553 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

alienatedflea wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

 I see good in Synthesis but the bad in it seems to outweigh it.Convince meto believe otherwise or try to justify it.

Like Spock says, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  Carelessly sacrificing the geth, the reapers, and mass relays...seems illogical when you can have all join forces...just think of all the advancements acquired from the reapers in synthesis...I do not see any evil in synethesis at all.  This whole notion of consent among the galaxy...is a strawman arguement.

Who'd you vote for in the last election?

Did everyone vote as you did?

And if not, did everyone have a notion of what was 'right' and vote accordingly.

And finally, even if not everyone voted for the winning party, do they still go along with them once the votes are counted, the majority decided, and the winner elected?

......... and one more thing. Who died and said Shepard was now the dually elected leader of all life in the galaxy and that he had the agency to decide that everyone should be synthesised, when by answering the following question's you should, by now be aware, that there will be 'nobodies Shep never met', who will consider being synthesised an affront to their basic dignity? Unless of course, synthesis changes their perspective so radically, that for all intent;s and purposes, they have become indoctrinated to a new way of thinking (not the old indoc), whereby they don't mind? But have still been brainwashed to accept the new status quo.

The actual strawman argument here is that everyone will agree on one thing. When history has shown that while while we have majorities, we rarely, if ever, have a consensus.

p.s. If you going to quote spock...... remember that Kirk thought the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many. Went through hell and back to recover him. Lost his son in the process. Risked his crew. Yet still carried on and brought Spock back.

U.S. Ranger's I believe operate a similar principal of leaving no man behind. A risky principal, in that by going back for a downed man they risk more men. But good in that people who join the rangers have a promise that they will not be abandoned, leading to a confidence that would not otherwise be there that they will get out of a war zone alive, thus giving the rangers a reputation of offering increased survivability that encourages people to join. As well as resolving any issues for those who didn't get left behind that they will do everything possible to retrieve a downed man, thereby absolving them of guilt and mental distress.

And let's not also forget, that Old Spock's centre could be found when he mixed his logic with feeling's.

Synthesis can be rationalised any which way. But it feels wrong that in order to be allowed to live you have to alter the fundamental nature of who and what you are. So much of enlighted thinking revolves around the answer to the question.

Why do tinned hot dogs come in packs of 7 but buns come in packs of 6?

Modifié par Redbelle, 25 mai 2013 - 08:27 .

[Caldari Ghost]

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...




which is why refuse is such a bad option?

Not to belabour the point...... but you just avoided the point I was making, in conjunction with Synthesis.

We are not talking about refuse as the 4th ending. We are talking about the Reapers refusing to advance beyond a point where their own presence is unneccessary. On account that it takes an organic to do a Catalyst's job in building a device, capable of delivering the Catalsyt's dream solution that the Catalyst was resolved to destroy. And the organics and synthetics, working together built it in less than 50k years. Catalsyt.......buuuuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

Clearly, whatever advantages the Catalyst arranged for itself to enjoy are being outcompeted by the natural order of life. And yet it will not change itself or the Reaper operating protocol, despite recognising that it's own defeat is likely unless it alter's it's operating protocol. Yet it does not. This is not the sign of a sentient intelligence, but one trapped within predetermined confines. It knows what is coming. Yet is powerless to do anything about it.

Sooooo, in conjunction with synthesis. The Reapers and the Catlayst are fast becoming an outmodded idea. Yet the Catalyst seem to think it's idea is still a good one, despite it's recognition of it's own falacies. And it's growing need for the orgs it keeps killing off every 50k to get it out of the ever closing spiral of demise....... Shepard on the other hand........ is a tool. For allowing the Cat to walk all over him.

Aaaaaand, in the spirit of Peter Falk. Just one more thing.

Near the start, Liara mention's a missing component. Refered to as the Catalst to make the crucible work.........

The Starbrat walks in and says "I am the Catalyst".

The 'Catalyst' cannot make the crucible work without Shepard.......

So who is really the Catalyst? And who is the credit stealing glory hound who want's to be looked upon as something more than he really is?

i'm listening to your immediate response, but your last point really wasn't worth noting.

i see what you mean about being stagnant.

but the bigger the gene pool, the more there is to draw from. and if i just destroy, the cycle will happen all over again.

better to start from the high ground.

Modifié par Caldari Ghost, 25 mai 2013 - 11:40 .

[Caldari Ghost]

TheProtheans wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.

That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.

When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

So if everything is objective, is genocide only good or only bad?

And what about letting the Reapers continue unchecked?

We're talking about Synthesis.
You should raise this question in the destroy/refuse thread though.

haha, you should address the point.

BTW i had no say in whether or not we should have ended the cold war wiith peace. i wasn't even alive at the time.

Modifié par Caldari Ghost, 25 mai 2013 - 11:42 .

[Redbelle]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...




which is why refuse is such a bad option?

Not to belabour the point...... but you just avoided the point I was making, in conjunction with Synthesis.

We are not talking about refuse as the 4th ending. We are talking about the Reapers refusing to advance beyond a point where their own presence is unneccessary. On account that it takes an organic to do a Catalyst's job in building a device, capable of delivering the Catalsyt's dream solution that the Catalyst was resolved to destroy. And the organics and synthetics, working together built it in less than 50k years. Catalsyt.......buuuuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

Clearly, whatever advantages the Catalyst arranged for itself to enjoy are being outcompeted by the natural order of life. And yet it will not change itself or the Reaper operating protocol, despite recognising that it's own defeat is likely unless it alter's it's operating protocol. Yet it does not. This is not the sign of a sentient intelligence, but one trapped within predetermined confines. It knows what is coming. Yet is powerless to do anything about it.

Sooooo, in conjunction with synthesis. The Reapers and the Catlayst are fast becoming an outmodded idea. Yet the Catalyst seem to think it's idea is still a good one, despite it's recognition of it's own falacies. And it's growing need for the orgs it keeps killing off every 50k to get it out of the ever closing spiral of demise....... Shepard on the other hand........ is a tool. For allowing the Cat to walk all over him.

Aaaaaand, in the spirit of Peter Falk. Just one more thing.

Near the start, Liara mention's a missing component. Refered to as the Catalst to make the crucible work.........

The Starbrat walks in and says "I am the Catalyst".

The 'Catalyst' cannot make the crucible work without Shepard.......

So who is really the Catalyst? And who is the credit stealing glory hound who want's to be looked upon as something more than he really is?

i'm listening to your immediate response, but your last point really wasn't worth noting.

i see what you mean about being stagnant.

but the bigger the gene pool, the more there is to draw from. and if i just destroy, the cycle will happen all over again.

better to start from the high ground.

With dead Reaper's there are no more cycles. As cycles are an invention of the Reapers.

What I think you mean to say, is that organics will go to war with synthetics again..... but to say that the galactic community has learned nothing from its war with the Reapers is to promote the notion that organics are as stagnant in their views as the Reapers.

Case in point. The Geth. Yes they were pursued and hunted on their own world..... but it cannot be stressed enough that there was a group who did not support the view that all Geth had to die. And many of these people died protecting the Geth. Providing evidence that it is not inevitable that orgs will automatically want to kill synthetics and will, in fact, die to uphold their rights aas individuals. And on the flip side, the Geth did want to automatically kill organics once they developed far enough to develop independent thought.

I'll say this for the Reapers. Their presence mandated growth of cycles along an avenue that would otherwise have remained unexplored had they never been created. The acceptance of EDI, dispite the rules of shackling AI's back in ME1 and her subsequent loyalty to those, who are technically, inferior, to her demonstrates an enlightened view, that just because she is superior in many ways, does not mean she cannot benefit and appreciate being a part of that community.

[TheRealJayDee]

Phatose wrote...

Our iconography is also full of gods and angels with glowing eyes.

I'd argue that "Not exactly human" is correct, but the negative connotation is entirely the creation of a mind who's already chosen to see it that way.

Well, yeah. I'd say if someone who didn't use to have glowing eyes suddenly has them most people would take that as a sign that something is wrong. "Different", but at least at first "different and frightening". If you'd wake up one morning and your girlfriend/boyfriend suddenly had glowing green eyes instead of whatever she/he had before, wouldn't that be damn unsettling for you? I know it'd be for me...



edit:
That being said, Seival's new avatar is way less creepy than the previous one! 

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 25 mai 2013 - 12:40 .

[TheProtheans]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

haha, you should address the point.

BTW i had no say in whether or not we should have ended the cold war wiith peace. i wasn't even alive at the time.

This isn't the correct place to discuss other endings.
However destroy is a must, nothing else can save the galaxy in the way a strong Shepard would thrive for.
Wherever it is good or bad is irrelevant, it simply is what it is.
A way to rid the galaxy of the Reapers once and for all, however there is a sacrifice.
Legion the Geth would do the same.
I'm not going to justify picking destroy over a worse option, refusal is could be better with all the races surviving
Destroy is simply necessary...

A headcanon of Refuse is not a cause for raising a question.

[Caldari Ghost]

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...




which is why refuse is such a bad option?

Not to belabour the point...... but you just avoided the point I was making, in conjunction with Synthesis.

We are not talking about refuse as the 4th ending. We are talking about the Reapers refusing to advance beyond a point where their own presence is unneccessary. On account that it takes an organic to do a Catalyst's job in building a device, capable of delivering the Catalsyt's dream solution that the Catalyst was resolved to destroy. And the organics and synthetics, working together built it in less than 50k years. Catalsyt.......buuuuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

Clearly, whatever advantages the Catalyst arranged for itself to enjoy are being outcompeted by the natural order of life. And yet it will not change itself or the Reaper operating protocol, despite recognising that it's own defeat is likely unless it alter's it's operating protocol. Yet it does not. This is not the sign of a sentient intelligence, but one trapped within predetermined confines. It knows what is coming. Yet is powerless to do anything about it.

Sooooo, in conjunction with synthesis. The Reapers and the Catlayst are fast becoming an outmodded idea. Yet the Catalyst seem to think it's idea is still a good one, despite it's recognition of it's own falacies. And it's growing need for the orgs it keeps killing off every 50k to get it out of the ever closing spiral of demise....... Shepard on the other hand........ is a tool. For allowing the Cat to walk all over him.

Aaaaaand, in the spirit of Peter Falk. Just one more thing.

Near the start, Liara mention's a missing component. Refered to as the Catalst to make the crucible work.........

The Starbrat walks in and says "I am the Catalyst".

The 'Catalyst' cannot make the crucible work without Shepard.......

So who is really the Catalyst? And who is the credit stealing glory hound who want's to be looked upon as something more than he really is?

i'm listening to your immediate response, but your last point really wasn't worth noting.

i see what you mean about being stagnant.

but the bigger the gene pool, the more there is to draw from. and if i just destroy, the cycle will happen all over again.

better to start from the high ground.

With dead Reaper's there are no more cycles. As cycles are an invention of the Reapers.

What I think you mean to say, is that organics will go to war with synthetics again..... but to say that the galactic community has learned nothing from its war with the Reapers is to promote the notion that organics are as stagnant in their views as the Reapers.

Case in point. The Geth. Yes they were pursued and hunted on their own world..... but it cannot be stressed enough that there was a group who did not support the view that all Geth had to die. And many of these people died protecting the Geth. Providing evidence that it is not inevitable that orgs will automatically want to kill synthetics and will, in fact, die to uphold their rights aas individuals. And on the flip side, the Geth did want to automatically kill organics once they developed far enough to develop independent thought.

I'll say this for the Reapers. Their presence mandated growth of cycles along an avenue that would otherwise have remained unexplored had they never been created. The acceptance of EDI, dispite the rules of shackling AI's back in ME1 and her subsequent loyalty to those, who are technically, inferior, to her demonstrates an enlightened view, that just because she is superior in many ways, does not mean she cannot benefit and appreciate being a part of that community.

you do know why the reapers invented the cycles, right?
and why the reapers were invented in the first place?

[Wayning_Star]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...




which is why refuse is such a bad option?

Not to belabour the point...... but you just avoided the point I was making, in conjunction with Synthesis.

We are not talking about refuse as the 4th ending. We are talking about the Reapers refusing to advance beyond a point where their own presence is unneccessary. On account that it takes an organic to do a Catalyst's job in building a device, capable of delivering the Catalsyt's dream solution that the Catalyst was resolved to destroy. And the organics and synthetics, working together built it in less than 50k years. Catalsyt.......buuuuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

Clearly, whatever advantages the Catalyst arranged for itself to enjoy are being outcompeted by the natural order of life. And yet it will not change itself or the Reaper operating protocol, despite recognising that it's own defeat is likely unless it alter's it's operating protocol. Yet it does not. This is not the sign of a sentient intelligence, but one trapped within predetermined confines. It knows what is coming. Yet is powerless to do anything about it.

Sooooo, in conjunction with synthesis. The Reapers and the Catlayst are fast becoming an outmodded idea. Yet the Catalyst seem to think it's idea is still a good one, despite it's recognition of it's own falacies. And it's growing need for the orgs it keeps killing off every 50k to get it out of the ever closing spiral of demise....... Shepard on the other hand........ is a tool. For allowing the Cat to walk all over him.

Aaaaaand, in the spirit of Peter Falk. Just one more thing.

Near the start, Liara mention's a missing component. Refered to as the Catalst to make the crucible work.........

The Starbrat walks in and says "I am the Catalyst".

The 'Catalyst' cannot make the crucible work without Shepard.......

So who is really the Catalyst? And who is the credit stealing glory hound who want's to be looked upon as something more than he really is?

i'm listening to your immediate response, but your last point really wasn't worth noting.

i see what you mean about being stagnant.

but the bigger the gene pool, the more there is to draw from. and if i just destroy, the cycle will happen all over again.

better to start from the high ground.

With dead Reaper's there are no more cycles. As cycles are an invention of the Reapers.

What I think you mean to say, is that organics will go to war with synthetics again..... but to say that the galactic community has learned nothing from its war with the Reapers is to promote the notion that organics are as stagnant in their views as the Reapers.

Case in point. The Geth. Yes they were pursued and hunted on their own world..... but it cannot be stressed enough that there was a group who did not support the view that all Geth had to die. And many of these people died protecting the Geth. Providing evidence that it is not inevitable that orgs will automatically want to kill synthetics and will, in fact, die to uphold their rights aas individuals. And on the flip side, the Geth did want to automatically kill organics once they developed far enough to develop independent thought.

I'll say this for the Reapers. Their presence mandated growth of cycles along an avenue that would otherwise have remained unexplored had they never been created. The acceptance of EDI, dispite the rules of shackling AI's back in ME1 and her subsequent loyalty to those, who are technically, inferior, to her demonstrates an enlightened view, that just because she is superior in many ways, does not mean she cannot benefit and appreciate being a part of that community.

you do know why the reapers invented the cycles, right?
and why the reapers were invented in the first place?

they were looking for an illustrated version of a dictionary that explains 'evil' in small words? Mainly for folks here on the BSN.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TheProtheans wrote...


Wherever it is good or bad is irrelevant, it simply is what it is.

This statement means absolutely nothing, at all. It's literally nonsense.

You're trying to handwave morality of the decision while trying to justify it at the same time.

You can't, it's not doable.

A way to rid the galaxy of the Reapers once and for all, however there is a sacrifice.
Destroy is simply necessary...

Basically everything you were saying before about morality not being subjective is crap now.

You're justifying it for subjective/situational reasons.

Sorry, but your idea that everything is black-and-white holds no water when tested, and crap opinions are to be discarded.

[Seival]

sharkboy421 wrote...

Seival wrote...

I see. I got your point now.

Well, the answer is pretty simple. Devs didn't give Synthesis more details than it already has because:
(1) Synthesis happens in the very end of the game - there is simply no room for really detailed explanations.
(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

In short - really detailed explanation of Synthesis is about creating a new huge story, not about creating just one codex entry.

I can't really speak to (2) as Bioware has told us nothing about the next ME game other than it is being made so any thoughts about what it will contain is as good as the next.

As for the first: if that really is the case, then. . .wow I don't even know what to say.  The amount of unprofessionalism in that idea is nearly unfathomable.  No room for an explanation? That would have been valid after the vanilla but after the EC that is no excuse.

The whole point of the EC was to give us understanding and clarity about the ending.  And it kind of did but at the same time it left out this very important information.  And its not like there had to be a whole dissertation about the process.  A line or two at most is all that is needed.

You want an hour-long epilogue made just for Synthesis? It's like asking BioWare to make ME movie, and give it you for free. Don't you think you are asking for too much?

EC gives Synthesis epilogue just as much time as it gives to Control or Destroy. Synthesis epilogue shows that harvests were stopped, ex-Reapers help galactic civilization to rebuild, organics became improved, synthetics stopped being alien to organics, husks and VIs became self-aware. Anything beyond that is a matter of new story, no epilogue should contain so much info.

Synthesis epilogue was made very professionally. You understand the key points even without text and words. For example - a husk becoming self-aware, a very short but beautiful and easily understandable scene.

[Redbelle]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...




which is why refuse is such a bad option?

Not to belabour the point...... but you just avoided the point I was making, in conjunction with Synthesis.

We are not talking about refuse as the 4th ending. We are talking about the Reapers refusing to advance beyond a point where their own presence is unneccessary. On account that it takes an organic to do a Catalyst's job in building a device, capable of delivering the Catalsyt's dream solution that the Catalyst was resolved to destroy. And the organics and synthetics, working together built it in less than 50k years. Catalsyt.......buuuuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnnn

Clearly, whatever advantages the Catalyst arranged for itself to enjoy are being outcompeted by the natural order of life. And yet it will not change itself or the Reaper operating protocol, despite recognising that it's own defeat is likely unless it alter's it's operating protocol. Yet it does not. This is not the sign of a sentient intelligence, but one trapped within predetermined confines. It knows what is coming. Yet is powerless to do anything about it.

Sooooo, in conjunction with synthesis. The Reapers and the Catlayst are fast becoming an outmodded idea. Yet the Catalyst seem to think it's idea is still a good one, despite it's recognition of it's own falacies. And it's growing need for the orgs it keeps killing off every 50k to get it out of the ever closing spiral of demise....... Shepard on the other hand........ is a tool. For allowing the Cat to walk all over him.

Aaaaaand, in the spirit of Peter Falk. Just one more thing.

Near the start, Liara mention's a missing component. Refered to as the Catalst to make the crucible work.........

The Starbrat walks in and says "I am the Catalyst".

The 'Catalyst' cannot make the crucible work without Shepard.......

So who is really the Catalyst? And who is the credit stealing glory hound who want's to be looked upon as something more than he really is?

i'm listening to your immediate response, but your last point really wasn't worth noting.

i see what you mean about being stagnant.

but the bigger the gene pool, the more there is to draw from. and if i just destroy, the cycle will happen all over again.

better to start from the high ground.

With dead Reaper's there are no more cycles. As cycles are an invention of the Reapers.

What I think you mean to say, is that organics will go to war with synthetics again..... but to say that the galactic community has learned nothing from its war with the Reapers is to promote the notion that organics are as stagnant in their views as the Reapers.

Case in point. The Geth. Yes they were pursued and hunted on their own world..... but it cannot be stressed enough that there was a group who did not support the view that all Geth had to die. And many of these people died protecting the Geth. Providing evidence that it is not inevitable that orgs will automatically want to kill synthetics and will, in fact, die to uphold their rights aas individuals. And on the flip side, the Geth did want to automatically kill organics once they developed far enough to develop independent thought.

I'll say this for the Reapers. Their presence mandated growth of cycles along an avenue that would otherwise have remained unexplored had they never been created. The acceptance of EDI, dispite the rules of shackling AI's back in ME1 and her subsequent loyalty to those, who are technically, inferior, to her demonstrates an enlightened view, that just because she is superior in many ways, does not mean she cannot benefit and appreciate being a part of that community.

you do know why the reapers invented the cycles, right?
and why the reapers were invented in the first place?

And you know the 'evolving species' within those cycles argument I've been making. That has seen, not only a better armed response against Reapers..... but also a union of Organic and Synthetic life that does not result in the death of all organic life.

The Reapers were invented to stop organics from creating synthetics...... it failed. Organics created the Geth and Edi. Before that they had created shackled AI's and then resolved to never create an AI again on account they could never control them. The galaxy is literally abound with examples of org's creating synthetics, right up to and including VI's. So the Reaper's have failed in their no.1 goal of stopping the creation of synthetics.....

No problem. At the very least they can wipe out all advanced life that can create synthetics. (Assuming they enter their harvesting stage in time). But wait...... EDI is lovely...... (in so many ways ) And the Geth never intended to destroy their creator's. Only going ape when a splinter group of the Geth joined with Sovereign. Leading to a state where Legion disassociate's himself with that group by referring to his group as the 'true Geth'. So at the point of harvesting, there were no Synthetics that actively wanted to kill organics....... Sure the Geth would not have hesitated to kill the Quarians had they pushed the Geth. But again, the Reapers's influence in this matter was to push both groups to violence. When the Reaper code was essentially torn from the Reapers and used independently of them, the Geth are remorseful, or even offer their hand to the Quarian's in rebuilding there homeworld.......... So the Reapers are interfering with our cycle to make it more like what they would prefer to see our cycle as??? Hmmmmmm.

[Seival]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Seival wrote...

(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

So, if in the next story Synthesis is a non-issue, will you admit it's all a big spage magic waffle?

Your art reflects Synthesis perfectly. In a strange way it's pretty, but it has no soul.

Has no soul? And what is a "soul"? How can you measure it? How can you prove it even exists?

The eyes are the window of the soul. It's the first thing that humans notice when looking at another person. When BioWare gave glowing eyes to everyone in synthesis it "dehumanized" them. The main antagonist of the game has glowing eyes. The problem is not, "what is a soul" but the simple idea of iconography. Glowing eyes = bad and it's very hard for most people to get around that concept. That really reinforces the notion that everyone is indoctrinated. That's why people think it's "creepy."

I like the idea of synthesis, though I see its shortcomings including the fact that it probably wouldn't solve the organic vs. synthetics problem. It may allow for better understanding between organic vs. synthetics, but ultimately it is time that will grant a true understanding. However, they just really botched the execution.

As for your drawing, it looks good and fits well w/in the lore that BW set up.

So, basically you are telling that "the ones who have eye glows have no soul". First of all, this doesn't explain what soul is. Secondly, you just accused all living beings for "not having soul" even without understanding of what soul actually is, and if it even exists. Even humans have eye glows in some specific conditions - creepy red eye glows, which you fix on a badly made photo. Also, all living beings have eye glows in the dark when you observing them through night-vision devices.

You have disneyish stereotypes. "Non-usual or ugly = negative; Usual and pretty = positive". But "beast" has to be understood and accepted as it is. It doesn't have to become a "beautiful prince" in the end. Even something very creepy can be very beautiful, you just need to find that beauty:

[Redbelle]

To be honest..... this glowing eye's equates to souls thing is getting a little bit to real for an argument that has no common reference other than scripture and the inner workings of a cat's eye.

But since we have dared enter this uncharted domain I have to ask..... Do cat's have souls? Or is this question a bit silly in a thread discussing how synthesis can be justified?

[xlegionx]

Seival wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Seival wrote...

I see. I got your point now.

Well, the answer is pretty simple. Devs didn't give Synthesis more details than it already has because:
(1) Synthesis happens in the very end of the game - there is simply no room for really detailed explanations.
(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

In short - really detailed explanation of Synthesis is about creating a new huge story, not about creating just one codex entry.

I can't really speak to (2) as Bioware has told us nothing about the next ME game other than it is being made so any thoughts about what it will contain is as good as the next.

As for the first: if that really is the case, then. . .wow I don't even know what to say.  The amount of unprofessionalism in that idea is nearly unfathomable.  No room for an explanation? That would have been valid after the vanilla but after the EC that is no excuse.

The whole point of the EC was to give us understanding and clarity about the ending.  And it kind of did but at the same time it left out this very important information.  And its not like there had to be a whole dissertation about the process.  A line or two at most is all that is needed.

You want an hour-long epilogue made just for Synthesis? It's like asking BioWare to make ME movie, and give it you for free. Don't you think you are asking for too much?

EC gives Synthesis epilogue just as much time as it gives to Control or Destroy. Synthesis epilogue shows that harvests were stopped, ex-Reapers help galactic civilization to rebuild, organics became improved, synthetics stopped being alien to organics, husks and VIs became self-aware. Anything beyond that is a matter of new story, no epilogue should contain so much info.

Synthesis epilogue was made very professionally. You understand the key points even without text and words. For example - a husk becoming self-aware, a very short but beautiful and easily understandable scene.

Except it wasn't professional. Look at the ending to MGS4. It explains what had really went down with Liquid and everything else. It goes into depth with a lot of this, but it isn't a drag at all. That was professional and took the time to explain things. So it's not asking for too much to how this happened.

Ultimately the original ending was rushed due to time constraints, which let to the nonsense that Synthesis originally was. So when making the EC, they probably just didn't have any idea how Synthesis would actually work (because it can't) so they sidestepped the issue and focused on the incredibly vague epilogue slides and monologue

[Wayning_Star]

Redbelle wrote...

To be honest..... this glowing eye's equates to souls thing is getting a little bit to real for an argument that has no common reference other than scripture and the inner workings of a cat's eye.

But since we have dared enter this uncharted domain I have to ask..... Do cat's have souls? Or is this question a bit silly in a thread discussing how synthesis can be justified?

it's really about the discussion of whether synthesis is functional, more than spiritual. Is 'any' choice actually spiritual?


the windows thing is just metaphorical inference of that bond to energy thing, in relation to 'life' as we know it at it's basic level. Learning and other assorted input notwithstanding.

(as well as that need to know basis it's all hinged upon..lol)

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Seival wrote...

(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

So, if in the next story Synthesis is a non-issue, will you admit it's all a big spage magic waffle?

Your art reflects Synthesis perfectly. In a strange way it's pretty, but it has no soul.

Has no soul? And what is a "soul"? How can you measure it? How can you prove it even exists?

The eyes are the window of the soul. It's the first thing that humans notice when looking at another person. When BioWare gave glowing eyes to everyone in synthesis it "dehumanized" them. The main antagonist of the game has glowing eyes. The problem is not, "what is a soul" but the simple idea of iconography. Glowing eyes = bad and it's very hard for most people to get around that concept. That really reinforces the notion that everyone is indoctrinated. That's why people think it's "creepy."

I like the idea of synthesis, though I see its shortcomings including the fact that it probably wouldn't solve the organic vs. synthetics problem. It may allow for better understanding between organic vs. synthetics, but ultimately it is time that will grant a true understanding. However, they just really botched the execution.

As for your drawing, it looks good and fits well w/in the lore that BW set up.

When it comes to a 'soul'..... you either understand the concept and roll with it, or you don't.

And let's not marginalise the concept:

Soul Music
Soulfully
Soul Reaper (First half of season 1, still arguably the best)
Soulmates

1 of those is an anime, the other's imply a deep connection to something else.

Deep connection to something is called "love" if the connection is positive, and "bind" if the connection is negative, or has no specific attitude towards it (key binding is not negative, it's just technical).

Soul is just a word without meaning, or a second name in some cases. People use this word to show their personal attitude to something. The word has no real purpose, because you can show your attitude in much more constructive manner.

[Clayless]

FlamingBoy wrote...

The thread is fine, it confronts (even if its a tad aggressive) an ethical issue, which is what the whole point is about Mass Effect (even 3). If anything should be confronted its a persons own morality and ethics.

Saying something is subjective can be done in a single line of effortless writing, its an intellectual cop out because every one knows something is subjective, hence your repeating an argument that is said before as a result no knowledge is gained. Nothing new is learned... and if a persons played mass effect and does not have an opinion about the game beyond "everything is subjective" then the experience was a loss on that person

An opinion is only worth its salt it if can be defended. a simple "its my opinion" or "morality is subjective" is just not good enough.

Nonsense. Just because you don't learn anything new about the world doesn't mean that piece of entertainment was a loss. That doesn't even make any sense, it's just a tangled up thought process that says nothing.

Morality is subjective. Do you have a problem with that? Do you disagree? Tough, but that doesn't mean it can be dismissed, you don't get to pick and choose what counters your argument.

Modifié par Robosexual, 25 mai 2013 - 04:42 .

[Wayning_Star]

xlegionx wrote...

Seival wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

Seival wrote...

I see. I got your point now.

Well, the answer is pretty simple. Devs didn't give Synthesis more details than it already has because:
(1) Synthesis happens in the very end of the game - there is simply no room for really detailed explanations.
(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

In short - really detailed explanation of Synthesis is about creating a new huge story, not about creating just one codex entry.

I can't really speak to (2) as Bioware has told us nothing about the next ME game other than it is being made so any thoughts about what it will contain is as good as the next.

As for the first: if that really is the case, then. . .wow I don't even know what to say.  The amount of unprofessionalism in that idea is nearly unfathomable.  No room for an explanation? That would have been valid after the vanilla but after the EC that is no excuse.

The whole point of the EC was to give us understanding and clarity about the ending.  And it kind of did but at the same time it left out this very important information.  And its not like there had to be a whole dissertation about the process.  A line or two at most is all that is needed.

You want an hour-long epilogue made just for Synthesis? It's like asking BioWare to make ME movie, and give it you for free. Don't you think you are asking for too much?

EC gives Synthesis epilogue just as much time as it gives to Control or Destroy. Synthesis epilogue shows that harvests were stopped, ex-Reapers help galactic civilization to rebuild, organics became improved, synthetics stopped being alien to organics, husks and VIs became self-aware. Anything beyond that is a matter of new story, no epilogue should contain so much info.

Synthesis epilogue was made very professionally. You understand the key points even without text and words. For example - a husk becoming self-aware, a very short but beautiful and easily understandable scene.

Except it wasn't professional. Look at the ending to MGS4. It explains what had really went down with Liquid and everything else. It goes into depth with a lot of this, but it isn't a drag at all. That was professional and took the time to explain things. So it's not asking for too much to how this happened.

Ultimately the original ending was rushed due to time constraints, which let to the nonsense that Synthesis originally was. So when making the EC, they probably just didn't have any idea how Synthesis would actually work (because it can't) so they sidestepped the issue and focused on the incredibly vague epilogue slides and monologue

give nature and intelligence a few hundred billion or so years and say that Synthesis 'cannot' work(what do you know that others do not about it?). The vague is that realization that later you find that the information is actually lost in time by the story teller star gazer. Who blatantly admits that his story is wrought with disinformation, but over all is for a good cause and the kid should enjoy it. But, the kid wants more.. typical..lol

[Phatose]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Our iconography is also full of gods and angels with glowing eyes.

I'd argue that "Not exactly human" is correct, but the negative connotation is entirely the creation of a mind who's already chosen to see it that way.

Well, yeah. I'd say if someone who didn't use to have glowing eyes suddenly has them most people would take that as a sign that something is wrong. "Different", but at least at first "different and frightening". If you'd wake up one morning and your girlfriend/boyfriend suddenly had glowing green eyes instead of whatever she/he had before, wouldn't that be damn unsettling for you? I know it'd be for me...

Sure, if I woke up one morning and the wife's eyes were glowing, I'd be unsettled.  I'd also be unsettled if her eyes changed from their normal green to ice blue, or if her hair were suddenly blonde, or if her breasts suddenly grew three sizes.

Unsettling and bad are very different things though.

[Lavaeolus]

Redbelle wrote...

But since we have dared enter this uncharted domain I have to ask..... Do cat's have souls? Or is this question a bit silly in a thread discussing how synthesis can be justified?

Cats are the only ones with souls. All other animals, humans included, are just beasts going about their programming.

But cats. Now, cats are truly "alive".

[Eterna]

Oh my god, Seivals new avatar.

I love you Seival.

[Nerevar-as]

Seival wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Seival wrote...

(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

So, if in the next story Synthesis is a non-issue, will you admit it's all a big spage magic waffle?

Your art reflects Synthesis perfectly. In a strange way it's pretty, but it has no soul.

Has no soul? And what is a "soul"? How can you measure it? How can you prove it even exists?

The eyes are the window of the soul. It's the first thing that humans notice when looking at another person. When BioWare gave glowing eyes to everyone in synthesis it "dehumanized" them. The main antagonist of the game has glowing eyes. The problem is not, "what is a soul" but the simple idea of iconography. Glowing eyes = bad and it's very hard for most people to get around that concept. That really reinforces the notion that everyone is indoctrinated. That's why people think it's "creepy."

I like the idea of synthesis, though I see its shortcomings including the fact that it probably wouldn't solve the organic vs. synthetics problem. It may allow for better understanding between organic vs. synthetics, but ultimately it is time that will grant a true understanding. However, they just really botched the execution.

As for your drawing, it looks good and fits well w/in the lore that BW set up.

So, basically you are telling that "the ones who have eye glows have no soul". First of all, this doesn't explain what soul is. Secondly, you just accused all living beings for "not having soul" even without understanding of what soul actually is, and if it even exists. Even humans have eye glows in some specific conditions - creepy red eye glows, which you fix on a badly made photo. Also, all living beings have eye glows in the dark when you observing them through night-vision devices.

You have disneyish stereotypes. "Non-usual or ugly = negative; Usual and pretty = positive". But "beast" has to be understood and accepted as it is. It doesn't have to become a "beautiful prince" in the end. Even something very creepy can be very beautiful, you just need to find that beauty:

Seival, really, if you are not trolling, get psychological help. Or apply for a job with Giger, just don´t include the queen, only the original.

[Eterna]

The Aliens are beautiful princes. I love it.

Modifié par Eterna5, 25 mai 2013 - 09:20 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yestare7 wrote...

Seival wrote...

(2) Most likely devs reserved a lot of interesting details about Synthesis for the upcoming stories, so why uncover the surprize?

So, if in the next story Synthesis is a non-issue, will you admit it's all a big spage magic waffle?

Your art reflects Synthesis perfectly. In a strange way it's pretty, but it has no soul.

Has no soul? And what is a "soul"? How can you measure it? How can you prove it even exists?

The eyes are the window of the soul. It's the first thing that humans notice when looking at another person. When BioWare gave glowing eyes to everyone in synthesis it "dehumanized" them. The main antagonist of the game has glowing eyes. The problem is not, "what is a soul" but the simple idea of iconography. Glowing eyes = bad and it's very hard for most people to get around that concept. That really reinforces the notion that everyone is indoctrinated. That's why people think it's "creepy."

I like the idea of synthesis, though I see its shortcomings including the fact that it probably wouldn't solve the organic vs. synthetics problem. It may allow for better understanding between organic vs. synthetics, but ultimately it is time that will grant a true understanding. However, they just really botched the execution.

As for your drawing, it looks good and fits well w/in the lore that BW set up.

When it comes to a 'soul'..... you either understand the concept and roll with it, or you don't.

And let's not marginalise the concept:

Soul Music
Soulfully
Soul Reaper (First half of season 1, still arguably the best)
Soulmates

1 of those is an anime, the other's imply a deep connection to something else.

Deep connection to something is called "love" if the connection is positive, and "bind" if the connection is negative, or has no specific attitude towards it (key binding is not negative, it's just technical).

Soul is just a word without meaning, or a second name in some cases. People use this word to show their personal attitude to something. The word has no real purpose, because you can show your attitude in much more constructive manner.

Try again. There are many more expression's from all walks of life with differing POV's on the subject. Soooooo bring em.

P.s. Much as I like the alien design..... I would not want to be locked in a room with a real one.......

It's all about phallic symbology according to some and that could get.... you know.... wierd. Especially if me, it and group of mate's woke up ala 'The Hangover' and tried to figure out what we did last night. Alien could be the one like Alan!

Modifié par Redbelle, 25 mai 2013 - 10:57 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Seival wrote...

You have disneyish stereotypes. "Non-usual or ugly = negative; Usual and pretty = positive". But "beast" has to be understood and accepted as it is. It doesn't have to become a "beautiful prince" in the end. Even something very creepy can be very beautiful, you just need to find that beauty:

As long as we can agree that most people's problem with the Reapers isnt' "they look different", but "those things exist only to deceive and kill, are responsible for countless genocides and started an unprovoked war of annihilation against all advanced civilizations we know" I will gladly admit that different folks find different things beautiful. Glowing eyes mustn't be a bad thing.

Just out of curiosity: do you have a problem with Ripley and the Marines trying to kill the Alien(s) in the respective movies?