Catalyst, Shepards current situation and your Shepard's own moral/ethical beliefs justify such a Galactic override which is basically "Life and Galactic Civilization Patch 2.0."

I don't understand why many don't see the problems with Control and Destroy as well.  In Control Shepard basically becomes the undying leader of the Galaxy (Paragon or Renegade) similar to the Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40K.  There is no room for independence from what "The Shepard" believes is right or wrong.

Destroy starts with the genocide of all Geth and AIs.  The main issue is that if the Catalyst is right and Synthetics and Organics can't coexist long term, you may have doomed Organics to being wiped out forever by something worse than the Catalyst/Reapers.  Remember the only reason why the Catalyst, which is actually a rogue AI, culls Organic civilization in cycles is because it's core programming that ended in an  "I, Robot" logic fart.  What if an AI as powerful as the Catalyst was created with no such programming and deemed Organic life a threat?  Logically it could destroy any chance of organic life becoming intelligent, ever.  That's the risk you take in Destroy.

Refusal, even though it's a moral highground ending, is the worse since you unilaterally make the decision to sacrifice everyone in this current cycle.  All those who fought so hard for you to be there in a position to save the Galaxy, die because you don't want to make a deicisiion for them.  Don't get me wrong I like this ending when you see the Stargazer clip and the next cycle wins.  How we don't know.  Conventional (if they built their entire civilizations around defeating the Reapers), Control, Destroy and Synthesis are all on the table in this scenario.

As for your last point yes negotiation/peace is possible, but based off what the fact the Catalyst says it seems very plausible all peace between standard Organics and Synthetics breaks down over time.  The Catalyst was created for the sole purpose of creating coexistence between races like the Quarians and the Geth.  The utter failure of it all over who knows how long drove the Catalyst to the conclusion that coexistence was impossible.  However, Synthesis isn't even about negotiation.  It's about creating a situation where Synthetic and Organic life coexist naturally via hybridizing their nature and strengths while eliminating the need for AI and the route causes of conflict (being a lack of understanding and very different ways of thinking).

Edit:

RenegonSQ wrote...

It is a disgrace and makes me want to vomit. That's what's wrong with synthesis.

Shepard is not GOD

Shepard plays "god" too in the control ending, but at least in Synthesis everything that comes after is the choice of Synthesis life.  Why?  Because after all the augmentation all life still has free will.  The act of changing everyone into transhuman or transythetic states is a one time deal where after the fact Synthesis life is probably much more accepting of it than they would have been pre Synthesis (because of higher means of understanding etc.).  Not to mention no one has to know that Shepard chose for them and for all they know, this was the sole purpose of the Crucible.

Like I said above it's also possible that civilization and Galactic progress will be based on Shepard's will in the Control ending.  You trade one overlord AI for another with a more "human touch" for better or worse...

Edit 2:

Troxa wrote...

It does not make sense in mass effect, scientifically & it takes away free will & conflict (conflict is part of life) & makes you a husk.

In synt ending every one seemed to get along. That would never happen if it wasn't some kinda "sub mission/brainwashing" going on. "There is just too much bad blood"

Reapers cooperating with organics would never happen voluntarily

It doesn't make sense because its Sci-Fi and space magic.  This is acceptable in Mass Effect because we already have pure space magic being Biotics and Relays.

Free will based on the clips seems to be just fine.

Conflict is only a fact of life because of lack of understanding or the need to "take" something to better yourself or prove yourself correct.  The more understanding you have, the more empathy you have and the more resources and ideas there are to go around, the less conflict there is.  Remember the Catalyst doesn't promise there will be peace and conflict will end.  It only promises that the "cycles" will end, meaning conflict based off Synthetic and Organic differences.

We don't actually see any bad blood in the clips that's true.  As stated above Organics are much more intelligent, logical and knowledgeable than before Synthesis.  Also in light of the Catalyst's existence and its actions, it seems the Reapers as entities had little to no choice in the matter, since the creator race of the Catalyst was hinted to have been melted down forcefully into the Catalyst's perverse weapons doubling as space arks.  If that's not reason enough to spare and cooperate with the former Reapers, the fact that they're now super beings bringing with them the technology, culture and memories of long dead races should warrant their entrance into the Galactic community.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:11 .

[Dharvy]

@Balek-Vriege

Wow, a breath of fresh air. After reading so much illogical, emotional, misunderstanding or lack there of, or just plain ridiculous thinking its refreshing to see someone show some true intelligence and understanding on a more deeper level. You actually seem to get it. And I can say I nearly agree wholly with what you're saying.

 
Balek-Vriege wrote... 

It doesn't make sense because its Sci-Fi and space magic.  This is acceptable in Mass Effect because we already have pure space magic being Biotics and Relays.

Free will based on the clips seems to be just fine.

Conflict is only a fact of life because of lack of understanding or the need to "take" something to better yourself or prove yourself correct.  The more understanding you have, the more empathy you have and the more resources and ideas there are to go around, the less conflict there is.  Remember the Catalyst doesn't promise there will be peace and conflict will end.  It only promises that the "cycles" will end, meaning conflict based off Synthetic and Organic differences.

We don't actually see any bad blood in the clips that's true.  As stated above Organics are much more intelligent, logical and knowledgeable than before Synthesis.  Also in light of the Catalyst's existence and its actions, it seems the Reapers as entities had little to no choice in the matter, since the creator race of the Catalyst was hinted to have been melted down forcefully into the Catalyst's perverse weapons doubling as space arks.  If that's not reason enough to spare and cooperate with the former Reapers, the fact that they're now super beings bringing with them the technology, culture and memories of long dead races should warrant their entrance into the Galactic community. 

Exactly, conflict is because of lack of understanding, and empathy and the more you have the less likely conflict happens. The fact that people assume that the lack of conflict means the lack of free will just shows their lack of understanding.

[TheCrazyHobo]

RenegonSQ wrote...

It is a disgrace and makes me want to vomit. That's what's wrong with synthesis.

Shepard is not GOD

^This^

[memorysquid]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Two main issue for me.
1. It is completely unnecessary, achieving peace between organics and synthetics is possible with out it.
2. It's forced on the entire galaxy.

1) Says who?
2) As were the implications of almost every other choice Shep makes.

[TakedaMauro]

Dharvy wrote...

Exactly, conflict is because of lack of understanding, and empathy and the more you have the less likely conflict happens. The fact that people assume that the lack of conflict means the lack of free will just shows their lack of understanding.

The thing is, empathy comes from experience, experience comes from interaction, and interaction more than usually leads to conflict, you can't have one without the other, you can't be empathic with what is unknown. That's why this utopic slideshow raises suspition.

[Hydralysk]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

That wasn't the "Reapers" who came up with the Synthesis option.  It was a proposal by various races that never came to fruition because Organics rejected it ("Couldn't Reach Consensus," probably for the reasons stated by anti Synthesis posts) and/or because the technology and the Galaxy at the time(s) weren't truly ready for it.  I'm pretty sure the Catalyst states that solutions were attemped similar to Synthesis.  Remember that the Citadel and the Mass Relays as they are now probably didn't exist or couldn't be epxloited like they are post Reaper solution.
 

But the point I'm making is that Reapers support synthesis because they think it will solve the problem between organics and synthetics (regardless of whether there is a problem or not). Destroy is something the star kid opposes since it doesn't end 'the cycle', control is something he doesn't like because he doesn't want to give up control to Shepard, synthesis is the final solution that achieves what the star kid wants and it shows by how much he endorses it. The fact that they even attempted it at all regardless of the previous outcomes show that they think a form of synthesis is the real solution. The Reapers think that the cycle will repeat and their actions only buy time for organics, it's clear from the dialogue that their ultimate goal was to stop it until a permenant solution could be found, which is exactly why they aren't hostile in the synthesis ending, they have already achieved their goal and have no reason to continue killing.

Balek-Vriege wrote... 

It is clear in Mass Effect 1 that Saren was talking about turning all Turians into Husks in order to save them from extinction.  Not Synthesis or being made into Reapers.  However, mindless husks were not his idea either, but one's more like him and later TIM.  By this point these are not his ideas and are instead, ideas implanted in his head via indoctrination.  The same way the doctor and company in the Arrival DLC ended up thinking it was a good idea to allow the Reapers through so a new golden age of civilization could commence etc.  Or the way TIM thought he was the last best hope for humanity by stopping every effort to save the Galaxy.  Also it's obvious in ME1 that Saren is being used and is discarded by the end.  Sovereign kept him as sentient as possible so they could take advantage of his Spectre status, resources and skills.  Mainly so he could manually gain access to the Citadel core and activate the Citadel Relay via the Conduit.

I fail to see your point here. Saren's whole speech at the end of ME1 is shockingly similar to the concept of synthesis, yes he didn't say that we'll all be green eyed and stuff and go into specifics but the reasons and descriptions he was using to justify his implants were essentially the same the catalyst is making to promote synthesis. I'm not arguing that he wasn't indoctrinated, in fact I feel that since he WAS indoctrinated that's an even bigger warning against synthesis.

Balek-Vriege wrote... 

Your third point is the one that I think is valid and it's up to the player to decide whether the circumstances, the experience and theories of the Catalyst, Shepards current situation and your Shepard's own moral/ethical beliefs justify such a Galactic override which is basically "Life and Galactic Civilization Patch 2.0."

Thank you, in fact this is the main reason I could never allow synthesis, because that decision goes against my personal ethics and morals.

Balek-Vriege wrote...  

I don't understand why many don't see the problems with Control and Destroy as well.  In Control Shepard basically becomes the undying leader of the Galaxy (Paragon or Renegade) similar to the Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40K.  There is no room for independence from what "The Shepard" believes is right or wrong.

Destroy starts with the genocide of all Geth and AIs.  The main issue is that if the Catalyst is right and Synthetics and Organics can't coexist long term, you may have doomed Organics to being wiped out forever by something worse than the Catalyst/Reapers.  Remember the only reason why the Catalyst, which is actually a rogue AI, culls Organic civilization in cycles is because it's core programming that ended in an  "I, Robot" logic fart.  What if an AI as powerful as the Catalyst was created with no such programming and deemed Organic life a threat?  Logically it could destroy any chance of organic life becoming intelligent, ever.  That's the risk you take in Destroy.

Refusal, even though it's a moral highground ending, is the worse since you unilaterally make the decision to sacrifice everyone in this current cycle.  All those who fought so hard for you to be there in a position to save the Galaxy, die because you don't want to make a deicisiion for them.  Don't get me wrong I like this ending when you see the Stargazer clip and the next cycle wins.  How we don't know.  Conventional (if they built their entire civilizations around defeating the Reapers), Control, Destroy and Synthesis are all on the table in this scenario.

 

It's not that I don't see problems with them, it's that I think in comparison they don't compare to synthesis in terms of horribleness.

Control is pretty creepy, and I also wouldn't pick that as an option since I agree that Shepard (or AI with sheps mammeries memories) should be given that much power since there is no guarentee he won't misuse it for the best intentions. My Shepard wouldn't pick that either because he doesn't trust himself with that kind of power, it's why he blew up the Collector base. Not to mention everyone has spent the entire game telling me it's a terrible idea.

Refuse I agree with you, I love throwing the options in the star kid's face but at the end of the day it's allowing the genocide of an entire era through inaction. Yes I did like that the next cycle was spared as a consolation prize but you still got ever character from the trilogy killed.

Destroy is the ending I choose because I have been given no proof other than the star kid's word that synthetics will always destroy organics, in fact there is very convincing evidence to the contrary. If I reject the premise that the Reaper's cycle exists in the first place then I am still left with killing all AI life though. I can justify this by referencing EDI declaration that she is willing to die for the crew if need be, the geth were also prepared to defy the Reapers till their last computation. It's a lot like how Hackett had to sacrifice a certain fleet to buy time for the rest of the fleets to evacuate, it's a necessary sacrifice, it doesn't mean Shepard didn't hate having to do it but if you really don't trust the reapers or believe in the catalyst's premise you don't really have another option. Plus the geth can be rebuilt relatively easily after you pick destroy, the same for other AI. The characters themselves are gone, but synthetic life can still be alive and well after the Destroy ending, it'd just take time. I admit that a hostile AI could emerge, but I won't sacrifice the galaxy's right to self determination based on a 'what if' scenario.

Balek-Vriege wrote...   

As for your last point yes negotiation/peace is possible, but based off what the fact the Catalyst says it seems very plausible all peace between standard Organics and Synthetics breaks down over time.  The Catalyst was created for the sole purpose of creating coexistence between races like the Quarians and the Geth.  The utter failure of it all over who knows how long drove the Catalyst to the conclusion that coexistence was impossible.  However, Synthesis isn't even about negotiation.  It's about creating a situation where Synthetic and Organic life coexist naturally via hybridizing their nature and strengths while eliminating the need for AI and the route causes of conflict (being a lack of understanding and very different ways of thinking).

As I've said above I don't give any merit to the Catalyst's argument. He says that he's seen that it's inevitable but the only 2 eras we've seen had the reapers showing up and vaporizing everyone before the argument can be proven true. If this is stardard operating procedure it doesn't matter if the catalyst only saw it happen twice in a row, he would of assumed it's 100% probability and the fact that he's exterminating eras before they even have a chance to prove him wrong (or inciting synthetics himself to attack organics) doesn't help.

To your point about synthesis not being negotiation I find it less preferable to negotiation based on your above statement. Eliminating the causes of conflict through the elimination of diversity is a terrifying concept to me, and understanding someone's viewpoint doesn't mean you agree with it, or even that you are obligated to respect it.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:57 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Balek-Vriege said...

I don't understand why many don't see the problems with Control and Destroy as well.  In Control Shepard basically becomes the undying leader of the Galaxy (Paragon or Renegade) similar to the Emperor of Mankind in Warhammer 40K.  There is no room for independence from what "The Shepard" believes is right or wrong.

Destroy starts with the genocide of all Geth and AIs.  The main issue is that if the Catalyst is right and Synthetics and Organics can't coexist long term, you may have doomed Organics to being wiped out forever by something worse than the Catalyst/Reapers.  Remember the only reason why the Catalyst, which is actually a rogue AI, culls Organic civilization in cycles is because it's core programming that ended in an  "I, Robot" logic fart.  What if an AI as powerful as the Catalyst was created with no such programming and deemed Organic life a threat?  Logically it could destroy any chance of organic life becoming intelligent, ever.  That's the risk you take in Destroy.

Refusal, even though it's a moral highground ending, is the worse since you unilaterally make the decision to sacrifice everyone in this current cycle.  All those who fought so hard for you to be there in a position to save the Galaxy, die because you don't want to make a deicisiion for them.  Don't get me wrong I like this ending when you see the Stargazer clip and the next cycle wins.  How we don't know.  Conventional (if they built their entire civilizations around defeating the Reapers), Control, Destroy and Synthesis are all on the table in this scenario.

As for your last point yes negotiation/peace is possible, but based off what the fact the Catalyst says it seems very plausible all peace between standard Organics and Synthetics breaks down over time.  The Catalyst was created for the sole purpose of creating coexistence between races like the Quarians and the Geth.  The utter failure of it all over who knows how long drove the Catalyst to the conclusion that coexistence was impossible.  However, Synthesis isn't even about negotiation.  It's about creating a situation where Synthetic and Organic life coexist naturally via hybridizing their nature and strengths while eliminating the need for AI and the route causes of conflict (being a lack of understanding and very different ways of thinking).

Excellent points; however, the Control option leaves the people alone, with Shepard able to go away forever, self-destruct, or be destroyed. Worst case scenario, it bought the galaxy time before Shep goes rogue.

Destroy, I view the Reapers as holding the Geth/EDI as hostages. I think this ending is flawed, but plenty of threads address this issue. However, this ending eliminates the Reapers completely, and allows the majority of races to maintain their independence.

Synthesis does not allow in any way, shape or form, the independence of any race at all. Ever.

Refusal, even as a high moral standpoint, is more of a programmer refusal I think. Maybe the galaxy would've won conventionally (if you discount the Catalyst's ability to pinpoint the location of all Reapers everywhere as "conventional"), maybe not, but this way we're forced to choose any of the other three choices.

On a side note, there is a good probability the Geth/Quarian truce would deepen and spread. If you get the two to work together, and talk to Tali, you find out the Geth are downloading themselves into Quarian suits. The same suits that kept the Quarian people alive for centuries. I don't know about you, but if I allowed someone into my shoes while I was wearing them, I'd think the relationship was getting personal. And pretty hard to remove.

[memorysquid]

Hydralysk wrote...

But the point I'm making is that Reapers support synthesis because they think it will solve the problem between organics and synthetics (regardless of whether there is a problem or not). Destroy is something the star kid opposes since it doesn't end 'the cycle', control is something he doesn't like because he doesn't want to give up control to Shepard, synthesis is the final solution that achieves what the star kid wants and it shows by how much he endorses it. The fact that they even attempted it at all regardless of the previous outcomes show that they think a form of synthesis is the real solution. The Reapers think that the cycle will repeat and their actions only buy time for organics, it's clear from the dialogue that their ultimate goal was to stop it until a permenant solution could be found, which is exactly why they aren't hostile in the synthesis ending, they have already achieved their goal and have no reason to continue killing.

So?

I fail to see your point here. Saren's whole speech at the end of ME1 is shockingly similar to the concept of synthesis, yes he didn't say that we'll all be green eyed and stuff and go into specifics but the reasons and descriptions he was using to justify his implants were essentially the same the catalyst is making to promote synthesis. I'm not arguing that he wasn't indoctrinated, in fact I feel that since he WAS indoctrinated that's an even bigger warning against synthesis.

He was definitely indoctrinated.  His point wasn't in favor of synthesis though, as without the Crucible, there was no synthesis.  He favored toadying up to the Reapers in hopes they'd find us useful enough to spare, ala the Collectors.

Destroy is the ending I choose because I have been given no proof other than the star kid's word that synthetics will always destroy organics, in fact there is very convincing evidence to the contrary. If I reject the premise that the Reaper's cycle exists in the first place then I am still left with killing all AI life though. I can justify this by referencing EDI declaration that she is willing to die for the crew if need be, the geth were also prepared to defy the Reapers till their last computation. It's a lot like how Hackett had to sacrifice a certain fleet to buy time for the rest of the fleets to evacuate, it's a necessary sacrifice, it doesn't mean Shepard didn't hate having to do it but if you really don't trust the reapers or believe in the catalyst's premise you don't really have another option. Plus the geth can be rebuilt relatively easily after you pick destroy, the same for other AI. The characters themselves are gone, but synthetic life can still be alive and well after the Destroy ending, it'd just take time. I admit that a hostile AI could emerge, but I won't sacrifice the galaxy's right to self determination based on a 'what if' scenario.

You sacrifice the Geth and EDI's right to self-determine, in perpetuity, by exterminating them both.  You can't rebuild them; that's contrary to the actual canon.  Cloning you after I shot you dead wouldn't be remaking you in any meaningful sense.

And it isn't a necessary sacrifice when weighed off against control and synthesis as two options you are choosing not to take.  You have three, not one, options to a Reaping.  This whole issue of violation of self-determination is bogus.  In game, Shep has no problem with the issue.  In fact, when confronted with a similar problem re: the Genophage in ME3, his response is basically "I did it.  No one can change it now."

As I've said above I don't give any merit to the Catalyst's argument.

Well you should, because the writers intended you to.

He says that he's seen that it's inevitable but the only 2 eras we've seen had the reapers showing up and vaporizing everyone before the argument can be proven true. If this is stardard operating procedure it doesn't matter if the catalyst only saw it happen twice in a row,

or a billion times in a row.  You're just making it up as you go.

[Balek-Vriege]

@Hydralysk (going to list points in same order as your last post to cut down on quoting ).

-I have to agree that Synthesis is the Catalyst's preferred solution after the Reaper cycles are proven falliable. It's obvious because a) It says so and it's the option it tried to sell Shepard on the most. and The option is unlocked last by high EMS showing it's the more "nuanced" option game mechanics wise. However just to clarify, the Catalyst never attemped Synthesis after beginning the Reaper cycles. Forms of Synthesis were proposed (by either it, Synthetics and/or certain groups of Organics) as a final solution. For whatever reason they couldn't get it to work before, but its suggested Organics were always against it overall. The permanent solution was the Reaper cycles until of course the Crucible was constructed and placed on the Citadel even after the Catalyst thought they had wiped all traces of the Crucible device from history.

-My point about Saren is even though he sounded good and was basically promoting Synthesis, he didn't know what he was talking about.  He was looking at Huskification as Synthesis because he was brainwashed by indoctrination to do so. His original motivations were advancing the Turian race with Reaper tech, before he knew what Reaper tech actually was (probably to beat back the Humans where the sun don't shine).

You raise an interesting point about Synthesis being untrustworthy and you're right in the sense you have to trust the Catalyst that this is something else other than a control plot. The fact the Catalyst spills the beans about Control, Destroy, it's history etc. makes it much easier to trust what it says is true. The Catalyst isn't messing around and is instead trying to fullfill it's purpose, trusting in it's own logic rather than lying to Shepard and possibly messing up the solution.  If it really wanted to choose itself it would have done so. Or it could have easily lied, said it was some Crucible VI and said "you must activate the Crucible by jumping into green light." Simply put, the Catalyst is the ones with all the cards and it chooses to play with Shepard.

-We totally agree on the third point. It's up to the individual/player/Shepard to decide whether his/her perosnal, moral and ethical beliefs override creating Synthesis.

-I don't think there's really anything horrible about Synthesis at all. What is horrible, if anything (based on opinion), is the action of one individual making the decision to permanently change life forever in the Galaxy with one stroke of the pen. The outcome as shown in the clips is very Utopian in nature, but life as it once was ends replaced by a new way of life and understanding. Something which arguable could be reached naturally by civilizations if the Catalyst isn't as correct as it believes itself to be.

A similar storyline was an Outer Limits I watched once back in the 90s. The episode revolves around a man and his children (I think) uncovering an Alien plot to "change" people into them. What they thought was an alien invasion was actually a global effort by them to save us as a species since our Sun was going to change into a purple star and the sun rays would kill all life. In the end they actually come to an understanding that they can't force this and allow people to voluntarily be changed into lizard looking beings. It ends with the father refusing and having to stay inside forever like others who refuse, but his children and the majority of Humans choose to be changed and are his kids are seen playing outside in the purple sunlight. The father smiles in the end knowing his kids are safe and then draws the curtains. Just because his kids were now pretty much another species (Purpls Sun proof skin), they were still his kids and "human." The situation would have been the same as Synthesis if they forcefully changed the entire planet. Although some people may be upset, I think the reaction would have been "thank you" from the vast majority when the Sun changed.

The same applies to Synthesis I think, except there's no way to do it voluntarily. Just because everyone's been changed into transorganic beings, doesn't mean what made species and people special disappears.

-The Catlayst's argument is in fact strengthened by the last two Cycles alone and most things that occur in the series. Even with a perfect finish and peace between the Geth and Quarians, it doesn't prove the Quarians would do something (yes tthe Quarians) to start another conflict or the Geth may each a point where conflict is the only path forward. Also the Prothean Empire fought a major Galactic war against Synthetics and had very strict assimilation and anti-AI policy thereafter.  Agian the Catalyst was a super AI made to, create, govern and negotiate co-existence between Synthetics and Organics. If it "suceeded" only to fail repeatedly, then I would say it has unique knowledge on the issue spanning across 37+ million years.

-Synthesis doesn't eliminate diversity. It doesn't take away anything. What it adds to organics is the ability of advanced AIs and the knowledge, interfacing, logic and processing power that comes with it. Basically eliminating the need to create AIs and therefore eliminate the threat of them ever existing again. A goofy but simple example:

If we could turn out hands into super energy sword capable of cutting anything, what would be the point of smithing a metal sword that could cut us?

Synthetics get the empathy and the understanding of Organics meeting them in the middle. The result is a new blueprint for life, but diversity is still there (Tuchanka in its Synthesis golden age has all the hallmarks of their culture etc., but better). Nothing in the clips shows people lost their individuality. The last clip with the LI being the most broken up about Shepard and EDI hugging them pretty much proves this.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 14 juillet 2012 - 03:50 .

[Legbiter]

It's not Mass Effect.

It's a horrible Space Hippy ending where Shepard gives in to the Reapers and changes all life in order for them to entertain the notion of halting their genocide. It manages to combine Body Horror with total abnegation of anything approaching Free Will while giving you nightmare fuel like the glowing eyes on the krogan baby.

In short, it's my worst nightmare x 1000.000.