375 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

LoopyMama wrote...

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.

(1) Reapers do not murder post-Sync; (2) there were other ways, not claiming otherwise, but there was no perfect way.

[ioannisdenton]

Synthesis is a great ending in EC. if you do not like it choose another one. If again you do not like any endings there are TONS of other games you ll surely like out there.

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

Destroy affects a tiny, tiny fraction compared to Synthesis. We're talking about kill one person or change every person alive today at a fundamental level fraction, if not more than that (as well as it only doing anything arguably useful at all because the writers said so, rather than from a logical conclusion of whatever the hell it's actually supposed to do).

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I choose Sync too.
.

I have to ask, as I've seen this several times before.

Why do you call it "sync"?

[BioWareM0d13]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

LoopyMama wrote...

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.

(1) Reapers do not murder post-Sync; (2) there were other ways, not claiming otherwise, but there was no perfect way.

The Reapers don't destroy civilization post-Synthesis, but only the player can expect that with any degree of confidence.  There isn't any in-universe reason for Shepard to trust that the mass-murdering machines won't murder again. There also isn't any in-universe reason for Shepard to trust that imposing some partially synthetic existence on the rest of the galaxy won't rob those people of their free will or fundamentally alter their minds to the point that they are no longer themselves.  For Shepard it is roll of the dice, and worse, a gamble without any reason to expect that the reward is worth the risk.

The endings were so poorly constructed that outside of metagaming there is no reason to choose Synthesis. It simply doesn't make sense for the protagonist to do so given what he or she knows and doesn't know.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 11 novembre 2013 - 08:43 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...


Destroy affects a tiny, tiny fraction compared to Synthesis. We're talking about kill one person or change every person alive today at a fundamental level fraction, if not more than that (as well as it only doing anything arguably useful at all because the writers said so, rather than from a logical conclusion of whatever the hell it's actually supposed to do).

Destroy affects all synthetic life. Sync affects all organic life (synthetics simply have access to "understanding" after the change to them takes place). There may exist more organics in the galaxy than synthetics, but how much is too much?

Either way, you're affecting an entire realm of life.

Also, I do not equate one synthetic life to one organic one. EDI in ME2 proves they are not equal.

[Obadiah]

LoopyMama wrote...
...
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.

But of course. The problem that the Catalyst has is that people do not believe or understand that they are ill.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...


I have to ask, as I've seen this several times before.

Why do you call it "sync"?

Tactical reasons. . Can't say more than that!

Han Shot First wrote...

The Reapers don't destroy civilization post-Synthesis, but only the player can expect that with any degree of confidence.  There isn't any in-universe reason for Shepard to trust that the mass-murdering machines won't murder again.

If killing a species for being "too dangerous" is reason enough for you to kill them, I can't argue with you on that.

However, I'd then have to ask you if you'd destroy EDI if she had Catalyst/Skynet power at her fingertips. Also, I'd ask if you would destroy the geth if they were to ever outnumber all other organic life by the same margin that the Reapers do.

If the answer is "yes" then we just see it differently. If the answer is "no," I'd ask why the Reapers are different.

There also isn't any in-universe reason for Shepard to trust that imposing some partially synthetic existence on the rest of the galaxy won't rob those people of their free will or fundamentally alter their minds to the point that they are no longer themselves.  For Shepard it is roll of the dice, and worse, a gamble without any reason to expect that the reward is worth the risk. The endings were so poorly constructed that outside of metagaming there is no reason to choose Synthesis. It simply doesn't make sense for the protagonist to do so given what he or she knows and doesn't know.

There's no in-universe reason to believe anything (RGB) does exactly what it does until after the fact, other than the fact we're told by the Catalyst that it will, so that's a bit irrelevant. For all you know, the Destroy tube actually triggers Sync -- shoot the tube, the explosion shatters the Crucible, and mass dispersal of machine parts "synthesizes" everyone!!

But if we're to take the information we're given at it's face, there's nothing to suggest personhood is lost post-Sync.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 11 novembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 I choose Sync too.
.

I have to ask, as I've seen this several times before.

Why do you call it "sync"?

You would not know them, and there isn't time to explain.  

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 11 novembre 2013 - 09:26 .

[KaiserShep]

Synthesis turns everyone into iPods.

[AlanC9]

HYR 2.0 wrote..
There's no in-universe reason to believe anything (RGB) does exactly what it does until after the fact, other than the fact we're told by the Catalyst that it will, so that's a bit irrelevant. For all you know, the Destroy tube actually triggers Sync -- shoot the tube, the explosion shatters the Crucible, and mass dispersal of machine parts "synthesizes" everyone!!

There's a less-flawed version of the argument, which is that Synthesis and Control have possible fail outcomes even if the Crucible does what it's supposed to do. Sheplyst goes nuts, Synthesis  doesn't actually solve the Catalyst's hypothetical problem because reasons, etc. The problem is that if we can make up hypothetical situations where Control and Synthesis are disasters, we can also do that for Destroy -- what if the Catalyst really is right about everything? -- and then we're nowhere, since we don't have any principled way to assign probabilities to any of the hypotheticals.

Though it can still work if your moral code requires Shepard to avoid causing a disaster himself at all costs. In that case a Destroy disaster isn't Shepard's responsibility, so he's got clean hands even if his choice has just doomed organic life.

[Stakrin]

Han Shot First wrote...


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, , 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.

what makes sense for each Shepard is different . My main Shepard ( the one where I make a choice as fast as I can, without thinking about it much unless I would actually have time to do so in Shepard's place) would not really consider himself a marine anymore, but someone who they understand is needed. He made Geth-Quarian peace, because that's his ultimate goal, and let Joker and EDI date, because he feels it's not right to do otherwise, and acknowledges that manchines can and do save many lives. So it isn't less than victory, and he doesn't have a duty as a marine in his own eyes, and the catalyst doesn't really have a reason to lie that I can think of, it doesn't like killing organically but didn't think the other solutions could work, in a screwed up way it was trying to help. And those other reapers were being controlled by it, maybe with synthesis there is a chance that civilization is alive again, maybe after I die if it does nothing someone else can try something, I don't know the citadel will fall apart after I do this and expect someone else is nearby in case I fail.

[Ieldra]

I'm certainly not getting into yet another debate about the Synthesis. My Synthesis thread (also in my sig) has everything I need to say about the matter and then some. In short: great idea of a hyper-advanced future, horrible execution tainted by nonsensical allusions to mysticism and religion. I choose it in spite of those flaws because I like the outcome.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 novembre 2013 - 09:52 .

[The Night Mammoth]

I've yet to see someone construct a supporting argument in favor of Synthesis that isn't basically an argument for not choosing any of the other options, that's not entirely based on headcanon. I just don't think there's enough in the game to judge it properly.

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Reorte wrote...


Destroy affects a tiny, tiny fraction compared to Synthesis. We're talking about kill one person or change every person alive today at a fundamental level fraction, if not more than that (as well as it only doing anything arguably useful at all because the writers said so, rather than from a logical conclusion of whatever the hell it's actually supposed to do).

Destroy affects all synthetic life. Sync affects all organic life (synthetics simply have access to "understanding" after the change to them takes place). There may exist more organics in the galaxy than synthetics, but how much is too much?

Either way, you're affecting an entire realm of life.

Also, I do not equate one synthetic life to one organic one. EDI in ME2 proves they are not equal.

There's nothing to suggest that synthetic life is at all that common, yet Synthesis will affect every living creature on every inhabitable planet in the entire galaxy, which is very likely to include huge numbers of sapient species we've never even heard of.

EDI doesn't prove anything. Sure, she may be more capable at a lot, do you value human lives based entirely on their capability, thus rendering some more worthy than others?

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

There's no in-universe reason to believe anything (RGB) does exactly what it does until after the fact, other than the fact we're told by the Catalyst that it will, so that's a bit irrelevant. For all you know, the Destroy tube actually triggers Sync -- shoot the tube, the explosion shatters the Crucible, and mass dispersal of machine parts "synthesizes" everyone!!

But if we're to take the information we're given at it's face, there's nothing to suggest personhood is lost post-Sync.

All we can assume is that the options do what they say they'll do in the immediate sense, that's quite different from what the likely outcomes of those actions will be. So Destroy destroys the Reapers, outcome obvious. Control controls them for now but leaves serious questions about the nature of the controller and how much you trust it'll carry on (since not allowing the Reapers a certain degree of free will rather runs contrary to their portrayal) and Synthesis either alters how people think or it does sweet FA about the Reapers. Saying it stops the whole Reaper issue, removes completely the very dubious risk that motivates the Catalyst, and doesn't alter peoples' minds at all is trying to have your cake and eat it.

[AlanC9]

And there's the argument I was talking about.

[Seival]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm certainly not getting into yet another debate about the Synthesis. My Synthesis thread (also in my sig) has everything I need to say about the matter and then some. In short: great idea of a hyper-advanced future, horrible execution tainted by nonsensical allusions to mysticism and religion. I choose it in spite of those flaws because I like the outcome.

I'd rather call Synthesis a mix of ultra technologically advanced and spiritual. And I like this outcome too. But I prefer to go to the inevitable Synthesis through the Paragon Control.

[Stakrin]

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm certainly not getting into yet another debate about the Synthesis. My Synthesis thread (also in my sig) has everything I need to say about the matter and then some. In short: great idea of a hyper-advanced future, horrible execution tainted by nonsensical allusions to mysticism and religion. I choose it in spite of those flaws because I like the outcome.

I'd rather call Synthesis a mix of ultra technologically advanced and spiritual. And I like this outcome too. But I prefer to go to the inevitable Synthesis through the Paragon Control.

It seems to me that a lot of mass effect was referencing religion (mainly Christian religions I think), I expected the ending of me3 to have some sort of reference, so I never had that problem.

[Ieldra]

Stakrin wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'm certainly not getting into yet another debate about the Synthesis. My Synthesis thread (also in my sig) has everything I need to say about the matter and then some. In short: great idea of a hyper-advanced future, horrible execution tainted by nonsensical allusions to mysticism and religion. I choose it in spite of those flaws because I like the outcome.

I'd rather call Synthesis a mix of ultra technologically advanced and spiritual. And I like this outcome too. But I prefer to go to the inevitable Synthesis through the Paragon Control.

It seems to me that a lot of mass effect was referencing religion (mainly Christian religions I think), I expected the ending of me3 to have some sort of reference, so I never had that problem.

It would've been ok for me had it just been symbolism. A thematic allusion is perfectly acceptable. But the exposition of the Synthesis was a literal allusion, substituting science-fiction-al rationalization with what is, if taken as the literal in-world logic, nothing more than mystical nonsense.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 novembre 2013 - 10:20 .

[Navasha]

I am not going to get into another in-depth conversation on this topic as there are plenty of threads abound on it.

No one is ever going to change anyone else's mind on this topic, so arguing to try to attempt that is pointless.

The multiple endings were given to appeal to a very broad audience with very different world views, outlooks, and morals. Just choose the ending that you feel happiest with and let everyone else choose theirs.

For me, its the immorality of stealing that "choice" of allowing others to choose their own path that makes the synthesis the most horrific of endings. What if the "green" beam instead wiped out all intelligence from organics such that they could never be intelligent enough to create synthetics. Catalysts problem solved. Would you still be okay with that? Or is it simply because everyone feels that its an "improvement"?

Modifié par Navasha, 11 novembre 2013 - 10:23 .

[ruggly]

I don't mind the idea, but I can't get past the poor execution.

[mass perfection]

Synthesis is globalist and transhumanist propaganda.

[Deathsaurer]

Reorte wrote...

All we can assume is that the options do what they say they'll do in the immediate sense, that's quite different from what the likely outcomes of those actions will be. So Destroy destroys the Reapers, outcome obvious. Control controls them for now but leaves serious questions about the nature of the controller and how much you trust it'll carry on (since not allowing the Reapers a certain degree of free will rather runs contrary to their portrayal) and Synthesis either alters how people think or it does sweet FA about the Reapers. Saying it stops the whole Reaper issue, removes completely the very dubious risk that motivates the Catalyst, and doesn't alter peoples' minds at all is trying to have your cake and eat it.

You're overlooking the negatives in Destroy, the next wars will be atrocious with all that Reaper tech lying around. You think someone like Batarian extremists or a Cerberus like group won't try to weaponize the nanites? How about the dreadnoughts possibly 10 times more powerful than they were previously? The Reapers have forever poisoned the galaxies developement, there is no escape from it.

[xAmilli0n]

Deathsaurer wrote...

You're overlooking the negatives in Destroy, the next wars will be atrocious with all that Reaper tech lying around. You think someone like Batarian extremists or a Cerberus like group won't try to weaponize the nanites? How about the dreadnoughts possibly 10 times more powerful than they were previously? The Reapers have forever poisoned the galaxies developement, there is no escape from it.

Those are actually some interesting issues worth exploring I think.  Negative for the universe, positive for story telling.