Yestare7 wrote...
Never. Look at the people around, your loved ones.
Imagine them being transformed into pseudo-robots.
It is unthinkable.
Welcome to Synthesis, we have candy!!
Trick or treaters, how sweet!
Would You Consider Synthesis... With Better Execution?
Débuté par
michaelfierro1990
, mars 22 2013 04:34
#26
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 05:48
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 114 messages
Trick or treaters, how sweet!
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 05:49
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
@DecCylonus
To your first point you are right, the alternative to extinction line was error on my part. As to your second, what I was really shooting for was shepard being able to take this option and still have it viable without the reapers pointing a gun to your head. Having shepard live, fixing edi, fixing the geth, etc etc wasn't so much as what -would- happen, but a conglomerate of different aspects players would like to see.
I didn't make it clear, for that I apologize, but those last parts are more for the reader to pick out or add to suit this to their liking. My main point to this would be that shepard somehow is able to get the strand without the reapers pointing a gun to their head.
Maybe he grabs the strand, makes a run for the whole where the laser use to be and jumps in the hopes that someone will find it. Perhaps he calls the normandy in and somehow gets it to them as he's left stranded.
The end result isn't really the point I am making, its how this dna strand can be introduced without the ominous threat of the reapers in dark space
To your first point you are right, the alternative to extinction line was error on my part. As to your second, what I was really shooting for was shepard being able to take this option and still have it viable without the reapers pointing a gun to your head. Having shepard live, fixing edi, fixing the geth, etc etc wasn't so much as what -would- happen, but a conglomerate of different aspects players would like to see.
I didn't make it clear, for that I apologize, but those last parts are more for the reader to pick out or add to suit this to their liking. My main point to this would be that shepard somehow is able to get the strand without the reapers pointing a gun to their head.
Maybe he grabs the strand, makes a run for the whole where the laser use to be and jumps in the hopes that someone will find it. Perhaps he calls the normandy in and somehow gets it to them as he's left stranded.
The end result isn't really the point I am making, its how this dna strand can be introduced without the ominous threat of the reapers in dark space
#28
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 05:56
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
@Nykara
I agree on Destroy, while it may seem like the right choice I always saw it as a useless sacrifice as the galaxy would just run into the same problem down the road.
On my first play through, I debated very hard between control and synthesis, and while I didn't agree with converting everyone as a moral choice it seemed like the most sure way to stop cycle (at the time).
Control in the end seemed like a "too much power" case to me. While it would help in stopping the war, there is no telling how lord shepard would see things down the line.
Synthesis still has its problems, and its true it would probably be impossible to get 100% acceptance. atleast this way in my mind it can be introduced gradually and in an unimposing way (in that people wouldn't be forced to take up these upgrades, though even then civilization might become discriminatory towards those without it).
I agree on Destroy, while it may seem like the right choice I always saw it as a useless sacrifice as the galaxy would just run into the same problem down the road.
On my first play through, I debated very hard between control and synthesis, and while I didn't agree with converting everyone as a moral choice it seemed like the most sure way to stop cycle (at the time).
Control in the end seemed like a "too much power" case to me. While it would help in stopping the war, there is no telling how lord shepard would see things down the line.
Synthesis still has its problems, and its true it would probably be impossible to get 100% acceptance. atleast this way in my mind it can be introduced gradually and in an unimposing way (in that people wouldn't be forced to take up these upgrades, though even then civilization might become discriminatory towards those without it).
#29
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 05:57
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
I apologize if I don't get to everyone. Slacking cubicle workers trying to be sneaky around bosses unite!
#30
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:01
Papa John0
-
- Members
- 147 messages
Can't do it. For me, the fundamental theme of the Mass Effect trilogy is the struggle between free will and determinism. It is for this reason that I find the reject ending the most fitting, but find either destroy or control (depending on how I've played my Shepard) to be the most palatable.
Synthesis just seems like a betrayal of the series' major theme. It's giving into the Catalyst's plan and it's taking away free will. It removes diversity from the galaxy; it removes the struggle of life--both organic and inorganic--to survive and co-exist. It is, no matter how I slice it, unacceptable.
Synthesis just seems like a betrayal of the series' major theme. It's giving into the Catalyst's plan and it's taking away free will. It removes diversity from the galaxy; it removes the struggle of life--both organic and inorganic--to survive and co-exist. It is, no matter how I slice it, unacceptable.
#31
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:12
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
Papa John0 wrote...
Can't do it. For me, the fundamental theme of the Mass Effect trilogy is the struggle between free will and determinism. It is for this reason that I find the reject ending the most fitting, but find either destroy or control (depending on how I've played my Shepard) to be the most palatable.
Synthesis just seems like a betrayal of the series' major theme. It's giving into the Catalyst's plan and it's taking away free will. It removes diversity from the galaxy; it removes the struggle of life--both organic and inorganic--to survive and co-exist. It is, no matter how I slice it, unacceptable.
I respect your point of view, free will is obviously an important theme and should always be taken into consideration.
That being said, I don't think I could ever do refuse. While this could be fine if it was just yourself on the line, we're talking about the ENTIRE GALAXY. Choosing to change everyone without their consent is amoral, but with refuse would you not just be choosing to leave everyone with false hope, destroying them along with yourself when there is even a chance of saving them?
If synthesis is one extreme of the four options, I see refuse as the other end of the spectrum. The ending in itself is part of the problem where they give us options that are very limited (i personally have an entire different scenario as head canon), but of the options given wouldn't it be better to save the galaxy through any of the three means? For all the people who are counting on you and didn't give you their say to decide if you could allow their destruction?
Also, what if, as I mentioned earlier, there is a way that shepard obtains this without the will of the star child? The idea of the geth introducing the concept (mentioned earlier) is one I find quite enjoyable.
#32
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:13
Yestare7
-
- Members
- 1 340 messages
michaelfierro1990 wrote...
@Yestare7
Even in its current form I don't see it as humans suddenly turning into mechs or becoming a robo zombie army of doom.
From what I understand, it seems the DNA is altered for the allowance of synthetic components to be introduced naturally. Done in a way that leaves the mind intact with free will, and the body predominantly organic, the only difference being the benefits of having a longer life span and the CHOICE to connect to others at a more personal level.
Not turn into a husk, I like my clothes!
well, my post was a bit Over the top...
:whistle:and sorry, but even in the form you describe, I would not choose to alter myself and the ones around me.
#33
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:17
Yestare7
-
- Members
- 1 340 messages
oh, 2 more reasons.
1. Synthesis is the Starbrat's favorite. And therefore proly wrong.
(everything else he did over the past 50 billion years has been wrong.... see a trend there?)
2. Over the course of 3 games, my Shepard has been hellbent on DESTROYING the Reapers,
why change my mind at the last second?
*Destroy them
*Serious hospital time
*Party hard at the Citadel.
1. Synthesis is the Starbrat's favorite. And therefore proly wrong.
(everything else he did over the past 50 billion years has been wrong.... see a trend there?)
2. Over the course of 3 games, my Shepard has been hellbent on DESTROYING the Reapers,
why change my mind at the last second?
*Destroy them
*Serious hospital time
*Party hard at the Citadel.
#34
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:19
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
@Yestare7
Fair enough, as I mentioned this obviously isn't for everyone. I figure atleast this way, scientist can gradually come to the conclusion on their own, and I never saw it as people being "forced" to take it so much as having the option available.
Liking having a smart phone, for example. Obviously you aren't forced to buy one and there are people who don't have them, but they most certainly do help in everyday life.
As it is now, it is a complete loss of free will and I can understand why one would be hesitant or refuse to make that choice.
Fair enough, as I mentioned this obviously isn't for everyone. I figure atleast this way, scientist can gradually come to the conclusion on their own, and I never saw it as people being "forced" to take it so much as having the option available.
Liking having a smart phone, for example. Obviously you aren't forced to buy one and there are people who don't have them, but they most certainly do help in everyday life.
As it is now, it is a complete loss of free will and I can understand why one would be hesitant or refuse to make that choice.
#35
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:26
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
Yestare7 wrote...
oh, 2 more reasons.
1. Synthesis is the Starbrat's favorite. And therefore proly wrong.
(everything else he did over the past 50 billion years has been wrong.... see a trend there?)
2. Over the course of 3 games, my Shepard has been hellbent on DESTROYING the Reapers,
why change my mind at the last second?
*Destroy them
*Serious hospital time
*Party hard at the Citadel.
To your second post:
1) Just because what a person (or thing) may be "evil", that doesn't make the non-sentient tool they use evil. If someone picks up a shovel and uses it to kill, does that make the shovel bad an immoral? While I won't condone what the star child did was good by any means, his goal was to try and find a way to solve a problem, the answer only coming with the introduction of the crucible.
2) This is true, and if I destroy was introduced without the hint that cycle would only continue again at the costs of those who helped me I would probably pick it. But just because a second option is introduced at the end doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. Say you have a wagon with no wheels, and you are trying to push it in order to move its contents. You do this for three months, getting close to your destination, till at the last minute someone shows you of this invention of the wheel, allowing you to move the cart to the town easily.
Do you go on the route you've been using and keep pushing, or put on dem wheels?
atleast thats how I see it.
#36
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:41
Archonsg
-
- Members
- 3 560 messages
No.
For one thing, Synthesis is a projection, a solution mapped and planned out by the very thing that created the Reapers.
Also think about it for a moment.
Accepting *any* single choice proposed by the Catalyst is *still* following and conforming to the Reapers design.
Whether you choose Control, Synthesis or Destroy as per the Catalyst's instructions you are no longer charting your own, and in essence, the Galaxy's path.
The Catalyst tells me that its idea of the apex of all evolution is to halt evolution, to become a synthetic organic hybrid. Well, I disagree.
There *should* have been a Refusal Victory, to enable the player to win by allowing humanity and the galaxy to chart their own course.
But no.
You "win" because the Catalyst allowed it.
For one thing, Synthesis is a projection, a solution mapped and planned out by the very thing that created the Reapers.
Also think about it for a moment.
Accepting *any* single choice proposed by the Catalyst is *still* following and conforming to the Reapers design.
Whether you choose Control, Synthesis or Destroy as per the Catalyst's instructions you are no longer charting your own, and in essence, the Galaxy's path.
The Catalyst tells me that its idea of the apex of all evolution is to halt evolution, to become a synthetic organic hybrid. Well, I disagree.
There *should* have been a Refusal Victory, to enable the player to win by allowing humanity and the galaxy to chart their own course.
But no.
You "win" because the Catalyst allowed it.
Modifié par Archonsg, 22 mars 2013 - 06:44 .
#37
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:50
shodiswe
-
- Members
- 4 999 messages
Synthesis is my second prefered ending after Control.
However I think the endigns could have been executed a lot better, aswell as the whole Priority Earth mission.
Also I Think it would have helped if you learned more about the ccrusible as you collected parts and pieces for it's Construction and teammembers working on it.
Having the thing dawn on you until eventualy at the end you got a clear Picture of what it actualy does and how, mostly anyway. It's still SCi-fi which is essentialy technomagic. But it could have been doen better as a whole, I don't mind the idea of the ending but I think it was poorly introduced and implemented.
However I think the endigns could have been executed a lot better, aswell as the whole Priority Earth mission.
Also I Think it would have helped if you learned more about the ccrusible as you collected parts and pieces for it's Construction and teammembers working on it.
Having the thing dawn on you until eventualy at the end you got a clear Picture of what it actualy does and how, mostly anyway. It's still SCi-fi which is essentialy technomagic. But it could have been doen better as a whole, I don't mind the idea of the ending but I think it was poorly introduced and implemented.
#38
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:51
Helios969
-
- Members
- 2 747 messages
Sure. If synthesis just set everyone up to go the hybridization route, ultimately requiring each individual to make a conscientious choice for the actual alterations to occur I'd be cool with it. It's something that "can't be forced." I totally would go for synthesis for myself...but I'm not going to decide for all life in the galaxy.
#39
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 06:59
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
@Archonsg
You're right, in its CURRENT form none of the choices are really that enticing. This is why I have a completely different head canon. While I would jump on the opportunity for a victory refusal, I suspect BioWare didn't have it BECAUSE its too good. In the game's current ending format, having victory refusal would probably mean 99% of the community would choose it, we'd have a forum where everyone practically agrees that it is the best and we wouldn't have discussions like these. While the current endings aren't necessarily good they do promote debate.
@Shodiswe and Helios969
Thank you for your input! To shod I agree 100%, which is why I made this thread.
To Heliios, just out of curiosity which ending do you pick? (canon wise)
You're right, in its CURRENT form none of the choices are really that enticing. This is why I have a completely different head canon. While I would jump on the opportunity for a victory refusal, I suspect BioWare didn't have it BECAUSE its too good. In the game's current ending format, having victory refusal would probably mean 99% of the community would choose it, we'd have a forum where everyone practically agrees that it is the best and we wouldn't have discussions like these. While the current endings aren't necessarily good they do promote debate.
@Shodiswe and Helios969
Thank you for your input! To shod I agree 100%, which is why I made this thread.
To Heliios, just out of curiosity which ending do you pick? (canon wise)
#40
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:20
Saboteur-6
-
- Members
- 619 messages
I agree with the OP's idea and think that the synthesis ending would have gone over better if it handled it's moral and scientific discrepancies with finesse (moreso the first). I also think that a "Refusal Victory" would've been cliché, predictable, and uninteresting since killing the massively oppressive bad guys with "free will" is pretty much the plot to any sci-fi story.
#41
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:27
knightnblu
-
- Members
- 1 731 messages
Honestly, I can't even imagine why people who desire the synthesis ending option even care about anyone's opinion. You didn't give a rat's furry hind end about other people's opinions before you shoved a circuit board up their backsides. You certainly didn't care about the development of pre-spaceflight or primitive societies who were clearly unready for such a change and wouldn't understand it, and you absolutely don't care about the rape of the individual's essence to get what you want.
So why do you even bother to post on the synthesis ending at all unless you are looking for a little justification for your actions? You deny the victims of the past and present cycles justice, you choose an ending that further victimizes people and even peoples who were never part of the cycles, and you never considered the consequences of your actions until those who opposed the "preferred" ending piped up about it.
I am not trying to attack you or to belittle you or to devalue you. I am only trying to show you the damage that such a choice entails. In my mind it is monstrous on a scale that humans can barely perceive. In the back of your mind you know it is wrong and it eats at you every time you think about it. That's why you and so many other have to "head canon" it in order to be O.K. with it.
But in the end, you do more damage than both control and destroy. It is not a utopia unless everyone and everything has been programmed to accept it (and there is ample evidence to assume that that is exactly what happened) underscoring that your choice was wrong and removing the last vestiges of the individual from the galaxy in favor of unification and the ultimate collective. In essence, you have turned every living thing into nothing more than a cog in the machine.
So why do you even bother to post on the synthesis ending at all unless you are looking for a little justification for your actions? You deny the victims of the past and present cycles justice, you choose an ending that further victimizes people and even peoples who were never part of the cycles, and you never considered the consequences of your actions until those who opposed the "preferred" ending piped up about it.
I am not trying to attack you or to belittle you or to devalue you. I am only trying to show you the damage that such a choice entails. In my mind it is monstrous on a scale that humans can barely perceive. In the back of your mind you know it is wrong and it eats at you every time you think about it. That's why you and so many other have to "head canon" it in order to be O.K. with it.
But in the end, you do more damage than both control and destroy. It is not a utopia unless everyone and everything has been programmed to accept it (and there is ample evidence to assume that that is exactly what happened) underscoring that your choice was wrong and removing the last vestiges of the individual from the galaxy in favor of unification and the ultimate collective. In essence, you have turned every living thing into nothing more than a cog in the machine.
#42
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:27
aj2070
-
- Members
- 1 458 messages
No. I am not going to change the entire framework of life in the galaxy and probably the universe on the whims of a psychotic AI.
Nice point Knighnblu. It reminded me of Mordin's monlologue on why the collectors are basicly dead. The star brat goes on about the peak of evolution. Evolution is less about chaos and more about natural and technological adaptation to challenges. The star brat is essentially killing all ability for that to happen.
Nice point Knighnblu. It reminded me of Mordin's monlologue on why the collectors are basicly dead. The star brat goes on about the peak of evolution. Evolution is less about chaos and more about natural and technological adaptation to challenges. The star brat is essentially killing all ability for that to happen.
Modifié par aj2070, 22 mars 2013 - 08:32 .
#44
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:30
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
Actually Synthesis is the second most popular option. BSN is in no way the majority, this is just a hive of Synthesis hate.
#45
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:35
NeonFlux117
-
- Members
- 3 627 messages
No. Synthesis is Playing God- much like the catalyst does with it's ultra killing machines the reapers. And lets take indoctrination out of this for a bit.
It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.
Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.
It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.
Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.
#46
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:36
Eterna
-
- Members
- 7 417 messages
NeonFlux117 wrote...
No. Synthesis is Playing God- much like the catalyst does with it's ultra killing machines the reapers. And lets take indoctrination out of this for a bit.
It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.
Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.
All of the endings are in some way unethical. It really isn't a valid argument against Synthesis but at the endings as a whole.
Modifié par Eterna5, 22 mars 2013 - 08:36 .
#47
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:40
EnvyTB075
-
- Members
- 3 108 messages
Data or gtfo.
edit: Also, if the "majority" was all that mattered, black people would still be considered less than dirt, disabled people wouldn't get any care, and pensioners wouldn't get a pension. Its called discrimination, you may have heard of it.
edit: Also, if the "majority" was all that mattered, black people would still be considered less than dirt, disabled people wouldn't get any care, and pensioners wouldn't get a pension. Its called discrimination, you may have heard of it.
Modifié par EnvyTB075, 22 mars 2013 - 08:42 .
#48
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:41
knightnblu
-
- Members
- 1 731 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
Actually Synthesis is the second most popular option. BSN is in no way the majority, this is just a hive of Synthesis hate.
Unless I am mistaken, the Holocaust was pretty popular in WWII Germany as well. But that didn't make it right did it? Beware of generalizations and of popularity, they yield no indication of morality or of good judgment.
I'll shut up now.
#49
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:41
michaelfierro1990
-
- Members
- 39 messages
@Knightnblu
I never said Synthesis as it is now was a moral option. The whole point of this thread is to point that out and consider how people would view the option as itself when taking away the moral dilemma.
Frankly, you presume too much in your first two paragraphs. When I was presented with these options the first time I didn't go "AW SNAP I unlocked the secret ending! I'MMA TURN EVERYONE INTO ROBOTS, YOLO!"
I spent a good 20 minutes, thats right 20 minutes, standing on that bridge and weighing my options. Is it the most ideal choice? Hell no, but only working on what was given to me it seemed like the BEST way to stop the reapers, destroy was merely putting a band aid on an infected wound, control you're simply picking up where the reapers left off.
I do not feel good about condemning everyone to this choice, but at the time it looked to be the best option. This is a discussion thread because I was curious to see how many people would pick synthesis under different circumstances, NOT to try and fix some guilty conscience. I find it hard to believe that people who didn't pick synthesis didn't also head canon their endings, because in the end it boils down to people being disappointed with all the endings.
So your right, I am using head canon (like probably 90% of this forum) to make myself happy with the choice, but don't presume that I was ignorant in my choice. In the end this is a video game and its all hypothetical, which allows us to have these kinds of discussions.
If you don't like synthesis, fine, I don't blame you. But don't think to presume you know that everyone who chooses synthesis is ignorant.
TLDR: Take a chill pill bro
I never said Synthesis as it is now was a moral option. The whole point of this thread is to point that out and consider how people would view the option as itself when taking away the moral dilemma.
Frankly, you presume too much in your first two paragraphs. When I was presented with these options the first time I didn't go "AW SNAP I unlocked the secret ending! I'MMA TURN EVERYONE INTO ROBOTS, YOLO!"
I spent a good 20 minutes, thats right 20 minutes, standing on that bridge and weighing my options. Is it the most ideal choice? Hell no, but only working on what was given to me it seemed like the BEST way to stop the reapers, destroy was merely putting a band aid on an infected wound, control you're simply picking up where the reapers left off.
I do not feel good about condemning everyone to this choice, but at the time it looked to be the best option. This is a discussion thread because I was curious to see how many people would pick synthesis under different circumstances, NOT to try and fix some guilty conscience. I find it hard to believe that people who didn't pick synthesis didn't also head canon their endings, because in the end it boils down to people being disappointed with all the endings.
So your right, I am using head canon (like probably 90% of this forum) to make myself happy with the choice, but don't presume that I was ignorant in my choice. In the end this is a video game and its all hypothetical, which allows us to have these kinds of discussions.
If you don't like synthesis, fine, I don't blame you. But don't think to presume you know that everyone who chooses synthesis is ignorant.
TLDR: Take a chill pill bro
#50
Posté 22 mars 2013 - 08:41
NeonFlux117
-
- Members
- 3 627 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
NeonFlux117 wrote...
No. Synthesis is Playing God- much like the catalyst does with it's ultra killing machines the reapers. And lets take indoctrination out of this for a bit.
It's seriously way, way, way un-ethical and morally obtuse to choose synthesis. Come on. It's way worse than control- and that's saying something. And about 100 times worst than destroy.
Hell, if the only options were refuse and synthesis. I'd pick refuse. I don't want reaper code and DNA in me and all my friends. No thanks.
All of the endings are in some way unethical. It really isn't a valid argument against Synthesis but at the endings as a whole.
Synthesis is way more unethical than any of the others.Even ReapershepGod is more ethical. At least in ReapershepGod control ending it doesn't alter and change the DNA of every single entity of the galaxy. And destroy is the least unethical- it's more necceassary sacrafice than un-ehthical. The geth an EDI can be rebuilt- that is if you believe Casper The Genocidal Ghost, whole other debate there. But synthesis is just gross in about everyway.
But to each their own. It's your Shepard and your story so play and choose how you see fit.
:)
