233 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

It also doesn't help we have no idea wtf Synthesis actually does to people, in both physical, mental and spiritual ways.

Are we a massive hive-mind? Like the geth? Can we die from old age? Why is being different considered wrong? Why is everything green? Do plants think as well? What about Joker's hat? How is EDI now 'alive'? Is half of her now replaced with organic material? Can the Reapers speak via all the individual people within their husks? How is their genetic goo even capable of telling us stuff? Why does it make galactic peace possible? Do we now know what everyone else is doing? Are we now just One? Is Starbrat now a bro and less insane? Are the Leviathans friends as well despite them being the cause? What about Husks and Reaperized troops?

[AlanC9]

I don't know where the hive mind speculation comes from; there's plenty of evidence against it and none for it.

Looks to me like the husks have become self-aware after the Synth wave passes; some folks speculate that we're seeing the reactions of the controlling Reaper, but this posits that Reapers assume control of husks the way Harbinger piloted Collectors around, which doesn't seem to be the Reaper m.o. anywhere else in the series.

[KiwiQuiche]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't know where the hive mind speculation comes from; there's plenty of evidence against it and none for it.

Looks to me like the husks have become self-aware after the Synth wave passes; some folks speculate that we're seeing the reactions of the controlling Reaper, but this posits that Reapers assume control of husks the way Harbinger piloted Collectors around, which doesn't seem to be the Reaper m.o. anywhere else in the series.

It comes from the fact Reapers themselves as basically this under the control of Starbrat; Legion states they are a collosal pool of minds in one body and since Synthesis basically gives everyone understanding of one another, it's natural to assume this is because the galaxy is now in-tune with one another.

Oh man, imagine being a self-aware Cannibal since you are basically merged with another person.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I honestly don't think there are exponentially larger strides or variations to either synthesis or Destroy.

Come on. You don't really believe that.

Even if there are, I'll stick to not making an unacceptable change and going up at a slower rate.

That's more like it. Still disagree though! 

I didn't really clarify what I meant by the Kenobi quote.

Synthesis, as presented by the Reapers and Catalyst, it's terms dictated by him and revealed as such, could potentially be a Reaper huskifying process.

Are we not all connected now as Reapers? Is conflict no longer possible if everyone is a Reaper subject? Are we not  all "ascended", going by the Reapers idea? "Perfect", going by what the Catalyst says?

If everyone is now huskified forever, is the purpose of the Reapers not irrelevent now? That's what I interpret synthesis to do.

Everything is changed via a Reaper synthesis, huskification if you will. We're all 'perfect' and 'ascended' permanently. All life is. Conflict is no longer possible. We're all in a state of bliss from accepting the Reapers or being entirely indoctrinated.

Does that meet the Catalyst's goal? Yes.

Is that what Synthesis is? Maybe not. But can you prove it otherwise?

Oh dear.

Well yes, I can use a little simple common sense and deduction to soundly put many of those claims to rest.

I'm trying to determine whether or not it's worth doing. 

Where did I fail to explain it before?

You simply stated you don't agree. Which is fine, ofc, and I think I can imagine what you're reasons are (it's probably the same as everyone else who feels the same on this topic) anyway.

Yes, I really do believe that. Reaper tech that's ours for the plundering? We're not going to be leaps and bounds behind synthesis like you believe. We're going to be making plenty of strides and advances. We don't need living Reapers or the information from long dead civilizations that will be more or less irrelevant outside a history museum. 

Can you use actual evidence from the game besides common sense and deduction? It's so vaguely crafted that my interpretation, however outlandish, does fit into the rather undefined synthesis of the game rather well (which in it's present context is already so incredibly far fetched that it's absolute absurdity.) That is in fact how I choose to interpret it. Can you tell me how my interpretation doesn't solve the problem that the Catalyst postulates or how it fits synthesis?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 juin 2013 - 07:58 .

[fchopin]

I do not think the writers thought on the implications or ethics of synthesis op, they probably thought that it would improve life and everyone would like synthesis.

[Xamufam]

In the summer before the release of me3 a journalist asked if the ending would satisfy everyone Mac Mike gamble Said we would not have it any other way & that 100 of choices would be included

1 month before release be Said that the ending may anger f

Modifié par Troxa, 19 juin 2013 - 06:23 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Troxa wrote...

In the summer before the release of me3 a journalist asked if the ending would satisfy everyone Mac Said we would not have it any other way & that 100 of choices would be included

1 month before release be Said that the ending may anger f

...





Tell me more.

[Xamufam]

Can't now on my phone at work but if someone could get a Link to the article it would be great

[FlamingBoy]

Synthesis was portrayed as a naive utopia where synthetic and organic material merge made something greater than simply one using the other.

So no, they did not even began to consider what this would look like in a practical situation. The ending only considers the concept of synthesis not the people it would affect.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 19 juin 2013 - 10:53 .

[FlamingBoy]

Troxa wrote...

In the summer before the release of me3 a journalist asked if the ending would satisfy everyone Mac Said we would not have it any other way & that 100 of choices would be included

1 month before release be Said that the ending may anger f

Wasn't that Mike gamble
Quote
"There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say
any more than that…"- Mike Gamble

http://www.x360magaz...ferent-endings/

[David7204]

To everyone who's every gleefully shilled 'tough choices' - this is exactly what you asked for.

A 'tough choice,' by definition, means that one choice cannot be clearly 'better' than the other or others. All choices must be grey. Which means all choices basically need to have equal outcomes. Which means that if you or the general fanbase finds an option repulsive - too bad. That choice will always be portrayed as more or less equal to other choices.

Modifié par David7204, 19 juin 2013 - 11:04 .

[Astartes Marine]

dreamgazer wrote...

Arcian wrote...
All injustices and cruelties boil down to ignorance. Something which the majority of Synthesis supporters are showing a profoundly large amount of.

I wouldn't say ignorance.  I would, however, say they're blinded by naivete and idealism.

I'm going to go with this. 


And I think the Walters/Hudson team of ruination knew exactly what was going to happen but I doubt they cared.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

David7204 wrote...

To everyone who's every gleefully shilled 'tough choices' - this is exactly what you asked for.

A 'tough choice,' by definition, means that one choice cannot be clearly 'better' than the other or others. All choices must be grey. Which means all choices basically need to have equal outcomes. Which means that if you or the general fanbase finds an option repulsive - too bad. That choice will always be portrayed as more or less equal to other choices.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Tough choices rock, when done well, which it's not with the context of the Star Child. The Virmire Survivor decision is a much better set up and doesn't leave the audience asking "Wtf just happened?"

[David7204]

The Virmire decision doesn't involve any diversive moral themes. It's just saving the person you like. But pretty much any diversive moral choice is going to ****** people off when they learn that the choice that goes against everything they stand for is portrayed just as well as 'their' choice.

Modifié par David7204, 19 juin 2013 - 12:51 .

[jtav]

And as someone who consistently had their RL beliefs associated with the villains, I quite liked the "divisive moral choice."

[David7204]

People need to remember that a video game is not obligated to validate every moral standpoint in existence because it's a video game. Video games should be allowed to make statements like any other fiction without complaints of inherent 'bad writing.' If you disagree with the statement from a work of fiction, then don't concern yourself with the work of fiction. Simple as that.

Modifié par David7204, 19 juin 2013 - 01:01 .

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

The Virmire decision doesn't involve any diversive moral themes. It's just saving the person you like. But pretty much any diversive moral choice is going to ****** people off when they learn that the choice that goes against everything they stand for is portrayed just as well as 'their' choice.

The ending choice was not a moral one, especially in the orginal ending it was a philosphical one. A incredibly naive one considering the options.

A choice of choosing how the galaxy will live as a result of an ancient superweapon is just cannot be classified morally of the sheer unbelievability  of it (a weapon with three unique functions, it could not get more contrived or "forced").

In regards to people getting pissy about a "diversive moral choice". Considering how enraged people got, they should have given it a try. Any one could have told them that placing a philosophical question in a emotional where you care about the outcome is just not good story telling. What was put in place didn't just ****** them off but felt like a direct insult due to the sheer handwaving of everything the player had done so far, for a bloody three prong fork in the road.

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

The Virmire decision doesn't involve any diversive moral themes. It's just saving the person you like. But pretty much any diversive moral choice is going to ****** people off when they learn that the choice that goes against everything they stand for is portrayed just as well as 'their' choice.

The Virmire surivor choice was more of a dillema than an actual choice. It was cleverly implemented in the regards of "not being able to save every one".

[David7204]

You don't have any basis for deciding the ending is a 'philosphical' choice instead of a 'moral' choice.

[FlamingBoy]

"If you disagree with the statement from a work of fiction, then don't concern yourself with the work of fiction. Simple as that."- David 7204

I would like to say if you disagree with me, don't concern yourself with my statement. Simple as that.

[David7204]

That's stupid. I don't get to talk back to a work of fiction if I disagree with it. I don't get to call the writer and tell them how wrong they are. I don't get to submit input by reading or watching or playing the story I don't like. That would be pointless. It's not pointless here. Being exposed to such conversation is a bit of a learning experience, if nothing else.

Modifié par David7204, 19 juin 2013 - 01:18 .

[FlamingBoy]

David7204 wrote...

That's stupid. I don't get to talk back to a work of fiction if I disagree with it. I don't get to call the writer and tell them how wrong they are.

Exsactly I was pointing out how stupid it was .
I am pleased the message came through

Edit: above is the orginal quote, anything else was added by the writer after the orginal time of posting.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 19 juin 2013 - 01:28 .

[jtav]

And I would say that ME1 and ME2, with a few exceptions offered me space to make up my own mind. It's ME3 that became a festering, reactionary cesspool that revolted me--right up until the ending, where the writers got out of the way and let me make a choice.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
And I would say that ME1 and ME2, with a few exceptions offered me space to make up my own mind. It's ME3 that became a festering, reactionary cesspool that revolted me--right up until the ending, where the writers got out of the way and let me make a choice.

QFT, most emphatically.

As a game, ME3 is great. But it's extremely annoying in derailing my protagonist from the image I've built in ME1 and ME2, and in hitting me over the head with messages I passionately disagree with, right until the ending, where it actually presented choices I found interesting. For me, the flaw in ME3's ending was not in the concepts, but in the execution. Also, it was a genuinely hard choice. I liked that about it.

@OP:
Where the survival of civilizations hangs in the balance, reducing things to moral intuitions made for everyday situations does not work.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2013 - 01:35 .

[Samtheman63]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find synthesis as unethical as forcibly moving a bunch of people who refuse to leave their homes when there is a massive natural disaster coming that's garunteed to hurt or kill them, to be perfectly honest.

leaving a building behind hardly compares to forcibly mutating the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy

syntheis raises so many questions it could have catastrophic effects of peoples social lives, cultures, etc.  is it ridiculous