326 réponses à ce sujet

[Secretlyapotato]

Basicly, because it's random space magic where everyone lives forever and has emotions except Shepard who ends up melting.

Modifié par Secretlyapotato, 02 août 2013 - 12:44 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Bionuts wrote...

1. Synthesis is the situation where something of that nature would be successful. Not sure why it has to be all doom and gloom. Change is good.

2. I assume organics recieve many benefits from being intertwined with the cyborg synthetic (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps becoming more intelligent, more physically capable, etc., is not a giant leap. I haven't seen the EC, but I've heard the ending to be pretty positive.

3. Humans take much too long to accept change. Even now, there isn't the slightest hint of peace. Tis' pig with lipstick.

I don't really think you're really looking at what synthesis really is, or how it is shown to be. I think you're taking it too much at face value.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 août 2013 - 12:51 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Bionuts wrote...

1. Synthesis is the situation where something of that nature would be successful. Not sure why it has to be all doom and gloom. Change is good.

You assert that when you don't even know what it is, and whether it's successful remains an open question. This is one of those "pass the bill to find out what's in it" situations. I - respectfully - decline.

2. I assume organics recieve many benefits from being intertwined with the cyborg synthetic (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps becoming more intelligent, more physically capable, etc., is not a giant leap. I haven't seen the EC, but I've heard the ending to be pretty positive.

It's still violating the consent of every living being in the galaxy. You're accepting a syringe from a mass murderer and, without questioning its contents, jabbing it into the ass of the guy in line ahead of you at the subway... and you expect him to be grateful to you for doing so.

3. Humans take much too long to accept change. Even now, there isn't the slightest hint of peace. Tis' pig with lipstick.

'Tis the excuse of every dictator in history. Force the change you want in the world.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 02 août 2013 - 12:48 .

[o Ventus]

Bionuts wrote...

1. Synthesis is the situation where something of that nature would be successful.

As judged by who or what?

Not sure why it has to be all doom and gloom.

Because every single piece of evidence involving a form of "Synthesis" with the Reapers is f**king horrific?

Change is good.

When it's GOOD change, sure. And when this change isn't built upon violating every sentient creature in the galaxy, sure. Having the change make thematic sense within the narrative is also a bonus.

2. I assume organics recieve many benefits from being intertwined with the cyborg synthetic (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps becoming more intelligent, more physically capable, etc., is not a giant leap. I haven't seen the EC, but I've heard the ending to be pretty positive.

"Many benefits" and "not a giant leap" are not synonymous with each other. You just contradicted yourself.

[in it for the lolz]

o Ventus wrote...

in it for the lolz wrote...

*snip*

This gif is almost as annoying as these kinds of threads.

You what else is annoying:

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Here's my link to all my links on why I think Synthesis is undesirable.

Seriously, you should take a look at it. Also, take a look at the thread that it's in.

[jontepwn]

ruggly wrote...

Bionuts wrote...
understanding, etc.

You can't force understanding.

Apparently you can though, if we are to accept Bioware's reasoning...

[ruggly]

Here's a good thread that goes through the goods and bads of synthesis, if you're interested.

[ruggly]

jontepwn wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Bionuts wrote...
understanding, etc.

You can't force understanding.

Apparently you can though, if we are to accept Bioware's reasoning...

Which I don't, thankfully.

[DeinonSlayer]

StreetMagic wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I'd say if you buy the Catalyst's argument that organics and synthetics will always try and wipe each other out

Besides it being ridiculous that anything is inevitabile over an infinite period of time, the game itself proves this isn't true anyways. "The created will always rebel against the creators." That's not even how the Geth war started. The Geth simply asked questions about their souls, and the Quarians panicked. It became a bloody war, but the when Quarians jet, the Geth didn't pursue, and decided to live a life of isolation. That doesn't sound like "the created will always rebel against their creators" to me.

The Catalyst comes from a different society. I don't know if the Leviathan were slavedrivers, but they were trying to act like gods over everyone else. I bet that screwed with how everyone thought in their cycle.. even the lesser races. It creates a heirarchy of dominance. And machines got the ass end of the stick. So they'd always rebel.

Exactly. Glowboy's acting on the basis of a tainted data sample. Two of the three synthetic/organic conflicts we know of in the history of the ME universe (namely the Zha'Til, and the Geth Heretics) were instigated by the Reapers themselves.

[Steelcan]

My arguments are more against the Catalyst and why he thinks Synthesis is necessary.

[Bionuts]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Bionuts wrote...

1. Synthesis is the situation where something of that nature would be successful. Not sure why it has to be all doom and gloom. Change is good.

You assert that when you don't even know what it is, and whether it's successful remains an open question. This is one of those "pass the bill to find out what's in it" situations. I - respectfully - decline.

2. I assume organics recieve many benefits from being intertwined with the cyborg synthetic (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps becoming more intelligent, more physically capable, etc., is not a giant leap. I haven't seen the EC, but I've heard the ending to be pretty positive.

It's still violating the consent of every living being in the galaxy. You're accepting a syringe from a mass murderer and, without questioning its contents, jabbing it into the ass of the guy in line ahead of you at the subway... and you expect him to be grateful to you for it.

3. Humans take much too long to accept change. Even now, there isn't the slightest hint of peace. Tis' pig with lipstick.

'Tis the excuse of every dictator in history. Force the change you want in the world.

1. All 3 choices leave doubt. Control seems to be the worst. Destroy is nice, but if Synthesis were to work then the hypothetical benefits would surely outweight the bad.

2. All 3 choices have you accepting the Catalyst's words for truth. Any decision could make things worse, but that's not something that can be thought on too much at the time. Shepard is dying, the crucible is being attacked, etc. As well as me looking at the greater good. I'm a very compassionate person, but I do understand necessity. Perhaps organics would be upset for a time, but that's not really a concern of mine. I'm thinking about the longterm, hypothetical, benefits.

3. Isn't this what happens when land is conquered by a stronger force? It's not a rare event.

[Nole]

Because it is Bioware's favorite.

[Steelcan]

I guess you have never heard of an assimilative model of empire vs exploitative Bionuts...


The Catalyst shows you which options exist, briefly explains what they do and how (space magic), and offers his opinion. He does not try to trick Shepard or force a certain choice. Because of his purpose, he believes synthesis to be ideal and destroy much less so.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

My arguments are more against the Catalyst and why he thinks Synthesis is necessary.

I hold those same arguments.

The Catalyst for one does not actually explain the concept of a synthetic.

I've said this before, he contradicts himself repeatedly about what synthetics are.

[Bionuts]

o Ventus wrote...

Bionuts wrote...

1. Synthesis is the situation where something of that nature would be successful.

As judged by who or what?

Not sure why it has to be all doom and gloom.

Because every single piece of evidence involving a form of "Synthesis" with the Reapers is f**king horrific?

Change is good.

When it's GOOD change, sure. And when this change isn't built upon violating every sentient creature in the galaxy, sure. Having the change make thematic sense within the narrative is also a bonus.

2. I assume organics recieve many benefits from being intertwined with the cyborg synthetic (whatever the hell it is). Perhaps becoming more intelligent, more physically capable, etc., is not a giant leap. I haven't seen the EC, but I've heard the ending to be pretty positive.

"Many benefits" and "not a giant leap" are not synonymous with each other. You just contradicted yourself.

1. By what I've heard of the EC Synthesis ending? Was I being lied to and something bad happened in that ending?

2. If organics recieve beneifts from the synthetic intertwining process (i have no idea what to call it), I doubt those benefits would be minimal. Seeing how baby Geth are very capable, and intelligent, as well... I'd think some of those things to be passed on to organics. I could be wrong, however.

[DeinonSlayer]

Bionuts wrote...

1. All 3 choices leave doubt. Control seems to be the worst. Destroy is nice, but if Synthesis were to work then the hypothetical benefits would surely outweight the bad.

Everyone has different interpretations of this, weighs the three choices differently. We simply reach different conclusions. Destroy, as I see it, is the most "hands-off" outcome. Though there is collateral damage, galactic society is free of the cycle, permitted to move forward at its own pace, owning our own achievements and answering to nobody but ourselves for our failures.

2. All 3 choices have you accepting the Catalyst's words for truth. Any decision could make things worse, but that's not something that can be thought on too much at the time. Shepard is dying, the crucible is being attacked, etc. As well as me looking at the greater good. I'm a very compassionate person, but I do understand necessity. Perhaps organics would be upset for a time, but that's not really a concern of mine. I'm thinking about the longterm, hypothetical, benefits.

You have no proof the problem exists in the first place, and no reason to believe it will solve this problem beyond the assurances of the guy whose current solution is a recurrent cycle of galactic genocide - and who has evidently tried to implement synthesis in the past without success.


I never asked for this.

3. Isn't this what happens when land is conquered by a stronger force? It's not a rare event.

Does that make it a good one?

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 02 août 2013 - 01:10 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Let's try a different approach:

Bionuts, are you willing to sacrifice narrative consistency, thematic consistency, biology, critical thinking, and a blind acceptance of concept based in mysticism (that has been completely discredited by science) for the sake of enacting Synthesis on the basis that it does something that sounds palatable and desirable to you based on the perspective of an entity that's prior programming and core logic had it believe that periodically cleansing the galaxy of life every 50,000 years served as a solution to a hypothetical problem that it itself, through it's own creations has instigated multiple times?

If so, can you explain to me why the narrative focus of the story has been dropped for the sake of establishing a new problem that seemingly existed as secondary theme that has already been resolved within the narrative at Rannoch?

Can you explain to me why I'm suddenly accepting a validation for the Reapers existence when thematically and narratively, the series has completely shown to be about stopping them and how their own kind of evil and reasoning is basically a metaphor for the unknown? Or why we're facing a Lovecraftian-esque eldritch abomination only for it to suddenly become something that was only serving the greater good, and why we should accept its premise on its word alone?

Can you explain to me what "organic essence" and "life energy" is? Can you explain that to me scientifically and how it works by jumping into a beam which causes a chain reaction that alters all life on the molecular level, and why synthesis sounds good when that is clearly illogical and irrational?

Can you explain to me why the Catalyst makes an equivocation and definist fallacy when he describes the term "synthetic"?

Can you explain to how you think Synthesis is still desirable despite all of this? It's fine that you do, I have no problem with it: I'm asking you to explain and defend your opinion.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 août 2013 - 01:28 .

[Teddie Sage]

Your goal is to destroy them, not to listen to the Catalyst which works for the Reapers. If you do choose to control or to apply synthesis, you let the Reapers win. As simple as that.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 02 août 2013 - 01:09 .

[Steelcan]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Your goal is to destroy them, not to listen to the Catalyst which works for the Reapers. If you do choose to control or to apply synthesis, you let the Reapers win. As simple as that.

And here we see showcased people who not only refused to "speculate" but just did what they were told to.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

BW wants us to like their endings: They want us to speculate.

I disliked the ending from the onset. Via speculating, I disliked the ending even more. Especially Synthesis.

[spirosz]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Your goal is to destroy them, not to listen to the Catalyst which works for the Reapers. If you do choose to control or to apply synthesis, you let the Reapers win. As simple as that.

Your goal is to stop them.  

[Melra]

It just seems all kinds of wrong to impose something like that on people. I always chose Destroy, living organic beings > robots.