375 réponses à ce sujet

[Stakrin]

 While I believe control gives one person too much power , refuse dooms everyone, and destroy is alright, unless you let the Geth individualize, and let EDI and Joker date, then destroy is sacrificing (to me) something as good as a human race. 

Synthesis is changes everyone, but so does time, age constantly changes people, and it allows everyone to understand anyone in ways we didn't have access to before. 
To me, it doesn't seem wrong morally.

[Jorji Costava]

Well, there was a rather lengthy and intersting thread on this topic from a while back that might be useful to you.

[Liamv2]

*Grabs popcorn*

[KiriKaeshi]

It could've been fine if it weren't a solution to a non existing problem and so poorly explained at that.

[Xamufam]

You should read this

awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

[Artifex_Imperius]

this topic has been discussed to many times use search bar!

[Iakus]

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI

Or I guess to sum it up "It all seemed harmless"

But I like:

Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. And I do not hold to that. 

[AlexMBrennan]

Synthesis is changes everyone, but so does time,

OK, so because people change over time any forced change is automatically OK? Are you sure you thought that through?

and let EDI and Joker date

Troll senses tingling...

Personally, I don't think morals come into it at all because Synthesis is not a viable solution: It is presented as an alleged solution to the alleged problem of organics creating synthetics that will destroy all life; unfortunately, in the game there is no evidence for the existence of this threat and Shepard's experiences (the quarian/geth conflict is resolved - one way or another - without the destruction of all life) conflict with it and you simply have to take the head Reaper's word for it.

At the same time, synthesis does not guarantee to end the much more pressing problem of Reapers killing us; they have already decided once that cyclical genocide was the best course of action, and leaving their fleet intact and in control of their own actions means that they might take up arms against us again - a problem which the other two endings avoid.

Essentially, the only reason to pick Synthesis is if you think that this hypothetical problem which you've never heard of is important enough to risk letting the Reapers continue the harvest.

[General TSAR]

Destroying the sexbot to destroy the genocidal cuttlefish is totally worth it.

[Linkenski]

OP: It's a lost cause. You can't discuss ME3 endings on these forums under the assumptions that it won't attract trolls or people who just want to ruin it.

...but rightfully so. Synthesis is so ludicrous I don't bother debating it. If the writers don't know where they were going with it, I'm not gonna speculate for them either, and in a nutshell that's what the ME3 endings are for. The fans know just as little about what he future holds with either of the three choices as Bioware do themselves.

If you go back to launch date time-period on Twitter and see how various Bioware devs responded to player questions about what the endings, particularly Synthesis, meant, then you're in for a laugh because basically several of the devs had different conceptions of what the endings were and outright contradict each other.

[shodiswe]

This has been debated a lot already. I think Control is ok, So is Synthesis.

None of the endings were what I was after and I wouldn't call either interesting or satisfactory.

All of them ends the story and I guess that's what the writers wanted. Here, pick red green or Blue! And we're finaly done with this story! Curtains!

If priority Earth had been more interesting then, and maybe then, I might have accepted it better. But I also Think the presentation towards the end needed a lot of work. TIM was kind of ok. The catalyst encounter though needed a massive amount of extra work.

Most Bioware games invilves massive stakes, end of the World or universe or whatever, I'm hoping the next story will be more... modest. Baldurs gate had wars and a lot of bad things that could/did happen but it wasnt' the end of the world, it was more of a personal journey with crazy people you meet along the way.

If your own personal goals, journey and story isn't the center piece and of interest to everyone in the galaxy then that's perfectly fine with me. More time to role play whatever you want rather than being the saviour of the galaxy at every turn.

Modifié par shodiswe, 11 novembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[Stakrin]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

OK, so because people change over time any forced change is automatically OK? Are you sure you thought that through?
Maybe. Change is the only constant life, and maybe it is our job to accept that. The reapers were once civilizations forced to become a robot , so destroying then is officially killinan entire people, maybe synthesis  can let those people resurface and revive their culture.

[ATiBotka]

Does this prove IT?

[Deathsaurer]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

unfortunately, in the game there is no evidence for the existence of this threat

The Reapers are proof of concept. If they wanted to they could make sure no organic civilization ever achived space flight. Or just detonate all the relays taking out a huge portion of all habitable planets making sure no interstellar civilization was possible.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Horribly explained. Dumbed down. Green ending. It is the worst explained of the three.

1) Destroy - you die; the relays explode; and the Normandy crashes in Red. All synthetics die. People rebuild afterward but it takes a long time. A very long time.
2) Control - you die; the relays explode; and the Normandy crashes in Blue. The Reapers rebuild afterward. People picket "They took our jerbs!" Dystopia.
3) Synthesis - you die; the relays explode; and the Normandy crashes in Green. People have green eyes. EDI, like everyone else is alive and not alone. Kasumi jacked into her Grey Box.
4) Refuse - You take 1000 mg of fukitol, pull out a bottle of bourbon, a pack of cigarettes and watch the galaxy burn. Then you die.

See? Simple explanation.

[BioWareM0d13]

Ethical questions aside, my problem with the Synthesis ending is that it doesn't make much sense for Shepard to choose it. Obviously the player knows that Synthesis is not going to result in the end of galactic civilization. If a sequel were made and all end choices were taken into account (minus Refuse) the player can be confident than none of those end choices is going to result in a galaxy devoid of all life. But what the player knows and what Shepard knows are not the same thing. Shepard can't metagame and he or she is not clairvoyant.

In choosing Synthesis Shepard is gambling with the galaxy's future. He or she is betting that by altering all life into something partially synthetic, that the rogue A.I. that has annihilated countless civilizations can now be trusted not to annihilate civilization once again. Even more mind-boggling is that Shepard would be placing that bet after having been told by the Catalyst that it attempted Synthesis before, the results did not meet the A.I.'s satisfaction, and it returned to annihilating civilizations once again. The reason given for the return to the extinction cycles is that according to the Catalyst, Synthesis doesn't work as a solution if it is forced. The problem: Shepard is forcing Synthesis on the galaxy. So choosing Synthesis requires that Shepard trust the mass murdering A.I. to be a good neighbor, and requires Shepard to ignore both that Synthesis is once again being forced, and that there is a precedent for the Catalyst abandoning past solutions to slaughter and destroy anew.

Furthermore Synthesis requires Shepard to abandon his or mission as a Marine and to accept something less than victory in the Reaper War. Shepard must accept the continued existence of fully intact, operational, and undefeated Reaper fleet, capable of annihilating galactic civilization at any time.

I just can't see any in-character justifications for Shepard choosing something that utterly fails to achieve the mission or to secure the safety and survival of galactic civilization. Whereas Destroy guarantees the continuation of galactic civilization, Synthesis is a roll of the dice with trillions of lives being at stake. Its the greatest gamble in all of human history and one without any justification for choosing it. It is a choice based entirely on trusting a mass-murdering machine.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 11 novembre 2013 - 07:03 .

[Obadiah]

From my interpretation of the story, Synthesis is supposed to be the middle-ground between Destroy (Shepard and the Council) and Control (TIM and Cerberus). It is basically supposed to end the war without massive casualties or a new galactic overlord.

However Synthesis was defined in such a way that raises a whole lot of ethical issues which the writers have declined to comment on. I personally don't see a problem with giving everyone more processing power and access to more information, but, as is obvious from the forum reaction, people had very strong feelings on any change forced on beings.

[KaiserShep]

It's essentially a solution through hokum, and to me, seems to boil down to understanding (whatever this means, as this is left incredibly vague) being something we can not achieve without being irreversibly altered. Things like predestination and requiring some kind of rebirth through forcible improvement would give me a fairly bad sense of religious overtones, as if man as it is is so horribly inferior when seen in this divine light. That alone would make me tell it to screw off and kill it.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 11 novembre 2013 - 07:18 .

[LoopyMama]

Han Shot First wrote...

Ethical questions aside, my problem with the Synthesis ending is that it doesn't make much sense for Shepard to choose it.....

I just can't see any in-character justifications for Shepard choosing something that utterly fails to achieve the mission or to secure the safety and survival of galactic civilization. Whereas Destroy guarantees the continuation of galactic civilization, Synthesis is a roll of the dice with trillions of lives being at stake. Its the greatest gamble in all of human history and one without any justification for choosing it. It is a choice based entirely on trusting a mass-murdering machine.

This!

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I choose Sync too.

I've heard all the arguments against this ending, even before I finally chose it; I just don't find them compelling.

Couple things... first, the ends truly do justify the means here. I'm not really big on that general line-of-thinking, but in this case, it is 100% true. All options, as a means of ending the war, are justified -- none are worse than all being harvested. I'm fighting for people who value their life enough to live it, and are willing to make some sacrifices to keep it. So if just getting funny green tatoos/contacts is too much to ask for living another day, then I wasn't really fighting for you to begin with.

Second, I would see it like forcibly curing a guy who is terminally-ill, and whom you cannot ask for permission (maybe he is in comatose or something). I'm not sure if there are any set laws on this matter, but IMO, you cure the guy. If he lives only to object to it... oh well. It's still better to wrongly save a life than wrongly end it; the former is not irreversible, anyway.

Because I see all RGB options as justifiable, this "issue" is a wash to me. I ultimately prefer what G accomplishes.

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I choose Sync too.

I've heard all the arguments against this ending, even before I finally chose it; I just don't find them compelling.

Couple things... first, the ends truly do justify the means here. I'm not really big on that general line-of-thinking, but in this case, it is 100% true. All options, as a means of ending the war, are justified -- none are worse than all being harvested. I'm fighting for people who value their life enough to live it, and are willing to make some sacrifices to keep it. So if just getting funny green tatoos/contacts is too much to ask for living another day, then I wasn't really fighting for you to begin with.

Second, I would see it like forcibly curing a guy who is terminally-ill, and whom you cannot ask for permission (maybe he is in comatose or something). I'm not sure if there are any set laws on this matter, but IMO, you cure the guy. If he lives only to object to it... oh well. It's still better to wrongly save a life than wrongly end it; the former is not irreversible, anyway.

Because I see all RGB options as justifiable, this "issue" is a wash to me. I ultimately prefer what G accomplishes.

That argument would work if it's Synthesis or nothing (although as I've argued before Synthesis would be a disaster in the long run, unless you twist the end of evolution part to not actually mean that).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...

That argument would work if it's Synthesis or nothing (although as I've argued before Synthesis would be a disaster in the long run, unless you twist the end of evolution part to not actually mean that).

It works now, too, since both Destroy and Control also directly affect a large group of people without their say-so.

Destroy just conveniently silences the majority of those who'd object to it.

At least you'd have a choice post-Sync.

[Eryri]

Oh goody, another opportunity to make fun of synthesis.

As others have pointed out, it's almost too ludicrous to be worth being offended by the horrible moral issue of performing non-elective surgery on every living thing. I've seen harder science fiction on Futurama.

Even if I believed in this problem the catalyst was trying to solve, Synthesis wouldn't solve it. Organics will still need someone to do the nasty jobs, and are likely to either create synthetics again or enslave someone else to do them. Additionally beings like the Geth will still have the advantage of being far more durable than post-organics, and able to reproduce vastly more quickly by churning out new platforms by the thousand off an assembly line, making them far more likely to win if hostilities were ever resumed.

I'm also not convinced by the argument that at least it's better than death. Ever read an Iain M Banks novel? I can imagine a lot of horrible things that might result from having hackable cybernetic components infiltrating every nerve of one's body.

[LoopyMama]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I choose Sync too.

I've heard all the arguments against this ending, even before I finally chose it; I just don't find them compelling.

Couple things... first, the ends truly do justify the means here. I'm not really big on that general line-of-thinking, but in this case, it is 100% true. All options, as a means of ending the war, are justified -- none are worse than all being harvested. I'm fighting for people who value their life enough to live it, and are willing to make some sacrifices to keep it. So if just getting funny green tatoos/contacts is too much to ask for living another day, then I wasn't really fighting for you to begin with.

Second, I would see it like forcibly curing a guy who is terminally-ill, and whom you cannot ask for permission (maybe he is in comatose or something). I'm not sure if there are any set laws on this matter, but IMO, you cure the guy. If he lives only to object to it... oh well. It's still better to wrongly save a life than wrongly end it; the former is not irreversible, anyway.

Because I see all RGB options as justifiable, this "issue" is a wash to me. I ultimately prefer what G accomplishes.

I just want to say that there is a big difference between curing an ill person and stopping another person from killing them! I would want my military to protect me from a murderer but not force some mutation on me saying it was the only way.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

*edit* double-post.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 novembre 2013 - 08:17 .