354 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

3DandBeyond wrote...
Again, you cannot have it both ways.  Either people do have individuality and conflict will occur, or they do not and they are drones.

I am not trying to have it both ways. The "problem" was never conflict itself, but conflict that leads to extinction, conflict where civilization destroys itself or gets itself destroyed. As I see it, Synthesis doesn't remove all conflict, it balances the different advancement speeds between organics and synthetics and thus creates a situation where repeated conflicts between organics and synthetics will not inevitably result in the eventual destruction of one side. So, yeah, individuality exists and conflict will occur. The EC doesn't paint a universally peaceful galaxy, it paints a generally peaceful one. 

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong. I'd make the same argument for the other two endings in their high EMS versions. Saying that Shepard doesn't survive in high EMS Destroy is as nonsensical as saying Control!Shepard will reinstate the cycle in Control, even though those interpretations are technically possible. In Synthesis, there are some plausible causes for conflict, but given the EC epilogue those are of a small enough scale that they don't mar the big picture significantly. Note that the galaxy is big. If there is a war between two star systems, that won't make it into a five-minute newspiece covering two hundred years. That's what the epilogue is.

My position is "all high EMS endings are good endings", the epilogue shows us that, and the problem is that people don't *wan't* to believe it, not that they can't. People think Synthesis shouldn't have a good result because that doesn't fit their ideology, and so they grasp at straws to make it bad. I like the way it comes about as little as everyone else - I'd prefer a different scenario where only Shepard is Synthesized as the forerunner for a galaxy that mostly embraces it by choice - but to think that because I have moral objections to the means the result must be bad is delusional.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .

[Dr_Extrem]

BirdsallSa wrote...

The beauty of Synthesis, is that it shows the final progression of EDI and the Geth. Edi FELT alive before. She IS alive in synthesis... and she is not alone.

i dont feel alive right now - but i breathe ... am i dead?

feeling alive is the most important thing in being alive.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 29 janvier 2013 - 09:36 .

[BirdsallSa]

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Again, you cannot have it both ways.  Either people do have individuality and conflict will occur, or they do not and they are drones.

I am not trying to have it both ways. The "problem" was never conflict itself, but conflict that leads to extinction, conflict where civilization destroys itself or gets itself destroyed. As I see it, Synthesis doesn't remove all conflict, it balances the different advancement speeds between organics and synthetics and thus creates a situation where repeated conflicts between organics and synthetics will not inevitably result in the eventual destruction of one side. So, yeah, individuality exists and conflict will occur. The EC doesn't paint a universally peaceful galaxy, it paints a generally peaceful one. 

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong. I'd make the same argument for the other two endings in their high EMS versions. Saying that Shepard doesn't survive in high EMS Destroy is as nonsensical as saying Control!Shepard will reinstate the cycle in Control, even though those interpretations are technically possible. In Synthesis, there are some plausible causes for conflict, but given the EC epilogue those are of a small enough scale that they don't mar the big picture significantly. Note that the galaxy is big. If there is a war between two star systems, that won't make it into a five-minute newspiece covering two hundred years. That's what the epilogue is.

My position is "all high EMS endings are good endings", the epilogue shows us that, and the problem is that people don't *wan't* to believe it, not that they can't. People think Synthesis shouldn't have a good result because that doesn't fit their ideology, and so they grasp at straws to make it bad. I like the way it comes about as little as everyone else - I'd prefer a different scenario where only Shepard is Synthesized as the forerunner for a galaxy that mostly embraces it by choice - but to think that because I have moral objections to the means the result must be bad is delusional.

Headcanon at its finest. I especially like how you try to dismiss the idea of Shepard reinstating the cycle after the supervillain speech he gives in the epilogue.

[Uncle Jo]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

BirdsallSa wrote...


However, Synthesis is inevitable. And saying that one person has control is a pre synthesis mentality. It makes us all connected. The Catalyst explains this. Synthesis puts an end, once and for all, to the organic-synthetic conflict. That's what makes it so beautiful.

Prove it.

even if synthesis is really inevitable. if it appens "naturally", it happens on our terms. the individual would have the choice. the way the catalyst and shepard force it on the galaxy, is the problem.

its not the idea, it its execution.


btw. this board starts to scare the crap out of me.

I like neither the idea nor the execution. If someone choose to implant themselves some green circuits, why not? But if he tries to mess with my DNA, without my consent, that's another story...

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong.

No, what's the most plausible given what we know is what I'll run with, and if the writers contradict that without giving a very convincing explanation then either it's propaganda (and the EC Synthesis epilogue really feels like that) or simply badly written, and in both cases I'm happy to consider the very probable downsides as still being valid but not shown.

You say that people want it to be bad because it doesn't fit their ideology - why would they do that? Because according to most decent ideology it is bad, in the same way as I would be highly suspicious of a game that showed everything being great when it ends with some funny foreigners being put in their place and very happy to go back to their natural position of being slaves.

Modifié par Reorte, 29 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Remember Mordins' disgust with the Collectors?

If I remember correctly:

"Limitations. Can't carry rock, develop wheel. Can't kill food, develop spear. LIMITATIONS. Works other way around. Happened with Krogan. "*sigh* "Like giving nuclear weapons to cave men. Krogan weren't ready."

So then, Synthesis...how is it different from uplifting the Krogan? I like green skin (Vulcans are my fave star trek species), the circuitry tan lines are nice, but on everybody? Come on, diversity is what makes people PEOPLE. No differences, no growth, no growth...stagnation. Might as well be Collectors.

Again, quoting Mordin:

"No brains, replaced by tech. No glands, replaced by tech. No soul.....replaced by tech. No art. No culture. Nothing."

[Ticonderoga117]

lex0r11 wrote...
*snip*

Well... think I'll pass on that.

[BirdsallSa]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong.

No, what's the most plausible given what we know is what I'll run with, and if the writers contradict that without giving a very convincing explanation then either it's propaganda (and the EC Synthesis epilogue really feels like that) or simply badly written, and in both cases I'm happy to consider the very probable downsides as still being valid but not shown.

You say that people want it to be bad because it doesn't fit their ideology - why would they do that? Because according to most decent ideology it is bad, in the same way as I would be highly suspicious of a game that showed everything being great when it ends with some funny foreigners being put in their place and very happy to go back to their natural position of being slaves.

Sums it up pretty well. There is even in game evidence that shows it's not that great of an ending. For instance, in the destroy or control slides (can't remember which) Miranda is shown studying and smiling. In synthesis she is shown studying with an emotionless face (like a mindless drone) with a Reaper in the background.

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong.

No, what's the most plausible given what we know is what I'll run with, and if the writers contradict that without giving a very convincing explanation then either it's propaganda (and the EC Synthesis epilogue really feels like that) or simply badly written, and in both cases I'm happy to consider the very probable downsides as still being valid but not shown.

The plausible is very much open to interpretation. If you say there's probably some conflict about, say, having the Reapers as a part of civilization, then I agree it's plausible. If you say the whole galaxy will erupt in revolt, that's not. As a rule, in a situation like this, most people just want the war to end. 

[clennon8]

Anyone remember the 'Lisa the Vegetarian' episode of the Simpsons?

I am reminded of the following excerpt:

Lisa and classmates watch meat industry propaganda film depicting cows conveyed into a slaughterhouse as Troy McClure hilariously narrates

Lisa: They can't seriously expect us to swallow that tripe.

Skinner: Now as a special treat courtesy of our friends at the Meat Council, please help yourself to this tripe.

class cheers and runs to table loaded with tripe.

Synthesis is tripe.

Modifié par clennon8, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:28 .

[BirdsallSa]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong.

No, what's the most plausible given what we know is what I'll run with, and if the writers contradict that without giving a very convincing explanation then either it's propaganda (and the EC Synthesis epilogue really feels like that) or simply badly written, and in both cases I'm happy to consider the very probable downsides as still being valid but not shown.

The plausible is very much open to interpretation. If you say there's probably some conflict about, say, having the Reapers as a part of civilization, then I agree it's plausible. If you say the whole galaxy will erupt in revolt, that's not. As a rule, in a situation like this, most people just want the war to end. 

Amazing how in one sentence you say "The plausible is very much open to interpretation.", then proceed to define what is and is not plausible. I assure you, the same hypocrisy is present in your synthesis arguments.

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong.

No, what's the most plausible given what we know is what I'll run with, and if the writers contradict that without giving a very convincing explanation then either it's propaganda (and the EC Synthesis epilogue really feels like that) or simply badly written, and in both cases I'm happy to consider the very probable downsides as still being valid but not shown.

The plausible is very much open to interpretation. If you say there's probably some conflict about, say, having the Reapers as a part of civilization, then I agree it's plausible. If you say the whole galaxy will erupt in revolt, that's not. As a rule, in a situation like this, most people just want the war to end. 

Short-term sure, but what Synthesis does is going to stay for billions of years. Sooner or later the Reapers would've come up against a cycle that could simply blow them to pieces anyway.

[NYG1991]

Altman be praised.

Sorry just looking forward to dead space and synthesis makes me think of convergence.

[Ieldra]

BirdsallSa wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
Again, you cannot have it both ways.  Either people do have individuality and conflict will occur, or they do not and they are drones.

I am not trying to have it both ways. The "problem" was never conflict itself, but conflict that leads to extinction, conflict where civilization destroys itself or gets itself destroyed. As I see it, Synthesis doesn't remove all conflict, it balances the different advancement speeds between organics and synthetics and thus creates a situation where repeated conflicts between organics and synthetics will not inevitably result in the eventual destruction of one side. So, yeah, individuality exists and conflict will occur. The EC doesn't paint a universally peaceful galaxy, it paints a generally peaceful one. 

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong. I'd make the same argument for the other two endings in their high EMS versions. Saying that Shepard doesn't survive in high EMS Destroy is as nonsensical as saying Control!Shepard will reinstate the cycle in Control, even though those interpretations are technically possible. In Synthesis, there are some plausible causes for conflict, but given the EC epilogue those are of a small enough scale that they don't mar the big picture significantly. Note that the galaxy is big. If there is a war between two star systems, that won't make it into a five-minute newspiece covering two hundred years. That's what the epilogue is.

My position is "all high EMS endings are good endings", the epilogue shows us that, and the problem is that people don't *wan't* to believe it, not that they can't. People think Synthesis shouldn't have a good result because that doesn't fit their ideology, and so they grasp at straws to make it bad. I like the way it comes about as little as everyone else - I'd prefer a different scenario where only Shepard is Synthesized as the forerunner for a galaxy that mostly embraces it by choice - but to think that because I have moral objections to the means the result must be bad is delusional.

Headcanon at its finest. I especially like how you try to dismiss the idea of Shepard reinstating the cycle after the supervillain speech he gives in the epilogue.

*Sigh* Yeah of course everything that paints an ending you dislike as good is headcanon, and everything that paints it as bad is plausible. Sorry, but this is cheap propaganda.

This story - the whole trilogy - was about ending the harvesting cycle. So with the way stories work, Control!Shepard may do this and that, and Renegade Control!Shepard may do some pretty bad stuff, but by default there won't be a return to the cycle, even if it's technically possible to have a future where that happens.

In short: The way the story works, or is supposed to work, is that if you choose, by preference, a specific ending, things will generally work out in a way you'd consider good, unless you tweak the parameters to have a less good, more interesting result.

Oh, and btw this means I summarily dismiss any generally bad interpretattions and headcanons by people who argue with the goal of discrediting an ending. Aurora313 has made a pretty bad Synthesis aftermath headcanon and posted it in my Synthesis thread. I actually liked it, even if it's very much worse than my variant, because it's not made to discredit others' choices.   

[TurianRebel212]

If you like melding with reaper tech and making all life in the galaxy change it's genetic code. when what you have been fighter for against the reapers is to not be harvested and changed. Then yes, synthesis is indeed a beautiful thing. Plus it's got a swan dive. Who doesn't like a Jesus Allegory. Jesus Shepard bonding with reaper tech, altering DNA of other species, and making nice with the Catalyst. Yes Beautiful.

[Ieldra]

BirdsallSa wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for the cherry-picking you accuse me of: you see, this is supposed to be a good ending. So, as far as I'm concerned, it *is* a good ending, and interpretations that paint the outcome as generally bad use hidden variables are simply wrong.

No, what's the most plausible given what we know is what I'll run with, and if the writers contradict that without giving a very convincing explanation then either it's propaganda (and the EC Synthesis epilogue really feels like that) or simply badly written, and in both cases I'm happy to consider the very probable downsides as still being valid but not shown.

The plausible is very much open to interpretation. If you say there's probably some conflict about, say, having the Reapers as a part of civilization, then I agree it's plausible. If you say the whole galaxy will erupt in revolt, that's not. As a rule, in a situation like this, most people just want the war to end. 

Amazing how in one sentence you say "The plausible is very much open to interpretation.", then proceed to define what is and is not plausible. I assure you, the same hypocrisy is present in your synthesis arguments.

Yeah yeah, I should've said "I don't agree it's plausible", but careful phrasing never gets you anywhere here on BSN. Also generally, I'm not the one trying to discredit others' choices. I'd apply the same arguments to the other endings. I'm saying that insisting that some unknown and invisible bad stuff makes any one ending bad goes against the spirit of this story. Why the hell invent bad stuff? Why not invent good stuff instead? It's this insistence on the worst posssible picture I can't stand.

[NYG1991]

I personally don't mind synthesis as an ending, I just prefer destroy. I actually find myself trying to find negative repercussions to it by headcannoning some post crucible conflict. The EDI monologue is nice but I'm more curious about how reapers exist in the new society.

Do they have memory of who they were or what they've done over the past millions years? Does our husk friend on earth even know who he is/was? I also have a hard time believing there aren't people that still want the reapers themselves destroyed just for the sake of vengeance. Or have we evolved past that idea? A little conflict and less utopia would make it more palatable for me.

[Gervaise]

Various reasons I don't like synthesis and think it is an abomination dressed up as utopia, but chief one is that it vindicates the actions of the Intelligence and validates everything it has done over the last millions of years.

Now if you think it is right, that conflict between synthetics and organics is inevitable, the synthetics will always ultimate emerge the victors from that conflict, that organics will always end up creating synthetics because they realise they are inferior beings without the improvements provided by tech and that forcing such a change on organic life is merely speeding up a process that would have occurred naturally in time, then by all means go ahead.

I personally believe in none of these things. I do not think that we would naturally have evolved synthetic implants and light bulb eyes. I believe in free will and accept that the consequeces of free will may not always be good but people will learn from their mistakes. From my point of view the majority of ME3 vindicates my position. I cured the genophage and trusted Wrex and Eve would continue to lead the Krogan to a better future, I brokered a peace between the Quarians and the Geth and they were working together to build a future for them on Rannoch, I allowed the Rachni Queen to live (in ME1 and ME3). I was very disappointed first run through to find that the writers had rigged the endings, so that in at least one of these cases, my efforts had been in vain, not because of the people involved, but because the writers decided I couldn't be allowed to get rid of the Reapers and only Shepard have to sacrifice themselves.

I don't like Control either, because it still partly endorses the Intelligence, in that I think the galaxy needs an AI Overlord and its Reaper minions to keep the peace. However, as with Synthesis, whether you agree depends on your own view of the galaxy and the way you played the game. If Wrex and Eve were dead, if I had sabotaged the genophage, if I had not brokered a peace and I had destroyed the Rachni Queen back in ME1, then I would probably have a very different view of how things should be managed.

One last thought about the "beauty" of synthesis, when talking with Joker about TIM he says how he always found TIM's eyes "creepy". So you end up giving Joker those creepy eyes and he is deliriously happy with it - now that is creepy.

[Reorte]

A machine that can reorganise anything at an atomic level, anywhere in the galaxy, is a very, very scary thing indeed. Synthesis opens up the possibility of the same "technology" being used to do some very, very scary things indeed, and all it takes is some lunatic - and given we've got the lifetime of the universe to play with that'll happen sooner or later if it's possible... How about instantly changing all water to separate molecular hydrogen and oxygen? (a much simpler thing than what Synthesis does)

[Dessalines]

Okay, If use WWII ****s and Germans, the silliness of the endings are clear.
1)Synthesis is everyone accepting the ****s view on the world, and ****s undestanding everyone else view of the the world. The only problem with this is that series already showed that people could work with Germany. The people already showed that created species like the geth, and even genetically enhanced species like the Krogan can find peace with other life forms. The series never showed that ****s wanted more than our destruction. Depending on how you played the game was not with Germany, but with the ****s which basically the same problem through out the series until the last five minutes.
2)Control is Shepard becoming the leader of the ****s and using their power in a paragon or renegade way.(His end speech changes if your paragon or renegade) Problem is that everybody gets to live with a constant reminder of all the death and destruction will never be avenge. The entire galaxy should now be thankful to the ****s for helping them fix the relays that were destroyed by trying to stop the ****s from killing them.
3)Destroy-All ****'s die, even if you have to drop a bomb on Germany to do it.
4)Refuse(Bioware laughing at you for criticizing their story.) You build the crucible, and destroy the reapers while they are still in darkspace.

[Dr_Extrem]

Reorte wrote...

A machine that can reorganise anything at an atomic level, anywhere in the galaxy, is a very, very scary thing indeed. Synthesis opens up the possibility of the same "technology" being used to do some very, very scary things indeed, and all it takes is some lunatic - and given we've got the lifetime of the universe to play with that'll happen sooner or later if it's possible... How about instantly changing all water to separate molecular hydrogen and oxygen? (a much simpler thing than what Synthesis does)

why not change the bonding angle in water? .. it either evaporates or it gets solid - instantly...

freesing of exploding people everywhere.

[Dr_Extrem]

Dessalines wrote...

Okay, If use WWII ****s and Germans, the silliness of the endings are clear.
1)Synthesis is everyone accepting the ****s view on the world, and ****s undestanding everyone else view of the the world. The only problem with this is that series already showed that people could work with Germany. The people already showed that created species like the geth, and even genetically enhanced species like the Krogan can find peace with other life forms. The series never showed that ****s wanted more than our destruction. Depending on how you played the game was not with Germany, but with the ****s which basically the same problem through out the series until the last five minutes.
2)Control is Shepard becoming the leader of the ****s and using their power in a paragon or renegade way.(His end speech changes if your paragon or renegade) Problem is that everybody gets to live with a constant reminder of all the death and destruction will never be avenge. The entire galaxy should now be thankful to the ****s for helping them fix the relays that were destroyed by trying to stop the ****s from killing them.
3)Destroy-All ****'s die, even if you have to drop a bomb on Germany to do it.
4)Refuse(Bioware laughing at you for criticizing their story.) You build the crucible, and destroy the reapers while they are still in darkspace.

it was actually pretty close to happen - and people would have been (and some would still) ok with that.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Aaaaand the thread's been Godwin'ed. It lasted longer than I thought it would

[TheGinosaji]

The end result of synthesis does not seem all that bad. However, I cannot condone it as an instantaneous, fundamental change imposed on all life by a single person. We could not even hazard a guess as to how it affects people beyond light bulb eyes and circuit skin. It also does not make any sense and is not even alluded to until the final minutes of the third game. No matter what your interpretation is of the final events, that alone should have raised red flags.

[The Night Mammoth]

I don't see anything particularly beautiful about mass indoctrination or forcing trans-humanism on everyone.