375 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

iakus wrote...

TinuHawke wrote...

Legion: "Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives. Nazara, Sovereign said this itself. "

By chosing synthesis, you force every organic and non-organic species to develop a certain way. It's not how life was meant to be. It isn't evolution, it's ending the evolution.

This
This
This
This
This
This!

Synthesis is a bit like the off-the-shelf, Apple iMac version of directed Evolution. Nice and easy to use, but no one understands how it works, or how to fix things when they go wrong, because looking under the hood would void the warranty.

The Geth of ME2 wanted the build-your-own PC version. A bit more difficult, but in the end you understand things much more deeply.

[Reorte]

iakus wrote...

TinuHawke wrote...

Legion: "Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same end. Accepting another's path blinds you to alternatives. Nazara, Sovereign said this itself. "

By chosing synthesis, you force every organic and non-organic species to develop a certain way. It's not how life was meant to be. It isn't evolution, it's ending the evolution.

This
This
This
This
This
This!

Not quite - life isn't 2meant" to be anything, it just happens to be. That said if it truly does stop evolution (which the Catalyst pretty much says it does) it would be an environmental disaster in the long term. What's more important than anything about how things are "meant" to be is what the consequences are, and how much you can justify imposing what you want on every single living creature. It's far more authoritarian than Control - Control says "I'm putting limits on what everyone can do" whereas Synthesis is "Forget about what you can do, I'm telling you what you must be."

Even then the option to be a complete authoritarian invasive jerk is fine to be in the game - don't want to be only able to chose nice choices otherwise there's no choice. It's sheer far-fetched stupidity, way beyond any other piece of bad science or space magic in the games, is why the idea should never have even been raised, let along put in.

Modifié par Reorte, 16 novembre 2013 - 11:52 .

[Excella Gionne]

StreetMagic wrote...

johnnythao89 wrote...

Oh, Jebus! Here goes another Synthesis Debate Thread... Synthesis isn't all that bad...

I think it's bad in the sense that it's..... not what anyone asked for. Except the Reapers. Other than that, I don't know wtf Synthesis is. It might be good. It might be bad. Who knows.

It's also a presumptuous move.. you assume too much authority in the matter. Lets say you were asked to get lunch for a bunch of coworkers. And they all gave you a list of what they wanted. A simple list: Everyone wants hamburgers and fries. And you decided to throw the list away and come back with brussel sprout and spinach sandwiches, because you're vegan and it was offensive that they wanted hamburgers. You had easy instructions: hamburgers and fries. But you decided what was better for them, and now that they're starving, and have little time for a lunch break, they just have accept it and eat it. You're not doing them any favors this way.

Synthesis was meant to destroy the line between organics and sythetics. Anything from thereon is debateable and unpredictable.

[Reorte]

StreetMagic wrote...

It can't be that unpredictable to the Catalyst at least. It seems to know exactly what kind of witch's brew needs to be concocted to make it possible. It knows it's so good it calls it "ideal". It obviously has something specific in mind. The fact that it knows and I don't is already bad enough. It's not a partnership between organic and synthetic either. It's a synthetic saying "Hey, I know the one ideal path of evolution. And you need to trust me. And the only way you can demonstrate that trust is by killing yourself." /epic persuasion check

That sounds similar to one of my three major gripes about Synthesis - it only works at all because the plot says it does, rather than from any sound reason.

[Yestare7]

Linkenski wrote... 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,

[Obadiah]

One interpretation of the Shepard and Catalyst confrontation is that Synthetics and Organics
- Understand each other on their own (different) terms
- React to each other based on their unique and different understanding

Certainly, as Rannoch demonstrates, Organics and Synthetics can live in peace, but the misunderstanding that continues to exist may be an unbridgeable gulf that can lead to further conflict.

Synthesis can been seen as a way of bridging that gulf.

[Reorte]

Obadiah wrote...

Certainly, as Rannoch demonstrates, Organics and Synthetics can live in peace, but the misunderstanding that continues to exist may be an unbridgeable gulf that can lead to further conflict.

That happens enough amongst organics anyway.

Synthesis can been seen as a way of bridging that gulf.

Merely because the writers demand it does - either through some garbled "understanding" (which would mean that it does in fact fundamentally change how people think, thus upholding all the ethical arguments against it) or by simply eliminating organics and synthetics and replacing them with something else, which isn't any better.

[Obadiah]

Reorte wrote...
....
Merely because the writers demand it does - either through some garbled "understanding" (which would mean that it does in fact fundamentally change how people think, thus upholding all the ethical arguments against it) or by simply eliminating organics and synthetics and replacing them with something else, which isn't any better.

...or Synthesis' full tech integration might just be granting further information and capabilites that enables better understanding, which is what all the tech (phone, calculatator, etc...) we use does. We wouldn't want to consider the actual literal explanation given in the game, because, well, ANY change is baaaaad.

Modifié par Obadiah, 17 novembre 2013 - 05:32 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Obadiah wrote...

Reorte wrote...
....
Merely because the writers demand it does - either through some garbled "understanding" (which would mean that it does in fact fundamentally change how people think, thus upholding all the ethical arguments against it) or by simply eliminating organics and synthetics and replacing them with something else, which isn't any better.

...or Synthesis' full tech integration might just be granting further information and capabilites that enables better understanding, which is what all the tech (phone, calculatator, etc...) we use does. We wouldn't want to consider the actual literal explanation given in the game, because, well, ANY change is baaaaad.

The way the Catalyst frames the whole Synthetic vs Organic arguement is that understanding is not possible and that conflict is inevitable. What I always picked up from this was that Synthesis does not improve understanding, it creates it or allows full access to understanding, somehow... (which has the implication that the positive relationship between Shepard and the various AIs in the story didn't mean anything). Otherwise I pretty much agree with Reorte's points.

[ElSuperGecko]

Instead of debating the Synthesis ending, can't we just burn it instead?

After all, that's really the only thing it's good for...

[ImaginaryMatter]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Instead of debating the Synthesis ending, can't we just burn it instead?

After all, that's really the only thing it's good for...

I don't think breathing in the fumes from the fire would be good for your health.

[IceTrey1987]

If synthesis doesn't seem wrong morally, then why did you bother fighting Saren in ME1?

Destroy however is an acceptable ending EVEN if you let the geth individualize and EVEN if you encouraged EDI and Jeff. This is after all, war.

[AlexMBrennan]

If synthesis doesn't seem wrong morally, then why did you bother fighting Saren in ME1?

Because people may agree with his ideas in principle whilst also realising that his plan would result in the destruction of all advanced species?

[ElSuperGecko]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Because people may agree with his ideas in principle whilst also realising that his plan would result in the destruction of all advanced species?

So what changed in ME3?

[Eterna]

My Luddite detector is off the charts!

[Iakus]

Why does Shepard have any more right to direct the course of evolution for the galaxy than the Reapers?

Why can't the galaxy find its own way?

[ElSuperGecko]

iakus wrote...
Why does Shepard have any more right to direct the course of evolution for the galaxy than the Reapers?

Why can't the galaxy find its own way?

(S)he doesn't, and it should.

Unfortunately in the context of this discussion, that's a moot point, because Shepard isn't directing the course of anything by choosing Synthesis.  The player is making a decision, but based on Mr VentBoy Starbrat McCatalyst's fundamentally flawed logic.  It's clear from the final discussion that Shepard hasn't a frackin' clue what will happen if (s)he chooses Synthesis, or if the problem it is supposed to be the "perfect solution" for even exists in the first place.

All Shepard does when (s)he chooses Synthesis is effectively say to the Starbrat:  "This is all over my head - go on then, have another go!"

Or, in the words of Harbinger:  "YOUR WORLDS WILL BECOME OUR LABORATORIES... THE EXPERIMENTS WILL CONTINUE, SHEPARD."

Synthesis is not Shepard's idea, it is not Shepard's "solution", and it is not a concept that Shepard has the faintest understanding of.  It's a Reaper idea, a Reaper construct and a Reaper solution.  And we all know how well the previous Reaper "solutions" have turned out for everyone involved.

[ImaginaryMatter]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Unfortunately in the context of this discussion, that's a moot point, because Shepard isn't directing the course of anything by choosing Synthesis.  The player is making a decision, but based on Mr VentBoy Starbrat McCatalyst's fundamentally flawed logic.  It's clear from the final discussion that Shepard hasn't a frackin' clue what will happen if (s)he chooses Synthesis, or if the problem it is supposed to be the "perfect solution" for even exists in the first place.

Overall there are really only two options: Refusal and whatever the Catalyst is okay with.

[ElSuperGecko]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
Overall there are really only two options: Refusal and whatever the Catalyst is okay with.

Not strictly true, as the Catabrat forcefully tries to push Synthesis down your throat, acts all "meh, whatever" with Control and actively tries to persuade you notto take the Destroy option by playing on your sympathies and your self-preservation insincts (something it ignores completely when it comes to the other options).

It's clearly playing favourites.  And Synthesis is it's latest hair-brained flavour-of-the-millenia.

As for Refusal... think about those poor fellows who bought the game but don't have internet access (yes, they exist!)

[trenq]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

iakus wrote...
Why does Shepard have any more right to direct the course of evolution for the galaxy than the Reapers?

Why can't the galaxy find its own way?

(S)he doesn't, and it should.

Unfortunately in the context of this discussion, that's a moot point, because Shepard isn't directing the course of anything by choosing Synthesis.  The player is making a decision, but based on Mr VentBoy Starbrat McCatalyst's fundamentally flawed logic.  It's clear from the final discussion that Shepard hasn't a frackin' clue what will happen if (s)he chooses Synthesis, or if the problem it is supposed to be the "perfect solution" for even exists in the first place.

All Shepard does when (s)he chooses Synthesis is effectively say to the Starbrat:  "This is all over my head - go on then, have another go!"

Or, in the words of Harbinger:  "YOUR WORLDS WILL BECOME OUR LABORATORIES... THE EXPERIMENTS WILL CONTINUE, SHEPARD."

Synthesis is not Shepard's idea, it is not Shepard's "solution", and it is not a concept that Shepard has the faintest understanding of.  It's a Reaper idea, a Reaper construct and a Reaper solution.  And we all know how well the previous Reaper "solutions" have turned out for everyone involved.

I like that name.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Because people may agree with his ideas in principle whilst also realising that his plan would result in the destruction of all advanced species?

So what changed in ME3?

Saren's vision was based on an empty promise from a Reaper, whereas in ME3, the solution stems from a device Shepard supported the construction and research of (and is only linked to the Reapers in the realm of conspiracy theories).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 18 novembre 2013 - 11:07 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Because people may agree with his ideas in principle whilst also realising that his plan would result in the destruction of all advanced species?

So what changed in ME3?

Saren's vision was based on an empty promise from a Reaper, whereas in ME3, the solution stems from a device Shepard supported the construction and research of (and is only linked to the Reapers in the realm of conspiracy theories).

That's odd, the Catalyst says "I control the Reapers, they are my solution" Not "I am the Crucible" 

[SwobyJ]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Because people may agree with his ideas in principle whilst also realising that his plan would result in the destruction of all advanced species?

So what changed in ME3?

Saren's vision was based on an empty promise from a Reaper, whereas in ME3, the solution stems from a device Shepard supported the construction and research of (and is only linked to the Reapers in the realm of conspiracy theories).

That's odd, the Catalyst says "I control the Reapers, they are my solution" Not "I am the Crucible" 

Reapers are its solution.
Synthesis was tried before, but it failed. What was the synthesis? Harbinger? All cycles' Reapers? Collectors? All of the above?
Crucible opens him up to 'new possibilities'.
But... synthesis was done before?

= Synthesis option is, while not Reaper created, it goes 100% into what the Catalyst wants. The one who appearently lied to Saren about an alliance between man and machine. But wasn't that Sovereign?
(imo though it didn't quite lie, but Saren would have been down another road to a *failed* synthesis without the Crucible finished)

I believe that the Crucible plan is (for purposes in this thread at least) of Leviathan origin though, so yeah.


Pretty sure Shepard is a form of savior in every ending. It's just that for Synthesis, he's the savior that the Reapers were either grooming him for, or the savrior that factors everyone into the solution (at the cost of free will about it), instead of only the organics of this cycle's species.


If you just see Synthesis as purely a trick, there's nothing to do about that. Simply pick Destroy and we'll see or not if there's a sequel which will prove you right or wrong.


I would suggest some reading
http://hyperioncanto...wiki/TechnoCore

Modifié par SwobyJ, 19 novembre 2013 - 12:44 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
Overall there are really only two options: Refusal and whatever the Catalyst is okay with.

Not strictly true, as the Catabrat forcefully tries to push Synthesis down your throat, acts all "meh, whatever" with Control and actively tries to persuade you notto take the Destroy option by playing on your sympathies and your self-preservation insincts (something it ignores completely when it comes to the other options).

It's clearly playing favourites.  And Synthesis is it's latest hair-brained flavour-of-the-millenia.

As for Refusal... think about those poor fellows who bought the game but don't have internet access (yes, they exist!)

Well, but... ya I guess you're right. I do rank the Catalyst's choices, personally, I find Destroy slightly less horrid than Control (maybe because the Catalyst thinks it the worse?), and Synthesis I find to be magnitudes worse than both of them. But all three still leave that sour taste in my mouth; they're still all the Catalyst's ideas on how to use the Crucible; and by choosing them I'm some how symbolically accepting the Catalyst's view as the truth (when I strongly disagree with it). That's why I like Refusal so much.