200 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Balek-Vriege wrote...
A couple posts back I posted the idea that Synthesis doesn't need to be validated by the technilogical singularity problem.  The merits of Synthesis on its own terms is enough to make it a viable ending as much as Destroy and Control are.

Yep. Your decision is not just about how to end the Reaper threat, but about how you think civilization should develop, using Shepard, the Crucible and the Reapers as tools.

[snfonseka]

People are totally cool about, somebody messing with their DNA and turning them all into half machines. They don't have any issue in that, in fact people like to turn into "half machines".

[Hydralysk]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

@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 interpretation of that was that the Reapers actually attempted to synthesize Organics by force and they fought back, hence the "Synthesis cannot be forced" line he delivers.

Balek-Vriege wrote... 

-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.

About Saren, I do believe he was throughly brainwashed but I don't think he was seeing synthesis as huskification. He was already too aware and fearful of the husk and how he might become one to advocate that, in my view Saren literally saw himself as something different (regardless of the trudth) and the way he described it still sounded a lot like what the star kid is saying synthesis will result in.

Honestly after seeing the EC I was never under the impression that the catalyst was lying. They did the best thing they could of to star kid short of retconing him, which was to essentially make him a rogue AI that turned on it's masters and wiped them out due to (imo faulty) logic. Skynet in space esssentially.

Balek-Vriege wrote... 

-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.

I'd like to say first I'm not against the idea of synthesis, just how they implemented it. If synthesis was reached naturally and the choice was given to the individual with no threat of execution if they refused I wouldn't be against it. The terrible part about synthesis to me (other than the space laser beam that can magic everyone hybrid) is that no one is ever given a choice, and even with the EC (whose slides are admitedly as small sample size of the galaxy) I can't justify this choice by going "Hey look everyone is happy". Despite being utopian to the point of unrealism for me it just felt like Bioware was trying to justify synthesis by saying "It can't be bad if everyone we show is happy, so synthesis has no more issues".

Balek-Vriege wrote...  
-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.

I'll admit that conflict arose betweent he Quarians and Geth and that a terrible war happened, but I really can't fault the geth for their actions. Even though they won they didn't kill the fleeing quarians, they didn't invade other species, they sealed themselves off to try to find a way to understand organics. Basically the Catalyst problem states that Created Rebel -> Created wipe out Organics, and while the geth certainly did rebel they didn't immediately start trying to destroy organics. I'm not saying conflict won't arise, just as they do between organics, but there is nothing that shows me conflict between organics and synthetics will inevitably result in the destruction of organic life.

The Zha'til you are talking about are an interesting point, here's the wiki entry on them:
[color=rgb(255, 255, 255)">The ] were a synthetic race that existed at the time of the [/color]Protheans[color=rgb(255, 255, 255)">. They originated when a race known as the zha implanted themselves with symbiotic ] technology to enhance their intelligence in order to survive as their homeworld became inhospitable. When the [/color]Reapers arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic monsters and their offspring into slaves. The zha'til proceeded to multiply into "mechanical swarms" that "blotted out the sky". With no other recourse, the Protheans sent the star of the zha's home system into supernova, destroying the zha'til entirely. 

In short, just like the geth, the zha'til were living in harmony with organics (even in a forms of apparent synthesis) until the reapers showed up and turned the synthetics against organics. The only examples of AI 'races' that seem to endorse wiping out organics are the ones the Reapers indoctrinated to think that way. In short the Reapers who are supposed to preserve organic life from synthetics are directly responsible for both the zha'til and the post exodus geth uprisings.

The problem with believing the catalyst is that he says this all happened before but we really only have his word. Him, the leader of the reapers, an AI that turned on it's creators and forced others to do the same through mind control. Comparetively what we've seen so far in the galaxy points heavily towards there being possible diplomatic solutions for organic and synthetic conflicts. To trust the Catalyst I need to throw away all of what I've personally seen and believe that there is a problem, with the only proof being that the star kid says he's right. No matter how long he has supposedly been alive he needs to formulate a better argument than "I've seen a lot of s***, trust me on this".

Balek-Vriege wrote.. 
-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.

If synthesis doesn't eliminate diversity then I'm going to assume everyone is just glowing green but all personality is intact. In that case, how is that better than the current era? Synthesis doesn't take our individuality which means all the personalities which caused harm in the old galaxy are free to do the exact same thing, just with high tech upgrades now (though their opponents do to). There should realistically still be the same amount of conflict as before synthesis, it'd just be a more high tech conflict between hybrids instead of organics. I'll admit that we probably don't need to fear AI's at that point, but I was never convinced of my need to fear them in the first place.

Synthetics gain understanding and empathy, but from what I saw Legion and EDI were already capable of that, especially in Legion's death scene. I don't see what exactly the point of it is exactly.

Also the Reaper's beliefs haven't changed, and no one is holding their leash, the only reason we are living together is because according to it's 'cycle' we don't pose a threat. The Reapers have proven themselves to dangerous and too unstable to the galaxy to be left to their own devices, in control you have some kind of insurace with reaper shep, in synthesis there is no way to stop them if they encounter organic life in the future and start trying to reap.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:59 .

[memorysquid]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Sorry to cut in:

First off, the Catalyst could literally have gotten a large and relevant enough sample to do a regression analysis and simply prove his point.

True, but it doesn't matter - Shepard still has no reason to trust Godchild. Thus, Shepard has no reason to care about the tech singularity. 

But he does!  And he does!  So it does matter!  He's not bad, he's just written that way.  Sheesh.  The point is the writers didn't consider this a relevant point.  So blame the writing, but his behavior is internally consistent.  Shepard "understands" Legion's patent nonsense in ME2 as well.  He doesn't say "Wait a second!  An inequality has nothing to do with a literal contradiction!"

Nothing in my opinion of the endgame says Shepard believes in anything the Catalyst is actually saying or that he/she agrees with it.  The fact is in a sticky situation where he/she has limited time to choose three options to save the Galaxy or refuse to do so.  Shepard's dialogue through the whole Catalyst scene is wishy washy at best and rather unsure of himself/herself.

  I do believe "Shepard was written that way" applies to the Legion dialogue, but that could have been Shepard just probing and not actually debating.  If Shepard doesn't trust or disagrees with the Catalyst, that Shepard will probably choose an ending which is more towards his/her liking (Control or Destroy, which is specifically stated to not fix the cycles).  If Shepard sees no reason why the Catalyst is lying agrees or at least acknowledges its theories, then Synthesis is a viable option too.  Synthesis is actually a viable option regardless for the sake that you make all lifeforms super versions of themselves, possibly remedying other self destructive issues in society.  Seriously if the Catalyst was untrustworthy it could have easily just said it was the Crucible VI and the only way to use the Crucible is by jumping into the centre.  Instead it takes a chance on Shepard.

Pre-EC he simply swallowed everything completely uncritically; he understood.  Post-EC they clarififed because the players thought that his behavior was unrealistic.  The writers didn't mention Shep's rejection of the Catalyst's reasoning anywhere.  Because they are pointing you to a moral dilemma.  All these side issues distract from their central, pivotal dilemma.  They want you to evaluate the moral dilemma, not decide Shepard must be hallucinating.

[Balek-Vriege]

memorysquid wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Sorry to cut in:

First off, the Catalyst could literally have gotten a large and relevant enough sample to do a regression analysis and simply prove his point.

True, but it doesn't matter - Shepard still has no reason to trust Godchild. Thus, Shepard has no reason to care about the tech singularity. 

But he does!  And he does!  So it does matter!  He's not bad, he's just written that way.  Sheesh.  The point is the writers didn't consider this a relevant point.  So blame the writing, but his behavior is internally consistent.  Shepard "understands" Legion's patent nonsense in ME2 as well.  He doesn't say "Wait a second!  An inequality has nothing to do with a literal contradiction!"

Nothing in my opinion of the endgame says Shepard believes in anything the Catalyst is actually saying or that he/she agrees with it.  The fact is in a sticky situation where he/she has limited time to choose three options to save the Galaxy or refuse to do so.  Shepard's dialogue through the whole Catalyst scene is wishy washy at best and rather unsure of himself/herself.

  I do believe "Shepard was written that way" applies to the Legion dialogue, but that could have been Shepard just probing and not actually debating.  If Shepard doesn't trust or disagrees with the Catalyst, that Shepard will probably choose an ending which is more towards his/her liking (Control or Destroy, which is specifically stated to not fix the cycles).  If Shepard sees no reason why the Catalyst is lying agrees or at least acknowledges its theories, then Synthesis is a viable option too.  Synthesis is actually a viable option regardless for the sake that you make all lifeforms super versions of themselves, possibly remedying other self destructive issues in society.  Seriously if the Catalyst was untrustworthy it could have easily just said it was the Crucible VI and the only way to use the Crucible is by jumping into the centre.  Instead it takes a chance on Shepard.

Pre-EC he simply swallowed everything completely uncritically; he understood.  Post-EC they clarififed because the players thought that his behavior was unrealistic.  The writers didn't mention Shep's rejection of the Catalyst's reasoning anywhere.  Because they are pointing you to a moral dilemma.  All these side issues distract from their central, pivotal dilemma.  They want you to evaluate the moral dilemma, not decide Shepard must be hallucinating.

Mostly agree and completely agree with your last staement, but my take on it at the time Pre-EC was that Shep never said "Yep your right lets fix the problem then." It was more "What options do I have?" or "What do you mean?"   Shepard was more focued on probing what he had to do to save the Galaxy instead of debating the Catalyst while everyone dies around them.

Edit:

snfonseka wrote...

People are totally cool about, somebody messing with their DNA and turning them all into half machines. They don't have any issue in that, in fact people like to turn into "half machines".

And what's inheritly wrong about being half machine?  Is there something wrong with using tecnhology to better yourself?  Would someone with cybernetic implants be less human than someone with them?  If you took it to the extreme and augmented your very genetic makeup to be better than it was with synthetic technology, would you no longer be Human?  What makes you Human?  Your body? Your DNA? The chemicals which govern emotions? Your soul? etc etc etc.

Its not as simple as people "like being machines."  It's about seriously considering the future and how it will develop as a society in the very long term.  There's signs already that current RL society, culture and human nature (more in line with a parasite than other animal species) is unsustainable even in the short term.


//

@Hydralysk

-  Your first point is true and is what I was more or less thinking.  That Synthetic, Catalyst and/or Organic attempts at Synthesis were stopped by the vast majority of Organics through sabotage, debate or wars.  The current cycle is "ready" because almost everything has been wiped clean because of the Reaping.  The situation is one of desperation and survival with most looking to be saved from extinction.

-Saren was afraid of becoming a Husk... when he was Saren.  When he wasn't he was preaching that being a Cyborg was the best thing in the world.


-  No one is given a choice in any of the endings but Shepard and it's true that Synthesis is the biggest ethical one up there with refusal.  Control is the ending that completely derails self-detemrination and independent destinies of races, because Shepard becomes overlord of the Galaxy with the power of the Reapers.

I don't think Bioware is trying to make Synthesis look like the best ending as they clearly stated they wanted to cause controversly and debate with the endings (like we are now).  The drawback of Synthesis is supposed to be the moral dilemma of forcefully changing life forever, with the tradeoff being that all life is better off forever.  If there was no drawback everyone would pick Synthesis, but instead we have to weigh our options just like saving the Destiny Ascension or the Collector Base.

-  My point exacty when it comes to Geth-Quarian relations or more broadly Synthetic-Organic relations.  The Catalyst doesn't specify who starts the conflicts.  It specifies that Synthetics are destined to end them permanently by wiping out Organics.  The Quarians prove this by attacking the peaceful Geth, who they could have just politely asked to have their Homeworld back and probably would have gotten it.  They didn't even try because of built up hate, fear and vengence.  If Shepard doesn't side with the Quarians or settle for peace then the Quarians are wiped out in a war they started.

This isn't about Synthetics starting conflict like Skynet in Terminator (although its just as plausible).  In the end the Organic need to progress, the need for resources (which Synthetics would tend to use up at exponenetial rates) and the fear of the unknown would trump long lasting peace.  Synthetics don't truly understand Organics and fail to accommodate for our "issues," thus leading to conflict.

As for the Zha'til, I thought was just one example of Synthetics/Indoctrination and wasn't the only and sole Synthetic threat in the Prothean Age, but I could be wrong.  However, the Geth and Quarians had their conflict long before the Reapers started meddling with the Geth.  Again the ME3 conflict is between True Geth and Quarians, not Heretics.

-  You don't need to elminiate diversity of personality to remedy the Catalyst's problem.  What you can do is remedy the cause of the problem.  That is clearly stated in the Catalyst dialogue and was the purpose of my sword argument.  If AIs are the problem then what can you do to make Organics independent (and therefore not create) AIs/VIs?  You do that by giving them the perfected abilities of AIs/VIs.  How do you make all AIs perfectly understand Organics?  By making them partially Organic and giving them the potential/ability to think like them.

Something was in fact holding the Reapers back with a leash and that something was the Catalyst.  The creator race objected to the idea of Reaping and they were forcefully melted down into the first true Reaper.  The Catalyst hints ant such and clearly states it controls them, post and pre EC.  They are not independent creatures during the Reaper cycles.  They aren't independent creatures in Control either as they're just tools of the Shepard AI.  In Synthesis they are hinted at being independent through EDI's dialogue as they decide to help out using the unique knowledge of countless societies and races.  Also such knowledge is not used in the Control ending, suggesting Shepard controls what is "leaked" to the current cycle.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:17 .

[Wayning_Star]

hint: its all about the reapers. You cannot destroy them, they are already part of everyone, synthetic/organic races, in the MEU. It's NOT 20th century earth either. It's the MEU only...different strokes for majorly different folks..and what they need. Most of the complaints are user enovated plot lines from old earth values. (its OK to do in a whole galaxy and inhabitants to delay the reaper invasion, but it's awful to inflict alien DNA on aliens. Cause you'll inflict rights violations so grim as to out shine what the reapers have planned for them..for ever'n ever. They built the reapers,they accepted the responsibility of keeping the peace by giving up a little organisim and sharing a little too to save themselves from themselves. Doesn't matter really if they'er primitives, they'll advance soon enough to becom part of the problem. Reapers are just a 'critical mass' of technology in the organics world view.. Like Grunt says, Okay you sissies..Suck it up!!! lol

[lillitheris]

Main thing wrong about Synthesis is that you have to keep opening these threads to be explained the stupid nonsense that it is over and over again.

Urgh.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...
A couple posts back I posted the idea that Synthesis doesn't need to be validated by the technilogical singularity problem.  The merits of Synthesis on its own terms is enough to make it a viable ending as much as Destroy and Control are.

Yep. Your decision is not just about how to end the Reaper threat, but about how you think civilization should develop, using Shepard, the Crucible and the Reapers as tools.

Your decision is about you forcing your opinion on everybody, for absolutely no good reason.

Dunning-Kruger.

[lillitheris]

Here you go, I can’t be bothered to retype all this:

[quote]Broadly [those are the reasons Synthesis is disliked]. To be specific, my (and some others’) concern is that the results are unknowable. That is, I don’t necessarily believe that it will brainwash/homogenize/whatever, just that given the few details that are somewhat understood, it’s a possibility that cannot be discounted.

Forcing the change upon everyone — when there is an alternative — is already highly questionable; doing so when you don’t know what’s going to happen is abhorrent and morally repugnant.

Here’s a part I want to stress: if it were possible to only have Synthesis affect you, or volunteers, I would have no problems with you choosing it. I’d think it dumb, but you’re entitled to make your own choices.

And that’s why you study it first. By selecting Control.

[quote]Control: Although your goal is to save the races of the galaxy and help rebuild their homes, you are enslaving other races to do so. Methods are just as important as the goals.[/quote]

You are possibly enslaving possibly sentient creatures that are already enslaved for some time. It’s not great, certainly, but it causes the least permanent harm. The good part about Control is that you can still enact Synthesis later if you deem it appropriate.

As such, it is morally the least problematic option.

[Taboo]

Well, aside from discarding thematic material that has been established for five years I can think of many way Synthesis makes me want to keel over with laughter.

It's a fabulous idea...for another science fiction story.

[Kamfrenchie]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

The issue is not that you win or the Reapers lose when it comes to Synthesis.  If somoene can't get over the fact that Synthesis is bigger than just stopping and taking vengence/justice against the Catalyst and his Reaper forces, its really not the decision that person should be choosing.

I simply can not fathom a good ending where the Reapers do not face just retribution for all the slaughter they have done. And that's purely aside from the issue of violating all organic life by changing it into something the Reapers deem not worth killing off in the most brutal way possible.

The very thought of synthesis sickens me.

So you hold the Reapers accountable for the Catalyst's directive that they had no control over?  It's stated by the Catalyst it a) controls the Reapers and   hints it created the first Reapers by killing and melting down its creator race against their will.  Reapers didn't follow the Catalyst's orders.  They were enslaved from the beginning.

On another thread I used the example of a possessed person in a horror flick.  The protagonists fights a person possessed by the devil, but doesn't know it.  Then when the protagonists is about to defeat the villain, we learn its the Devil and are able to exorcise it.  In my opinion based on Catalyst dialogue from the EC, your sense of justice would be killing the person after they're saved because they were the vessel for evil deeds even though this "innocent" is not responsible for them.

The Reapers in the end of Synthesis are not the same as the ones pre Synthesis. It appears the Catalyst no longer directs them.  They help rebuild and share their knowledge, technology and history of the civilizations that they're made from.  If you did want them to be accountable for the countless lives they took as servants to the Catalyst, then what better way than to have them help move civilization forward for the rest of their days.

That besides the point though.  You do not like Synthesis because of the personal, ethical and/or moral reasons you hold and perceive this ending to violate.  That's fine by me because you also have two other main choices and a refuse choice as well.  If it sickens you then don't think about it too much and just pick Destroy.


I'm not sickened by Synthesis because i'm in to all that transhumanism Sci-fi stuff (Like the Dune series etc.), but it's not for everyone.

Reaprs were sentient and responsible of their acts, cf sovereign an harbinger. Also, them beng just unthinking tools is bad writing. Even if they are, it's a mercy kill then

[Balek-Vriege]

Kamfrenchie wrote...


Reaprs were sentient and responsible of their acts, cf sovereign an harbinger. Also, them beng just unthinking tools is bad writing. Even if they are, it's a mercy kill then

That's what we thought until the end of Mass Effect 3.  Yes they're sentient, but it appears they're also controlled by the Catalyst to carry out the Reaper cycles.  The same way Saren and TIM were sentient, but their actions and logic were controlled by the Reapers through indoctrination.  Are the Reapers, Saren and TIM 100% responsible for their actions?  Yes and No.  The latter two are guilty of not being able to resist the indoctrination process.  The Reapers most responsible for the cycles would be the first ones.  Why?  Because they're made up of the race that brought us the Catalyst, which went rogue and then melted them down into the first Reapers.

[Bill Casey]

UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans
BrainwashingForTheGreaterGood
TheEvilsOfFreeWill
HumansAreFlawed
AssimilationPlot

[NS Wizdum]

lx_theo wrote...

What's so wrong with it is that some people go to the ends of the Earth to assume the worst possible outcome from it based on what wasn't directly explained to their face.

Some like to ignore what was directly explained to their face, as well.

EDIT: At least that's in regards to the people who pronounce Synthesis as like some ultimate evil. There are plenty of people who just don't like it in contrast to the others, which is completely reasonable.

I didn't like it prior to the EC. Now that it has been explained as more of a state of mind, rather than a physical change, I like it. It still doesn't make sense, but it has moved back across the thin line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy for me. 

My primary issue with Synthesis was that it appeared to reduce diversity, going against one of the themes of the Mass Effect universe.

Also, Six has a sexy narration voice.

Modifié par NS Wizdum, 15 juillet 2012 - 07:06 .

[webhead921]

NS Wizdum wrote...
 
..snip..

Also, Six has a sexy narration voice.

Tricia Helfer and Synthesis FTW.

[FoxholeHunter]

The fact everyone looks indoctrinated Green instead of Blue.

[Wulfram]

It's fairly clear that it's written to be the perfect happy utopian ending. So in some ways you're right to believe that it's the best ending. That's what the game is telling you.

The problem is that it seems like a load of horse droppings to me.

[Kamfrenchie]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...


Reaprs were sentient and responsible of their acts, cf sovereign an harbinger. Also, them beng just unthinking tools is bad writing. Even if they are, it's a mercy kill then

That's what we thought until the end of Mass Effect 3.  Yes they're sentient, but it appears they're also controlled by the Catalyst to carry out the Reaper cycles.  The same way Saren and TIM were sentient, but their actions and logic were controlled by the Reapers through indoctrination.  Are the Reapers, Saren and TIM 100% responsible for their actions?  Yes and No.  The latter two are guilty of not being able to resist the indoctrination process.  The Reapers most responsible for the cycles would be the first ones.  Why?  Because they're made up of the race that brought us the Catalyst, which went rogue and then melted them down into the first Reapers.

I have no reason to believe the kid over sovreign, and beside, isn't there gonna be  dlc about the leviathan of dis ? if there aresome rogu reaapers, then the others are reponsible for their acts.
Again, otherwise it's a mercy kill, and the safet proposal is destroy. he fact that the ki want synthesis isn't helping

[daecath]

NS Wizdum wrote...
I didn't like it prior to the EC. Now that it has been explained as more of a state of mind, rather than a physical change, I like it. It still doesn't make sense, but it has moved back across the thin line between Sci-Fi and Fantasy for me. 

Did we watch the same ending? Did you miss this part? You know, where they actually show a strand of DNA being physically transformed. This ending is so far outside the realm of both sci-fi and fantasy, which is the problem. Those genres, precisely because anything is possible, has to have strict rules over what is actually possible in that universe, or the story loses any aspect of challenge and conflict. Which is what synthesis did wrong. It broke the rules of the universe it is in. It introduced a brand new technology without an precedent, one which was introduced specifically to resolve a conflict. Bad writing there.

NS Wizdum wrote...
My primary issue with Synthesis was that it appeared to reduce diversity, going against one of the themes of the Mass Effect universe.

That's my main issue with it as well. It implies that the only way that we can ever have a lasting peace is if everyone is the same. That direstly flies in the face of everything ME has stood for.

NS Wizdum wrote...

Also, Six has a sexy narration voice.

Very true, and I admit I do like all the epilogue narrations. They did improve the endings. Just not enough to counteract the catalyst's stupid premise and the ridiculous ending choices.

[Kadi]

Choosing to make everyone, equal. is a hard decision. because you are choosing for everyone, but if you did not make the decision, you are left with leaving everyone to die for nothing, killing the reapers and with it all synthetics, or controlling the reapers against their will. atleast with synthesis you unhinge the reapers from the slavery of the catalyst, and unite everyone as one, potentially removing ignorance based on who is synthetic or organic. stopping the war, letting all life have a chance to continue on.

personally i prefer making that hard choice for all synthetics and organics alike, and would do it a million times over, rather than control out of tyranny, or blatant genocide regardless of the intentions of the reasoning behind those choices. and yes i am well aware shepard crashed an asteroid into the alpha relay sacrificing colonists in order to prevent the immediate arrival of the reapers. but in all fairness it gave us the time, to find the crucible. and better reason for being punished. to reset shepard without a crew/normandy for the newcomers, than being punished for aiding cerberus.

[Kadi]

I didnt read the whole thread sorry. i just skimmed it and found some annoying posts i thought id try to answer.

How is it bad writing, because it breaks the laws of physics and understanding created by man? that is rubbish. science is everchanging they find new things that disprove old science all the time.

its a large universe, all the possibilites mentioned are just for our galaxy. for all we know in the next galaxy along, their are races who dont have a physical body, could exist in a spiritual form etc etc. synthesis can work, simply by thinking outside the box, its vast universe. there is more than mankind or one galaxy's views on science there. going to quote contact here;

"You wanna hear something really nutty? I heard of a couple guys who wanna build something called an "airplane," you know you get people to go in, and fly around like birds, it's ridiculous, right? And what about breaking the sound barrier, or rockets to the moon, or atomic energy, or a mission to Mars? Science fiction, right? Look, all I'm asking, is for you to just have the tiniest bit of vision. You know, to just sit back for one minute and look at the big picture. To take a chance on something that just might end up being the most profoundly impactful moment for humanity, for the history... of history. " - from the film Contact with jody foster in - id suggest watching it as it voices stuff that is similar to this thread.

[V-rcingetorix]

Riddle me this: if Synthesis "fixes" everything, what fixes Synthesis? The Mass Relays make a perfect vector for Synthesis delivery, but if Synthesis operates by genetically enhancing and modifying people on a nanotech level, what keeps it from going wrong?

Take the Krogan genophage, for example. It took all the resources of the Salarians, plus the backup of the Turians, Asari etc to make a *little* change to Krogans, rendering their population stable. One factor (reproduction), of one species (Krogan) was the focus of the entire intelligentsia of the galaxy.

So what Synthesis is trying to say, is that it is capable of fixing every little defect, even the tiniest of genetic coding error (despite triple redundancy proofreading that Human DNA has). Each problem can be fixed, even for beings with reverse amino acids?

The counter-argument is that Reapers have been dealing with genetics for millenia, absorbing it into Reapers etc. But that is not valid for making an "instant fix" for everyone. Maybe the time perception is skewed, but it looks to me like the "Synthesis" option is chosen, then boom, green light across the galaxy.

Not even a quantum computer could calculate all the variables without error. Deaths would happen anyway you choose. I chose the Destroy ending, because I knew who was dying, and who would take the blame. And a very big hope that future DLC would fix the flawed Geth/EDI deaths.

My not-so-humble opinion smilie

[V-rcingetorix]

If Bioware wanted controversy, they got it

But seriously, why not create controversy with a happy ending? Look at all the hubbub about how "unrealistic" Disney happy endings are.

[EDIT spelling]

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 17 juillet 2012 - 04:50 .

[detbasketball13]