184 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@OP:
I just read your post and I completely agree. This is why I find the decision justifiable in the end, even if not comfortable. Will read the thread more closely later.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
I just read your post and I completely agree. This is why I find the decision justifiable in the end, even if not comfortable. Will read the thread more closely later.

Yeah, I've been trying to rationalize it to myself. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't...

[DarthSliver]

I am going to have go with AdmiralCheez, headcanon is the best solution. Personally mine is Destroy with the Catalyst lying to us about destroying Synthetic life and what not with the Reapers. He lied so his Reapers could survive thats why 2/3 of the Original endings have Reapers surviving the outcome, he wanted Destroy to sound the least favorable choice. So basically Catalyst was trying to keep the life he preserved in Reaper form over the cycles alive with also giving us a viable solution to end the cycle of destruction.

But as for the Paradox of Synthesis it might sound great when being told it but all the wrong things for us sound great. The old saying if "it sounds too good to be true its probably because it is"

Modifié par DarthSliver, 20 octobre 2012 - 09:50 .

[CosmicGnosis]

I can't just headcanon the geth's and EDI's survival. If the game states that they're dead, then they're dead. Destroy kills them. If you choose it, then I think you should have to live with that choice. Otherwise, it's far too easy to completely ignore the other choices.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dreman9999 wrote...

He turn them in to reaper so it cancontrol their will. The catalyst synthesis solution is not different outside of the fact that advance life is not changed to a reaper. It's goal is control and with synthesis control is still there.

Except that's not how Synthesis works.

[CosmicGnosis]

I hate the amount of headcanon that is needed in order to make sense of Synthesis...

It essentially dooms the choice to everlasting suspicion.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I have three main arguments against Synthesis:

1) http://youtu.be/X_QmG57VwZs?t=1m14s

2) Who are we speaking with? The embodiment of the consciousness of all reapers. What is the pinnacle of evolution to a reaper? A reaper. We turn every living organism and synthetic in the entire galaxy into a reaper. The pinnicle of evolution. True unity. I would advise reading Brave New World by Huxley. This is what was intended by Casey Hudson for Synthesis in The Final Hours.

3) We do item two without consent, thus it is a violation of each organism, both organic and synthetic.

Note: in 1 billion yrs the Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way. This will bring in outsiders. In between then and now there may be smaller collsions. At present there is a small galaxy colliding.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 22 octobre 2012 - 01:22 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I have three main arguments against Synthesis:

1) http://youtu.be/X_QmG57VwZs?t=1m14s

Well Jack is still herself for sure, seeing as what's most important to her pre-ending (her kids) are still what's most important to her post-synthesis. So...

2) Who are we speaking with? The embodiment of the consciousness of all reapers. What is the pinnacle of evolution to a reaper? A reaper. We turn every living organism and synthetic in the entire galaxy into a reaper. The pinnicle of evolution. True unity.

Funny, I thought Synthesis was flawed because evolution has no "pinnacle" point. Which one is it?

I would advise reading Brave New World by Huxley. This is what was intended by Casey Hudson for Synthesis in The Final Hours.

* - "if the player had a perfect game."

Yeah, I don't think that meant what you think it did.

3) We do item two without consent, thus it is a violation of each organism, both organic and synthetic.

1.) Unless you believe "understanding" is a tangible substance, then no, synthetics aren't forcibly changed.
2.) Destroy and Control violate consent in some way as well, so your point is moot. How much is too much?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I have three main arguments against Synthesis:

1) http://youtu.be/X_QmG57VwZs?t=1m14s

Well Jack is still herself for sure, seeing as what's most important to her pre-ending (her kids) are still what's most important to her post-synthesis. So...

2) Who are we speaking with? The embodiment of the consciousness of all reapers. What is the pinnacle of evolution to a reaper? A reaper. We turn every living organism and synthetic in the entire galaxy into a reaper. The pinnicle of evolution. True unity.

Funny, I thought Synthesis was flawed because evolution has no "pinnacle" point. Which one is it?

I would advise reading Brave New World by Huxley. This is what was intended by Casey Hudson for Synthesis in The Final Hours.

* - "if the player had a perfect game."

Yeah, I don't think that meant what you think it did.

3) We do item two without consent, thus it is a violation of each organism, both organic and synthetic.

1.) Unless you believe "understanding" is a tangible substance, then no, synthetics aren't forcibly changed.
2.) Destroy and Control violate consent in some way as well, so your point is moot. How much is too much?

1) But Jack is changed. Everyone is changed. Even you cannot deny that.

There is an old Sufi story about a soothsayer who goes into a village and warns everyone not to drink of the water from the river on a certain day because if they do they all will go insane. No one listens to him except for one man who stockpiles enough water for himself and his family.

The day comes and everyone except the man and his family drink water from the river. However it is the man and his family who are deemed insane and are driven out of the village.

Such is it with synthesis. Since everyone has undergone synthesis everyone thinks everything is normal even though they have been changed. However, if there were some who were inside the group who happened to have been outside at the time of synthesis, they would notice the change and would be noticed instantly as being different and odd, and would be deemed outcasts.

I strongly urge you to read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" because that is upon what Casey Hudson based the Synthesis ending.

I couldn't choose Synthesis because of the the freedom of choice issue. Changing someone without their consent like this still changes who they are. They may not be aware of the change, but it has happened. Brainwashing and indoctrination is a nasty thing (I've seen it in real world).

What will the galaxy do when the outsiders arrive? Those who are different? Who might be strictly organic?

The idea of billion year old machines flying around and still functional makes me laugh to begin with.

The endings are all abhorrent. Control is too tricky. We really don't know what the hell that construct is. It supposedly takes Shepard's values, and defends and protects and acts as guardian (paragon) to destroys (renegade) those who threaten the will of the many. Which many? There are many many. Shreaperlyst chooses which after enslaving them the reapers again. The God-Emperor of the Galaxy. But is it still bound by its original directive to preserve organic life at all costs?

Destroy gets rid of the immediate problem and there is a cost for it. Genocide of synthetics. I really don't care about the reapers. After the quadrillions they've killed, I don't care. They're too dangerous, and besides there's a slim chance of survival, so yes, I'll commit genocide if it gets rid of the reapers.

Refusal is the big middle finger.

[CosmicGnosis]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

1.) Unless you believe "understanding" is a tangible substance, then no, synthetics aren't forcibly changed.

Well, giving synthetics the ability to experience emotions actually does change them. And I'm not sure if that's unethical or not.

[Shogun Fish]

The fact of the matter is that synthesis was left vague, and due to the general outrage around the ending, this vagueness was filled with a negative assumption. I personally liked the ending, thus synthesis didn't have that inherent badness and the way I filled in the holes was with something good.

Basically, if you hate synthesis it's because you hated the ending. Or it's because you are a sheep who can't think for yourself and you listened to someone else's interpretation instead of thinking of your own. Or maybe you have some kind of religious belief that makes synthesis immoral, but that's not for me to judge.

In a way the ME3 ending was almost a social experiment. They gave the public something vague, and the public filled it with all the hate and negativity that everyone seems to be full of now. Instead of giving yourselves a happy ending and getting on with your lives, you chose to fill the plot holes with dismal assumptions and complain about them. How you feel about the ending only comes back to yourself.

[CosmicGnosis]

Shogun Fish wrote...

The fact of the matter is that synthesis was left vague, and due to the general outrage around the ending, this vagueness was filled with a negative assumption. I personally liked the ending, thus synthesis didn't have that inherent badness and the way I filled in the holes was with something good.

Basically, if you hate synthesis it's because you hated the ending. Or it's because you are a sheep who can't think for yourself and you listened to someone else's interpretation instead of thinking of your own. Or maybe you have some kind of religious belief that makes synthesis immoral, but that's not for me to judge.

In a way the ME3 ending was almost a social experiment. They gave the public something vague, and the public filled it with all the hate and negativity that everyone seems to be full of now. Instead of giving yourselves a happy ending and getting on with your lives, you chose to fill the plot holes with dismal assumptions and complain about them. How you feel about the ending only comes back to yourself.

I wish that they had thought harder about these ending choices. People who choose Control or Synthesis are ridiculed by the majority of the fanbase. I don't think BioWare intended to cause a fan war.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 23 octobre 2012 - 04:16 .

[Shogun Fish]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Shogun Fish wrote...

The fact of the matter is that synthesis was left vague, and due to the general outrage around the ending, this vagueness was filled with a negative assumption. I personally liked the ending, thus synthesis didn't have that inherent badness and the way I filled in the holes was with something good.

Basically, if you hate synthesis it's because you hated the ending. Or it's because you are a sheep who can't think for yourself and you listened to someone else's interpretation instead of thinking of your own. Or maybe you have some kind of religious belief that makes synthesis immoral, but that's not for me to judge.

In a way the ME3 ending was almost a social experiment. They gave the public something vague, and the public filled it with all the hate and negativity that everyone seems to be full of now. Instead of giving yourselves a happy ending and getting on with your lives, you chose to fill the plot holes with dismal assumptions and complain about them. How you feel about the ending only comes back to yourself.

I wish that they had thought harder about these ending choices. People who choose Control or Synthesis are ridiculed by the majority of the fanbase. I don't think BioWare intended to cause a fan war.

Yeah, thats kind of what i'm getting at, they didn't consider that maybe instead of people picking their favorite ending they would see it as picking the least awful. It's all about negativity. Instead of people debating which ending was the best, they are raging over which was worst and how people who picked those are immoral idiots.

[Bill Casey]

Basically, if you hate synthesis it's because you hated the ending. Or it's because you are a sheep who can't think for yourself and you listened to someone else's interpretation instead of thinking of your own.

Synthesizers are the sheep...
They literally drank the Reaper's kool-aid at the last minute...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:46 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bill Casey wrote...

Basically, if you hate synthesis it's because you hated the ending. Or it's because you are a sheep who can't think for yourself and you listened to someone else's interpretation instead of thinking of your own.

Synthesizers are the sheep...
They literally drank the Reaper's kool-aid at the last minute...

^^^ I agree.

Control = Orwell "1984"
Synthesis = Huxley "Brave New World"

Alas, education these days really sucks. I even think Hudson misinterpreted the books. Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited" I've linked here. It's free.

I also linked the original free version. No excuses.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:05 .

[Steelcan]

@Shogun Fish, there is no best ending. There is your personal preference. Combi e it with head canon or theories as you wish. For me synthesis is an abomination, and I have several reason for why it is that way to me.

As for OP. that one time violation of free will changes everyone at once. In my opinion, this end is not justified by the means. It also changes people. If you cure the genophage with Wreav as Krogan leader, in destroy and control the slides show him preparing for war. In Synthesis you get the rebuilding scene. Evidently Wreav's personality has been altered, admittedly to a more peaceful mindset, but he has still been changed, who he was is gone.

[CosmicGnosis]

Steelcan wrote...

@Shogun Fish, there is no best ending. There is your personal preference. Combi e it with head canon or theories as you wish. For me synthesis is an abomination, and I have several reason for why it is that way to me.

As for OP. that one time violation of free will changes everyone at once. In my opinion, this end is not justified by the means. It also changes people. If you cure the genophage with Wreav as Krogan leader, in destroy and control the slides show him preparing for war. In Synthesis you get the rebuilding scene. Evidently Wreav's personality has been altered, admittedly to a more peaceful mindset, but he has still been changed, who he was is gone.

Yes, that's interesting. But Shepard's squad still mourns his death in the memorial scene. Thus, you can assume that their personalities and feelings are still intact. Also, Wreav may have abandoned his plans for conquest either because the other krogan no longer believed in his cause, or because he himself had a change of heart. Now, this doesn't mean they were brainwashed into changing their minds. It's possible that Synthesis simply granted them the ability to solve their own social problems without starting another big war.

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
@Shogun Fish, there is no best ending. There is your personal preference. Combi e it with head canon or theories as you wish. For me synthesis is an abomination, and I have several reason for why it is that way to me.

As for OP. that one time violation of free will changes everyone at once. In my opinion, this end is not justified by the means. It also changes people. If you cure the genophage with Wreav as Krogan leader, in destroy and control the slides show him preparing for war. In Synthesis you get the rebuilding scene. Evidently Wreav's personality has been altered, admittedly to a more peaceful mindset, but he has still been changed, who he was is gone.

Yes, that's interesting. But Shepard's squad still mourns his death in the memorial scene. Thus, you can assume that their personalities and feelings are still intact. Also, Wreav may have abandoned his plans for conquest either because the other krogan no longer believed in his cause, or because he himself had a change of heart. Now, this doesn't mean they were brainwashed into changing their minds. It's possible that Synthesis simply granted them the ability to solve their own social problems without starting another big war.

. Wreav doesn't want to solve social issues, he wants revenge for the genophage.  He never hides his plans that he is going to get back at the Turians and Salarians

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
1) But Jack is changed. Everyone is changed. Even you cannot deny that.

I cannot. However, the implication that changing their forms changes their personality/the individual holds no water.

There is an old Sufi story about a soothsayer who goes into a village and warns everyone not to drink of the water from the river on a certain day because if they do they all will go insane. No one listens to him except for one man who stockpiles enough water for himself and his family.

The day comes and everyone except the man and his family drink water from the river. However it is the man and his family who are deemed insane and are driven out of the village.

Such is it with synthesis. Since everyone has undergone synthesis everyone thinks everything is normal even though they have been changed. However, if there were some who were inside the group who happened to have been outside at the time of synthesis, they would notice the change and would be noticed instantly as being different and odd, and would be deemed outcasts.

What you're essentially arguing here is- "They're all insane, you just don't know it. And neither do they."

How am I to argue against that kind of claim?

As for everyone thinking things are normal and are unaware of being changed... no. The clear surprise is shown at the time of the green wave, and EDI acknowledges the galaxy was changed from synthesis.

I strongly urge you to read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" because that is upon what Casey Hudson based the Synthesis ending.

I have. It's a satire that warns against a world with mass-production gone awry. 

"Brave New World" doesn't always refer to the novel specifically. It can refer to the simple premise of a society/civilization that has advanced very far. The connotation is not always negative. For that reason, I don't read too much into Casey's hieroglyphics.

You're basically evoking the "I read about this in a sci-fi novel, it didn't end well" argument. I see it all too often, on here, and other places. It's rather silly, you're judging the merits of something based on a work of fiction. Those same concepts don't always apply well to reality, or other works of fiction.

I couldn't choose Synthesis because of the the freedom of choice issue. Changing someone without their consent like this still changes who they are.

This is a blanket-statement that is patently false. You can't even prove it happened as above with the Jack example.

If I stick a third arm onto you, you may be physically different, but I'd make a pretty strong wager that your personality (whatever makes you "who" you are) would not change.

What will the galaxy do when the outsiders arrive? Those who are different? Who might be strictly organic?

Um, nothing?

The idea of billion year old machines flying around and still functional makes me laugh to begin with.

Why?

The endings are all abhorrent. Control is too tricky. We really don't know what the hell that construct is. It supposedly takes Shepard's values, and defends and protects and acts as guardian (paragon) to destroys (renegade) those who threaten the will of the many. Which many? There are many many.

... really?

"The many" is a commonly used term to refer to a general populace of people. Obviously that means the galaxy.

Destroy gets rid of the immediate problem and there is a cost for it. Genocide of synthetics. I really don't care about the reapers. After the quadrillions they've killed, I don't care. They're too dangerous, and besides there's a slim chance of survival, so yes, I'll commit genocide if it gets rid of the reapers.

Bare minimum, but that's fine. Something's better than nothing. Which brings us to the last point.

Refusal is the big middle finger.

Refusal merely upholds what the player should have already known. People need to stop being butthurt about it.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 octobre 2012 - 01:17 .

[Steelcan]

@HYR 2.0, if synthesis does not change people's personalities why does Wreav not seek to get revenge on the Salarians and Turians?

[Bill Casey]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The idea of billion year old machines flying around and still functional makes me laugh to begin with.

Why?

Well, they reproduce through genocide, they're made of desecrated corpses and they brainwash people just by being near them...

That's three things...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 24 octobre 2012 - 01:30 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Steelcan wrote...

@HYR 2.0, if synthesis does not change people's personalities why does Wreav not seek to get revenge on the Salarians and Turians?

Can't say for sure.

I have a guess, though: transportation issues.

Destroy and Control epilogues have the mass-relay system rebuilt. In Synthesis, you don't see them at all. It's unclear what the reason for that is. I've postulated that the galaxy may instead be looking to advance conventional FTL flight. In that case, the krogan would be stuck. They had no ships to start out with (they had to rely on the turians during the war) and they are technologically primitive.

As a result, they'd be forced to focus on advancing, whereas an intact relay system would have allowed them to easily go to war without that.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Bill Casey wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The idea of billion year old machines flying around and still functional makes me laugh to begin with.

Why?

Well, they reproduce through genocide,

Why would they reproduce?

they're made of desecrated corpses

Can't save the dead. What's done is done now. The best course of action isn't to unilaterally destroy all of it, IMO.

and they brainwash people just by being near them...

I'm sure they can make indoctrination go offline.

[Bill Casey]

They won't even stop slaughtering you unless you "perfect" everyone...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 24 octobre 2012 - 02:02 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

^ "They" never had control of themselves to begin with.

Blame the catalyst not stopping them for you. Or not being able to.