257 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Tootles FTW wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis does not make everyone the same.

Yes, but the whole basis for Synthesis being the "perfect solution" necessitates you agree that organics & synthetics can never live together peacefully.  So the Catalyst's reasoning can either be boiled down to: you must be part-organic to care for organics, and part-synthetic to care for synthetics (AKA "I don't care - and will never care - about you unless it effects me directly") OR the result of Synthesis means we'll all have a hive-mind mentality and thus won't fight amongst ourselves?  

...I mean, I really don't see another analysis for Synthesis that makes sense with the Catalyst's logic that it will solve the organic VS synthetic "problem".  If you have another theory, please tell me as I'm honestly interested to see how people who like this ending break it down.

That's it exactly.  If everyone is not fully assimilated and are still individuals with individual personalities, synthesis does not stop any conflict (this is it's main goal-the kid's goal and not to help people). 

You really do have to look at what the choices exist for.  They are solutions to the kid's problem.  He says they need to find a new solution.  The problem is synthetics vs. organics.  Control the reapers and that's kind of the status quo with Shepard as Reaper god.  Destroy the reapers and you destroy current synthetics and damage tech so that it will take awhile to get to a state where synthetic life again exists.  Synthesize everyone and organics no longer exist.  Synthetics apparently do and they understand organics, but do they understand or care about these new synthesized people?  They won't kill organics, because organics don't exist anymore.  But, just as the reapers were a cyclical, temporary solution, each of these choices is temporary as well and they are not meant to help the galaxy stop the reapers.

Synthesis, if chosen must really help the galaxy.  It either changes everyone (to a hive mind or a hybrid, less individual state) or it doesn't.  And neither one is helpful.

[DirtySHISN0]

3DandBeyond wrote...

snip..

I'll share my perspective/head canon so you know where i am coming from.
My shepard is dead. She was the vessel from which I viewed the events from ME1-3. If she sees no more then neither do i. The speeches and clips (original or extended) are irrelevant, they are either the final thoughts about the decision shepard just made surfacing as she dies or the visual counterpart to her imagining the catalysts description to the corresponding choice.

If we know shepard is dead, how can we be shown what happens if we have been experiencing it from her perspective - which is now non-existant. It's like swapping from first to third person when writing, your not supposed to.

I'm of the idea that since we are no longer viewing through shepard that any ending is either;
-not what actually happened
-shepards final hopes/thoughts as s/he dies
-catalyst manipulation
(this isn't admission to refuse or IT acceptance, I dislike them)

How can we actively choose an outcome that we cannot predict, guarantee is correct or guarantee has been presented truthfully. More importantly, why would you want to choose between any of the endings, they are all equally illogical when you look at them. I just find it hard to understand why people can so easily ignore one set of problems just to make a blanket statement about another set.

The most annoying part is that not choosing counts as refuse, which totally undermines the point of all three games. So instead we are forced to make a bad decision each in varying severities which brings me to the core of my argument ;- A bad decision, lesser in severity, in comparison to another bad decision is still a bad decision.

Originally chose paragon control (before i knew about and when i actually cared about the ending consequences), then subquently went with synthesis for the sake selfish motives - everyone i wanted survived on this save file.

See bold for TL;DR.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

dbollendorf wrote...
It makes everyone a combination of organic and synthetic, sure feels the same to me.

I just don't see how it's "the same." The synthetic implants are just one aspect of each individual. Humans all have circulatory systems, but that doesn't make us the same. It's a similarity, but it doesn't eliminate diversity.

[CosmicGnosis]

Guys, the leaves are still leaves. That hasn't changed.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Seeing as when organics are 'preserved' in Reaper form, their minds and memories will be preserved, the ending slides are IMO nothing more than 'Reaper Matrix' images made from the memories of those that are 'preserved' in Reaper form.

Those preserved in Reaper form 'live' inside a simulation that is made from their memories. They think their worlds are rebuilt by the Reapers, but it's just an illusion. The world they see is just the memories that have been preserved as well.

On Rannoch, when Shepard talks to the Reaper, it dies when you tell the Reaper that the species from which it was made were harvested thousands of years ago. Those preserved in the Reaper are not aware that they are dead. Once you remind them they are dead, the Reaper dies, as if the spell is broken.

This seems to suggest that all Reapers are victims of indoctrination, and that Harbinger is the one controlling them all. Which would fit with the idea that Harbinger is the Reaper AI.

[Steelcan]

No one has yet explained Wreav's heel face turn in Synthesis yet

[Verit]

So let's say we ignore all the plotholes in the ending and ignore how Shepard's ideals are trampled on by the Catalyst. Even then, the problem with the EC is that it doesn't show you the whole picture. You don't see EDI or the geth die or Joker's reaction in Destroy. Control doesn't show how the Reapers control the galaxy, nor does it really look into the fact that the AI controlling the Reapers is NOT actually Shepard. Synthesis is the worst, since it totally ignores what happens to thinks like Husks, the previously enslaved Reapers nor does it show you the reaction of people who didn't want to be transformed at all.

The ending simply glorifies Shepard's sacrifice while throwing all narrative consistency out of the window. So to answer OP: we simply don't take Synthesis at face value. A couple of slides and a "good news" show about how awesome Synthesis is isn't enough to make people ignore the many negative aspects associated with it.

The problems with not only Synthesis but all of the Catalyst's choices is that they force the player to accept an outcome he/she wasn't looking for. It simply doesn't feel right, and the inclusion of some "hopeful" slides in the EC and the inclusion of the Refuse ending (to drive the point home that Shepard can't defeat the Reapers and has to yield to their terms) isn't enough to convince people to accept the endings.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Steelcan wrote...

No one has yet explained Wreav's heel face turn in Synthesis yet

The krogan probably begin to make progress with their new technology and knowledge, and lose interest in Wreav's campaign of vengeance.

[Archereon]

Cribbian wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I am not denying that synthesis is the most "happy rainbows" ending.

The fact that synthesis is a complete Deus Ex Machina, somehow creates a Utopia for no logical reason, and is basically Hudson and Walters vessel to preach about how great transhumanism is is why it sucks.

ftfy

Control doesn't show how the Reapers control the
galaxy, nor does it really look into the fact that the AI controlling
the Reapers is NOT actually Shepard.

The last part about whether the post Control Shepard is actually Shepard is actually a big "IF" which depends on what versions of the philosophies of mind, identity, and personhood you believe in.

Modifié par Archereon, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:31 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

-Draikin- wrote...

The ending simply glorifies Shepard's sacrifice while throwing all narrative consistency out of the window. So to answer OP: we simply don't take Synthesis at face value. A couple of slides and a "good news" show about how awesome Synthesis is isn't enough to make people ignore the many negative aspects associated with it.

The problems with not only Synthesis but all of the Catalyst's choices is that they force the player to accept an outcome he/she wasn't looking for.

The answer is IT. The only way the ending is consistent with lore and story and what we know about the Reapers.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[Archereon]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

The ending simply glorifies Shepard's sacrifice while throwing all narrative consistency out of the window. So to answer OP: we simply don't take Synthesis at face value. A couple of slides and a "good news" show about how awesome Synthesis is isn't enough to make people ignore the many negative aspects associated with it.

The problems with not only Synthesis but all of the Catalyst's choices is that they force the player to accept an outcome he/she wasn't looking for.

The answer is IT. The only way the ending is consistent with lore and story and what we know about the Reapers.

Nope, the answer is that Casey Hudson and Mac Walters suddenly decided that Mass Effect wasn't "artistic" enough and needed an artsy ending. Which is to say they threw 2001: A Space Oddysey and Deus Ex's endings in a metaphorical blender to get the ending we have now.

[CosmicGnosis]

-Draikin- wrote...

The problems with not only Synthesis but all of the Catalyst's choices is that they force the player to accept an outcome he/she wasn't looking for.

That's because Shepard is confronted with a cosmic problem that isn't relevant to him. The inevitability of organic extinction is something far larger than the Reapers. So you're right. Shepard, as well as all organics, are too small to appreciate the scope of the "problem". But Shepard can choose to not care about it.

I direct you to this thread:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12330623

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[Archereon]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

The problems with not only Synthesis but all of the Catalyst's choices is that they force the player to accept an outcome he/she wasn't looking for.

That's because Shepard is confronted with a cosmic problem that isn't relevant to him. The inevitability of organic extinction is something far larger than the Reapers. So you're right. Shepard, as well as all organics, are too small to appreciate the scope of the "problem". But Shepard can choose to not care about it.

I direct you to this thread:
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12330623

The "inevitability" of organic extinction at the hands of their own creation is an entirely artificial problem (a contrived "problem" created by the writers so they could have their "artistic integrity"), and one Leviathan incidates may not actually exist, which is good since the idea that conflict between organic and synthetic life is inevitable basically contradicts everything else in the franchise before that moment, including Mass Effect 3 istelf.

Modifié par Archereon, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

No one has yet explained Wreav's heel face turn in Synthesis yet

The krogan probably begin to make progress with their new technology and knowledge, and lose interest in Wreav's campaign of vengeance.

. I don't buy the Krogan no longer wanting revenge for a millennia of gentle genocide.

Modifié par Steelcan, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:46 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

Yes, but the whole basis for Synthesis being the "perfect solution" necessitates you agree that organics & synthetics can never live together peacefully.  So the Catalyst's reasoning can either be boiled down to: you must be part-organic to care for organics, and part-synthetic to care for synthetics (AKA "I don't care - and will never care - about you unless it effects me directly") OR the result of Synthesis means we'll all have a hive-mind mentality and thus won't fight amongst ourselves?  

...I mean, I really don't see another analysis for Synthesis that makes sense with the Catalyst's logic that it will solve the organic VS synthetic "problem".  If you have another theory, please tell me as I'm honestly interested to see how people who like this ending break it down.

It may be appeasing the Catalyst to some extent, but it doesn't mean you have to accept its logic. I see the Catalyst as equivalent to someone who walks into a bank with a gun and takes everybody hostage because he's convinced that the bank is secretly funding an invasion by Martians. You may think the guy is a nutcase, but you play along to some extent for the sake of the hostages.

To me, the main argument for Synthesis would be the evident problems with Destroy and Control. Destroy wipes out all synthetics, and Control rests on the hope that the Shepard AI doesn't do anything crazy and may, depending on how you interpret it, still treat the Reapers as slaves. Synthesis does force a change on everyone, but at least they are all free after that, and the Reapers are apparently non-hostile once the Catalyst is out of the picture. And, it does seem to result in some positive changes to quality of life for most people.

Personally, the option I'd have liked to have was to just deactivate the Catalyst's control over the Reapers and then try to establish contact and find out if they had been coerced into attacking. The EC strongly suggests that they had been, so at that point, no further use of the Crucible would be necessary. We'd still have it in place as insurance if the Reapers turned hostile again later, or we could use it to bring about Synthesis if everyone actually wanted it. But I'm not given that option, so I'm left trying to choose between Synthesis and Paragon Control as a result.

[BatmanTurian]

Steelcan wrote...

No one has yet explained Wreav's heel face turn in Synthesis yet

or Javik's, for that matter.

[Sebby]

Synthesis is just plain derp. It makes turning live humans into liquid goo to build a three eyed space terminator because of "genetic diversity" look sensible.

[Ridwan]

Random Geth wrote...

It's ridiculous, unexplained goddamn magic. So are all of them, really, but at least in Destroy and Control you have a pretty precise understanding as far as what unfolds after you shoot the tube or grab the lightning rods. In Synthesis, you get "and then everything was great and we, like, totally all understood each other, and, like, y'know, totally made peace and transcended and stuff, man. It was groovy."

Nevermind that this is the most favored option of the enemy general, who we're supposed to take at his word. Frankly, I DON'T buy the slides, or the whole "this is the only option that ends the cycle" BS. It's a ridiculous child's vision of a utopia and nothing more.

There are other reasons that it's intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible, but others have said it better than I can, and I'm too tired of all this to make the *long* posts.  Still bitter enough to chime in though, I guess.

Right on. Turning everything into green glowing freaks, just so we can all get along ain't cool. The funny thing is, it appears to the be ending that the writers (or writer?) favours.

[Karrie788]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

No one has yet explained Wreav's heel face turn in Synthesis yet

or Javik's, for that matter.

Yep. There's no way Javik of all people would just stand there calmly at the memorial scene after what Shepard did to the galaxy. Unless he was brainwashed.

[JBPBRC]

Karrie788 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

No one has yet explained Wreav's heel face turn in Synthesis yet

or Javik's, for that matter.

Yep. There's no way Javik of all people would just stand there calmly at the memorial scene after what Shepard did to the galaxy. Unless he was brainwashed.

Indeed. If anything he'd be the one tossing the rest of the crew and the entire memorial out the airlock for Shepard's betrayal of his trust.

[Estelindis]

I think that the EC is clearly presenting synthesis as a happy, idealistic ending. However, I think that it is wrong and unrealistic to do so. I don't think that forcing everyone into an organic-synthetic union would, in fact, please everyone. I also don't think that everyone simply being the same type of life-form would solve all our problems (as evidenced by the fact that organic beings have been doing a splendid job of killing each other for as long as history records).

One could make the argument that, by reaching organic-synthetic unity, our thoughts could become linked in a kind of universal internet, and, that by understanding each other in this way, a genuine utopia would result. However, would this mean that people would lose the right to keep some things private? Would others interpret doing so as having something negative to hide? There are times when we aren't even happy with the things we think in our own minds; we can have an internal negative thought about someone or something but strive to present a positive face. But would that be possible if everyone was able to see everything we thought or felt? Not all our thoughts are pretty. There are times when understanding another person makes you hate them, not love them.

[SpamBot2000]

Simply put: yes. What you see and hear is propaganda and indoctrination, whether in the general or the ME-specific sense.

[Ieldra]

Estelindis wrote...
I think that the EC is clearly presenting synthesis as a happy, idealistic ending. However, I think that it is wrong and unrealistic to do so. I don't think that forcing everyone into an organic-synthetic union would, in fact, please everyone. I also don't think that everyone simply being the same type of life-form would solve all our problems (as evidenced by the fact that organic beings have been doing a splendid job of killing each other for as long as history records).

Synthesis isn't supposed to solve all our problems. It's supposed to solve one problem: that synthetics surpass organics and eventually out-evolve them to the point that they become extinct. The point is to save the specific aspects organics have as lifeforms.

Also, as of the EC making everyone the same lifeform isn't on the table anymore. As I've pointed out in my Synthesis compendium thread, that also wouldn't be possible since organic and synthetic lifeforms are based on mutually exclusive and discrete design principles where no fundamentally in-between design principle can exist. What Synthesis will eventually bring - by making "the line between organics and synthetics disappear" - is that the significance of the distinction will be lost.

One could make the argument that, by reaching organic-synthetic unity, our thoughts could become linked in a kind of universal internet, and, that by understanding each other in this way, a genuine utopia would result. However, would this mean that people would lose the right to keep some things private? Would others interpret doing so as having something negative to hide? There are times when we aren't even happy with the things we think in our own minds; we can have an internal negative thought about someone or something but strive to present a positive face. But would that be possible if everyone was able to see everything we thought or felt? Not all our thoughts are pretty. There are times when understanding another person makes you hate them, not love them.

I have indeed speculated that Synthesis gives everyone the ability for mental networking. However, that would not be a forced link open at all times, but something the individual has control over. As peoples' present internet behaviour shows, many people are rather ready to give a lot of privacy away, even with abandon, for a closer connection to other people, but it's their choice. A forced hive mind where everyone is linked all the time would be horrible to those who don't want it, and since it is shown as a good ending, I do not think Synthesis hints at anything like that.

[Estelindis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis isn't supposed to solve all our problems. It's supposed to solve one problem: that synthetics surpass organics and eventually out-evolve them to the point that they become extinct. The point is to save the specific aspects organics have as lifeforms.

In my opinion, this is not a problem.  Biological or technological evolution is one thing, but living in harmony is another, and organics and synthetics have shown that this is possible.  Also, in my opinion, synthesis does not save organics' specific forms (though your phrase "aspects" could mean several things and I wouldn't diagree with all possible interpretations), as they are all fundamentally altered whether any organics want it or not.

However, if synthesis is not supposed to solve all our problems: well, good.  At least that means it doesn't aim for something it can't achieve.

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, as of the EC making everyone the same lifeform isn't on the table anymore. As I've pointed out in my Synthesis compendium thread, that also wouldn't be possible since organic and synthetic lifeforms are based on mutually exclusive and discrete design principles where no fundamentally in-between design principle can exist. What Synthesis will eventually bring - by making "the line between organics and synthetics disappear" - is that the significance of the distinction will be lost.

I'm a bit confused by this, though I suppose I'd have to read your thread to find out more!  I guess that, from my point of view, this was all "space magic," so what would or would not be possible in this respect was kinda beside the point.  But your thread is probably very interesting, so I will give it a look.

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have indeed speculated that Synthesis gives everyone the ability for mental networking. However, that would not be a forced link open at all times, but something the individual has control over. As peoples' present internet behaviour shows, many people are rather ready to give a lot of privacy away, even with abandon, for a closer connection to other people, but it's their choice. A forced hive mind where everyone is linked all the time would be horrible to those who don't want it, and since it is shown as a good ending, I do not think Synthesis hints at anything like that.

That's just the thing.  Bioware does present it as a good ending - and, if it really is good, I agree that mental networking would have to be optional rather than obligatory.  But I just feel that there are so many moral oversights when it comes to the endings that I don't take the simple fact that Bioware presents it as a good ending to indicate that it is, in fact, a good ending.

Theoretically, it would certainly be interesting to have the option of mental networking, though a part of me can't help but wonder what even the option would do to society as we know it.

Modifié par Estelindis, 02 novembre 2012 - 01:19 .