445 réponses à ce sujet

[KENNY4753]

"If nothing is wrong, then we are perfect. No one alive has the right to claim perfection"

thats the beauty of it. It is what makes us who we are. Our flaws make us unique. If you take them away (synthesis) we lose our identity.

[Auintus]

KENNY4753 wrote...

"If nothing is wrong, then we are perfect. No one alive has the right to claim perfection"

thats the beauty of it. It is what makes us who we are. Our flaws make us unique. If you take them away (synthesis) we lose our identity.

I would disagree. My extremely non-standard style of thinking makes me unique, yet I wouldn't call it a flaw. Thousands of unique characteristics, mannerisms, styles of thought, tics, all make us unique and many of them wouldn't be called flaws. But we suffer non-unique limitations that Synthesis could easily help with.

[Argolas]

Auintus wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

"If nothing is wrong, then we are perfect. No one alive has the right to claim perfection"

thats the beauty of it. It is what makes us who we are. Our flaws make us unique. If you take them away (synthesis) we lose our identity.

I would disagree. My extremely non-standard style of thinking makes me unique, yet I wouldn't call it a flaw. Thousands of unique characteristics, mannerisms, styles of thought, tics, all make us unique and many of them wouldn't be called flaws. But we suffer non-unique limitations that Synthesis could easily help with.

I would not want to live in a world like that....

[KENNY4753]

I agree with your point that not everything that makes us unique is a flaw but some of it is. What we consider to be a good unique quality some may consider to be a flaw. It just matters on the person judging them.

I agree synthesis can be seen as helpful but it could also be harmful. The ME3 synthesis ending iirc makes everything seem perfect. That is highly unlikely to be the case. Just bc organics and synthetic understand each other doesnt mean peace. Wars will still break out, new diseases will form, etc. Things could possibly get worse.

[Auintus]

Argolas wrote...

Auintus wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

"If nothing is wrong, then we are perfect. No one alive has the right to claim perfection"

thats the beauty of it. It is what makes us who we are. Our flaws make us unique. If you take them away (synthesis) we lose our identity.

I would disagree. My extremely non-standard style of thinking makes me unique, yet I wouldn't call it a flaw. Thousands of unique characteristics, mannerisms, styles of thought, tics, all make us unique and many of them wouldn't be called flaws. But we suffer non-unique limitations that Synthesis could easily help with.

I would not want to live in a world like that....

Like what? 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Gave the OP a little love with some solid arguments from both sides.

In the interest of space, however, I snipped down some of those quotes and omitted some other worthy posts.

Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised at the discussion this thread has yielded. Good stuff! 

[Auintus]

KENNY4753 wrote...

I agree with your point that not everything that makes us unique is a flaw but some of it is. What we consider to be a good unique quality some may consider to be a flaw. It just matters on the person judging them.

I agree synthesis can be seen as helpful but it could also be harmful. The ME3 synthesis ending iirc makes everything seem perfect. That is highly unlikely to be the case. Just bc organics and synthetic understand each other doesnt mean peace. Wars will still break out, new diseases will form, etc. Things could possibly get worse.

My point was that many traits are not good or bad and I believe(Disclaimer: This is the result of reading between the lines and is not to be considered well-founded) that the organic side of the Synthesis wave is based on Shepard. His synthetic implants were merely physiological. Improved structure, improved toxin filtration, etc. Nothing suggests than anything unique or personal is changed. Unless you like your comparatively flimsy bones, I suppose...

[KENNY4753]

I understand what you mean. Its an interesting pov. I havent thought of it like that before. That said I still hate the synthesis option but your point is a good one. Gives me something to think about.

But that still doesnt change the fact that synthesis potrays everything as sunshines and rainbows. That is really unrealistic. Just like in real life world peace will never happen in destroy control or synthesis. Diseases adapt and become worse too. Synthesis can easily make things a lot worse (although bioware would never show us that).

[Auintus]

KENNY4753 wrote...

I understand what you mean. Its an interesting pov. I havent thought of it like that before. That said I still hate the synthesis option but your point is a good one. Gives me something to think about.

But that still doesnt change the fact that synthesis potrays everything as sunshines and rainbows. That is really unrealistic. Just like in real life world peace will never happen in destroy control or synthesis. Diseases adapt and become worse too. Synthesis can easily make things a lot worse (although bioware would never show us that).

Well, Destroy and Control don't show the grit and grime either. It just seems overdone in Synthesis because it promises so much more. While I'm not sure diseases could adapt to that degree of technology, my headcanon, just to fill in the blanks, assures me that Synthesis won't stop humans and batarians from hating each other and so forth. It promises future advancement, but never claims that it all comes at once.
Would you explain how it could make things worse?

[Khelish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Gave the OP a little love with some solid arguments from both sides.

In the interest of space, however, I snipped down some of those quotes and omitted some other worthy posts.

Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised at the discussion this thread has yielded. Good stuff! 

What do you think of the actual husks?

Like Banshees, Ravagers, Brutes (Mixed Krogan & Turian)?

How do they fit into a post-synthesis world? All the husks were made for a single purpose: Killing. What good would bringing back their minds be if they look like abominations, twisted, and sick mutations of life?

You can't really expect a wife to welcome her husk husband back home with open arms... Right? 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but this is what really puts me off about synthesis.

[Argolas]

Auintus wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Auintus wrote...

KENNY4753 wrote...

"If nothing is wrong, then we are perfect. No one alive has the right to claim perfection"

thats the beauty of it. It is what makes us who we are. Our flaws make us unique. If you take them away (synthesis) we lose our identity.

I would disagree. My extremely non-standard style of thinking makes me unique, yet I wouldn't call it a flaw. Thousands of unique characteristics, mannerisms, styles of thought, tics, all make us unique and many of them wouldn't be called flaws. But we suffer non-unique limitations that Synthesis could easily help with.

I would not want to live in a world like that....

Like what? 

A place where people have no flaws. Every person I claim to know well enough to make that kind of statement, including my loved ones, is at least partly defined by their flaws and mistakes they made.

[KENNY4753]

Easily. Diseases could adapt and become worse. Thinks like parasites might get affect in some way (im no science expert but its a possibility).

Also wars will still be a problem. The Genophage is cured in synthesis even if you sabotaged it correct? If so the Krogan (mostly if Wreav is in charge) would majorly expand and cause problem/get revenge. Any conflict that arrives everybody will pull the Reapers into the middle of it.

Im not saying synthesis will definitely be worse but it could cause its fair share of issues.

[KENNY4753]

btw sorry for spelling/grammar errors in my posts. Its late and Im exhausted

[Auld Wulf]

Auintus wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I would not want to live in a world like that...

Like what?

I would actually like to see a response to this.

The primary question to be asked here is what makes one different from any other? I believe that the individuality and the beauty of the person isn't defined by what they are, but rather who. I've always felt that segregation based upon what rather than who was a basis for elements like racism, classism, and so on. A person can choose to be or look different, but does that make them so? If a person is born looking different, does that make them somehow less or more than anyone else? It speaks to the deeply base and instinctive drive to dominate, to make a hierarchy.

One of the more important themes of Synthesis is the elimination of the hierarchy of domination. In our world, today, frailty and sickness often make for easy targets. Unfamiliarity makes it easier to band together against that unfamiliarity. There are persons who've died for no more than being gay. All of this speaks to a lower level of the human psyche, something more animalistic that derides our intellectuality, that countermands rational thought. So what if you take all that away? What if you remove that? Peer pressure isn't so easy if you can have a group of like-minded people right there in  your head (galactic cosensus), and sickness/illness stop being a thing. On top of that, it's more simple for someone to call for help and to convey their deep need for help with their emotions via the galactic consensus.

Synthesis puts everyone on even footing without actually taking away individuality. It removes innate limitations imposed upon us by the tyranny of nature, limitations that we didn't choose. Synthesis doesn't take choice away, it adds choice. If a person was an architect then they will continue to do that, and do it well. However, if a person was suffering with an incurable form of blindness and deafness, then suddenly a whole new world opens up to them because they are no longer defined by limitations. This is an important realisation: It's innately cruel for a person to be defiined by their limitations.

Let's take Joker as a case in point. He feels uncomfortable, he suffers with self-esteem issues and he even mocks himself. In Citadel he does everything he's able to to avoid dancing, because he believes that his body is limited to the point where dancing would only make him feel sad. If effort cannot override limitation then that is cruelty by its very nature. What Synthesis does is remove the barrier of limitation, then it's a simple matter of effort on Joker's part to understand how to dance.

In Synthesis, a person is defined by choice rather than limitation.

What I don't understand is why Argolas feels that a world where a person is defined by their limitations (and all the evils involved in that) is such an incredibly desirable thing, and why he'd "never want to live in a world" where someone else would be given an equal chance. Does he dislike Synthesis because he feels threatened? Is there some deep seated cause for this? I genuinely want to understand.

[Megaton_Hope]

What gets me with Synthesis is that organic life would now be vulnerable to computer viruses.

"You haven't updated your antivirus definitions in how long? Haven't you heard about that new logic buster that's going around?"

[Argolas]

Auld Wulf wrote...
What I don't understand is why Argolas feels that a world where a person is defined by their limitations (and all the evils involved in that) is such an incredibly desirable thing, and why he'd "never want to live in a world" where someone else would be given an equal chance. Does he dislike Synthesis because he feels threatened? Is there some deep seated cause for this? I genuinely want to understand.

Because flaws and limitations are opportunities to grow. Facing the fact that you are not perfect and overcoming your weaknesses makes you a better person than any perfect creature could ever be. It's part of what we are.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Khelish wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 Gave the OP a little love with some solid arguments from both sides.

In the interest of space, however, I snipped down some of those quotes and omitted some other worthy posts.

Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised at the discussion this thread has yielded. Good stuff! 

What do you think of the actual husks?

Like Banshees, Ravagers, Brutes (Mixed Krogan & Turian)?

How do they fit into a post-synthesis world? All the husks were made for a single purpose: Killing. What good would bringing back their minds be if they look like abominations, twisted, and sick mutations of life?

You can't really expect a wife to welcome her husk husband back home with open arms... Right? 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but this is what really puts me off about synthesis.

Apologies. Somehow I missed this post entirely.

I think (not entirely sure) that the husk-soldier scene was meant to be symbolic. Husks' brains are far too degraded and decayed for them to be alive without Reaper control sustaining it. So I think the husk was meant to show the Reapers' reaction to being "freed," since the actual ships have no face.

Given that, I don't think the Reapers would hold on to them. You don't see them in Sync epilogue slides. They probably released control, and they'd die from the extensive brain damage (they're basically just hardware anyway).

[Astartes Marine]

Khelish wrote...
What do you think of the actual husks?

Like Banshees, Ravagers, Brutes (Mixed Krogan & Turian)?

How do they fit into a post-synthesis world? All the husks were made for a single purpose: Killing. What good would bringing back their minds be if they look like abominations, twisted, and sick mutations of life?

You can't really expect a wife to welcome her husk husband back home with open arms... Right? 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but this is what really puts me off about synthesis.

This is what I want to know too, and from what I have seen many Synth supporters like Wolfie never even glance at the fact that Reaperized sentients, forms that have been perfected for killing and destruction, can now think. 

Praetorians that are a culmination of dozens of corpses?  Alive and free thinking.
Scions, the amalgamation of flesh from untold numbers of bodies?  Alive and free thinking.
Cannibals, a Batarian fused with some human parts here and there with at least one extra head?  Alive and free thinking.
Brutes? 
Banshees?
Collectors?

How do they fit into the supposed "utopia" with sunshines, rainbows, and everything is so perfect and wonderful?

[Khelish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Apologies. Somehow I missed this post entirely.

I think (not entirely sure) that the husk-soldier scene was meant to be symbolic. Husks' brains are far too degraded and decayed for them to be alive without Reaper control sustaining it. So I think the husk was meant to show the Reapers' reaction to being "freed," since the actual ships have no face.

Given that, I don't think the Reapers would hold on to them. You don't see them in Sync epilogue slides. They probably released control, and they'd die from the extensive brain damage (they're basically just hardware anyway).

Now that is an honest answer that sounds rather good. Thank you. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

@AM... consider it answered!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 29 mars 2013 - 05:41 .

[Astartes Marine]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Apologies. Somehow I missed this post entirely.

I think (not entirely sure) that the husk-soldier scene was meant to be symbolic. Husks' brains are far too degraded and decayed for them to be alive without Reaper control sustaining it. So I think the husk was meant to show the Reapers' reaction to being "freed," since the actual ships have no face.

Given that, I don't think the Reapers would hold on to them. You don't see them in Sync epilogue slides. They probably released control, and they'd die from the extensive brain damage (they're basically just hardware anyway).

See there's alot that's being headcanoned here.  The catalyst says that organics will have synthetic bits and synthetics will have complete understanding of organic life.  Since Reaper troops are a form of synthesis themselves, melding of organic and synthetic, do they gain understanding? 

Brain damage wouldn't really factor in since in ME1 it stated that the husks have almost all organs and fluids replaced by tech thanks to the Dragon's Teeth.  One can only assume the Reapers follow similar procedures in converting other races into ground forces.  IF there was a brain, the machinery could sustain it even after the organics fail.


Also...what happens to the Cerberus troops?  Do they once again think freely?  They still have their personalities and minds, just a hell of a lot of implants and indoctrination.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Astartes Marine wrote...

See there's alot that's being headcanoned here.

Not every interpretation is "headcanon."

With a scene showing something happening, and not giving us any information past what we see, there are no facts.

There is only interpretation.

The catalyst says that organics will have synthetic bits and synthetics will have complete understanding of organic life.  Since Reaper troops are a form of synthesis themselves, melding of organic and synthetic, do they gain understanding?

Brain damage wouldn't really factor in since in ME1 it stated that the husks have almost all organs and fluids replaced by tech thanks to the Dragon's Teeth.  One can only assume the Reapers follow similar procedures in converting other races into ground forces.  IF there was a brain, the machinery could sustain it even after the organics fail.

Husks are dead organic bodies, but they "come to life" insofar as Reapers gain control of them through cybernetics.

Same deal as Saren. Man was dead, but Sovvy assumed direct control through the implants.

The implants don't have minds of their own to suddenly resurrect the dead body. It relies on Reaper control.

Also...what happens to the Cerberus troops?  Do they once again think freely?  They still have their personalities and minds, just a hell of a lot of implants and indoctrination.

For indoctrinated organic thralls, it would probably all depend on the extent of neural decay (no different than in Destroy or Control endings, for that matter).

[Astartes Marine]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Not every interpretation is "headcanon."
With a scene showing something happening, and not giving us any information past what we see, there are no facts.
There is only interpretation.

I suppose there are different definitions on what "headcanon" actually is.  I took it to be a theory on something that happens either after the endings of which there is no definitive proof, or something that occurs during the game that has no definitive explanation or evidence.  Example being whether or not the Geth are destroyed, their powered down platforms are not shown, but neither are functioning ones.  I figured the same with Husks and other Reaper troops, we're never told exactly what happens with them aside from turning to dust and blowing away in Destroy.

So I guess I believe that interpretation involves some headcanoning.  And that's at least one point I think everyone can agree is a positive for Destroy; easy cleanup of Reaper troops, no leftover corpses to stink and rot.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Husks are dead organic bodies, but they "come to life" insofar as Reapers gain control of them through cybernetics.
Same deal as Saren. Man was dead, but Sovvy assumed direct control through the implants.
The implants don't have minds of their own to suddenly resurrect the dead body. It relies on Reaper control.
For
indoctrinated organic thralls, it would probably all depend on the
extent of neural decay (no different than in Destroy or Control endings,
for that matter).

I always thought that the individual platforms DID have some kind of autonomy, much like the Collector troops rather than being micro-managed all the time.  They all perform various goals due to what programs or implanted directives or indoctrination drive them, but at any time a Reaper like Harbinger can get their hands dirty and personally override standard operations and take control of a unit like the Posessed or direct large numbers of units through a leader unit like the Collector General.

Saren I always took as he never completed the implantation process, was still alive and all.  Kinda like the Illusive Man he was in the early stages though Saren was much further along than the IM.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 29 mars 2013 - 07:16 .

[robertthebard]

Astartes Marine wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Not every interpretation is "headcanon."
With a scene showing something happening, and not giving us any information past what we see, there are no facts.
There is only interpretation.

I suppose there are different definitions on what "headcanon" actually is.  I took it to be a theory on something that happens either after the endings of which there is no definitive proof, or something that occurs during the game that has no definitive explanation or evidence.  Example being whether or not the Geth are destroyed, their powered down platforms are not shown, but neither are functioning ones.  I figured the same with Husks and other Reaper troops, we're never told exactly what happens with them aside from turning to dust and blowing away in Destroy.

So I guess I believe that interpretation involves some headcanoning.  And that's at least one point I think everyone can agree is a positive for Destroy; easy cleanup of Reaper troops, no leftover corpses to stink and rot.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Husks are dead organic bodies, but they "come to life" insofar as Reapers gain control of them through cybernetics.
Same deal as Saren. Man was dead, but Sovvy assumed direct control through the implants.
The implants don't have minds of their own to suddenly resurrect the dead body. It relies on Reaper control.
For
indoctrinated organic thralls, it would probably all depend on the
extent of neural decay (no different than in Destroy or Control endings,
for that matter).

I always thought that the individual platforms DID have some kind of autonomy, much like the Collector troops rather than being micro-managed all the time.  They all perform various goals due to what programs or implanted directives or indoctrination drive them, but at any time a Reaper like Harbinger can get their hands dirty and personally override standard operations and take control of a unit like the Posessed or direct large numbers of units through a leader unit like the Collector General.

Saren I always took as he never completed the implantation process, was still alive and all.  Kinda like the Illusive Man he was in the early stages though Saren was much further along than the IM.

In my last game, Saren shot himself in the head, and then Garrus shot him in the head.  He's dead when Sovereign assumes control.  In fact, Sarenhusk will even tell you that it's Sovereign.  That said, I always figured that the Husks were alive, and somewhat autonomous.  In support, I'll use the Husks created by Cerberus on Horizon.  They were certainly alive, but I don't think there was a Reaper controlling them.  That the potential exists can't be denied, shock troops are worthless if you can't control them, but I don't believe they were controlled 100% of the time.

[Astartes Marine]

robertthebard wrote...
In my last game, Saren shot himself in the head, and then Garrus shot him in the head.  He's dead when Sovereign assumes control.  In fact, Sarenhusk will even tell you that it's Sovereign.

I meant that he was still alive before he got shot, as in he was still himself for the most part as in it was still Saren talking just with Reaper influence, like the IM. 

After his head got ventilated...yeah that was a different story.