Why people dislike Synthesis very much? *spoilers*

#361SageOfLifePosted 4/8/2013 12:24:40 PM
It doesn't make sense to present sentient husks as a good thing either, yet that's what they did with synthesis.
---
There's no box! There never was!
#362billygotenPosted 4/8/2013 12:35:47 PM
It doesn't make sense to present sentient husks as a good thing either, yet that's what they did with synthesis.

Did they? Howso?

And if so, how do you know what happened was bad?
---
---The defib is a more useful weapon at range than either T1 shotty. - kenmorr23---
#363SageOfLifePosted 4/8/2013 12:48:38 PM
billygoten posted...
It doesn't make sense to present sentient husks as a good thing either, yet that's what they did with synthesis.

Did they? Howso?

And if so, how do you know what happened was bad?


So you just ignored the part where the husk was shown gaining awareness.

As for how I know it's bad, I know of The Human Centipede.
---
There's no box! There never was!
#364severialityPosted 4/8/2013 10:21:43 PM
billygoten posted...
the main issue here is that, knowing what we know about how the Reapers operate... it's hard to assume the contrary in the synthesis ending

Okay. I can see that. That makes sense. I still disagree though but I can see that angle since you've explained it. Let me tell you why I didn't automatically make that connection without you explaining it and why I disagree. Well, I'm going to anyway :P

I don't consider the Catalyst's actions, logic, and motives as a direct extension of the Reapers in that scene because the Catalyst has ceased to act like a Reaper. I know the Reapers operate based on instructions from the Catalyst, I know, but think about it. In the conversation with Shepard, the Catalyst isn't aggressive. It doesn't threaten Shepard's physical well-being, it doesn't try to control him/her, it doesn't try to stop him from making any of the decisions before him. It really just talks and specifically mentions how its own solution won't work any more. Is that a ploy? Why would it be? Why would the Catalyst offer information and other solutions to Shepard against his own current action? It seems pretty clear that if the Catalyst wanted to simply continue to wipe out everything, it would, and that's exactly what happens if you make no decision. So, why would the Catalyst lie to Shepard to achieve indoctrination on everything when it could just continue going forward as planned no matter what Shep did? What would indoctrination achieve that reaping the galaxy wouldn't? Could it be the Catalyst just doesn't understand how indoctrinating everything isn't worth it? Perhaps. But if so, why would the Catalyst even offer Shep the options of rewriting the Catalyst with Shep's personality (Control) or literally destroying the Citadel and Reapers (presumably the Catalyst as well)?

It doesn't fit completely to me. But I see what you're getting at now. That's how the Catalyst operated before so it makes sense. I just don't see that as necessarily being the case since the Catalyst seems to be acting differently when Shep talks with it, since it admits its current plan won't work, and then it gives you the options to stop its current plan, two of which seem pretty bad for the Catalyst/Reapers.


Xanatos gambit! If that's the correct trope/term. Catalyst is ethereal, it cannot physically stop Shepard in any way. The Crucible made those options possible, not the Catalyst. Obviously the Reapers did not plan for the Crucible's presence, they thought it was a dead idea. They also haven't been able to stop Shepard in 3 games, he's proven almost unkillable. So why not present what you want as a "perfect" solution, entice your unbeatable enemy to choose it, and laugh all the way to the bank? Makes sense to me, we know the Reapers are cunning.

I know he could've just not said anything about Control or Destroy in that case, but it wants him to think it's on his side. It can't stop whatever Shepard picks, but it can make a last ditch effort to take an option that will solve the problem, whatever it takes. The Catalyst thought that killing the organics to save them was a good idea. How do you know it doesn't think brainwashing/mind-altering is a better solution now that the Crucible is attached? I didn't instantly trust the thing's every word when I first saw it.

I want to make this clear, I do not think Synthesis is indoctrination clear cut. I don't. I just think this AI with obvious demented logic may have a penchant for mind control that it now believes is a better solution. And to an AI, wouldn't it be? Eliminating free-will to ensure peace? That's like every Asimov story ever. It's just inhuman, something an AI might not understand.
#365severialityPosted 4/8/2013 10:32:17 PM(edited)
billygoten posted...
While I agree that control also shares a parallel with Legion's loyalty mission, Bioware showed that rewriting or "brainwashing" is a paragon choice in their eyes.

Yeah, they really messed up that whole thing imo. Still, I see brainwashing in the Control ending and I see Synthesis not as paragon or renegade, but something altogether new. I don't associate it with paragon or with the mind wipe Geth option because it isn't presented as paragon or in parallel like Control is. And it's because those options get so mixed up with bad morality that I don't trust paragon and renegade anymore. I don't think TIM is right - look at him, how could he be? It seems more to me that in a lot of cases, paragon represents the lesser of two evils. The mind control option isn't the "good" tinted option in the Geth mission because it is the right thing to do, it's the paragon option because it's the lesser of two evils. Legion even says so. That comes to a head with the endings of ME3 when TIM is representing the "paragon" choice and Anderson is representing the "renegade" choice. It's really not black and white, or red and blue as it were. So this same problem is either present in every ending, where everything is the lesser of X evils, or you have to assume a lot of good things with the Synthesis ending. Or, the Catalyst for some reason is lying and Destroy won't kill anyone but the Reapers.


Why would Bioware change their way of thinking after writing the LL mission? I didn't see them change any decisions or make a point of it in ME3 For all we know, they still think it was the "correct" choice. So in that instance, how do you know they don't also view synthesis as the lesser of three evils? Instead of being an overlord or killing the machines, "rewrite" everyone to be happy. In fact, we can all agree that some people will not be happy with their new, forced changes. So how does it not fit the lesser evil line of thinking?

Edit:

I'm not gonna quote your other post, because it seems like a rehashing of what I addressed here. If I missed a crucial point, just let me know.

I also would like to respond to your edit about interpreting what the Catalyst says. Everything he says about is synthesis is vague, control and destroy are both cut and dried. So speculation about "bringing an understanding" should be held to as much scrutiny as the "final evolution of life." Understanding, however, is a vague concept, whereas evolution has a more scientific basis, so the scientific principles involved give more weight to any argument about that point. Understanding has no such principles and is a completely "interpreted" concept.
#366billygotenPosted 4/9/2013 1:41:32 AM
Catalyst is ethereal

I hadn't considered that. Still think it would've been more aggressive, or tried something tricky like have the Reapers attack the platform or just not lift Shepard's unconscious body to the upper level, but that's okay.

The Crucible made those options possible, not the Catalyst.

The Catalyst we see is the Catalyst after the Crucible applies its influence. "It gave us more possibilities" (paraphrasing)

So why not present what you want as a "perfect" solution, entice your unbeatable enemy to choose it, and laugh all the way to the bank?

Yeah, maybe, but why not? Because of the reasons I said. Because that's not how Bioware presented the Synthesis ending and because they didn't need to trick Shepard or provide him with choices at all seeing as they are clearly capable of just ignoring him and killing everyone anyway.

The Catalyst thought that killing the organics to save them was a good idea. How do you know it doesn't think brainwashing/mind-altering is a better solution now that the Crucible is attached?

I don't. It just doesn't seem necessary for the game/Catalyst/Bioware to try to slip that one past us. And wow that would be depressing if the Crucible's only function is to convince the Reapers to brainwash everyone instead of killing them.

I do not think Synthesis is indoctrination clear cut.... I just think this AI with obvious demented logic may have a penchant for mind control that it now believes is a better solution.

Fair enough. Quite plausible. It doesn't feel like what the game's going for to me, doesn't quite make sense, but it's very possible.

Why would Bioware change their way of thinking after writing the LL mission?

They didn't. That's what I'm saying. LL Paragon - mind control LL Renegade - Destroy, game acknowledges it isn't a moral solution. Control ending paragon mind control, Destroy ending renegade, game implies (imo) neither are moral solutions. I'm not saying they changed their minds. I'm saying they didn't.

I didn't see them change any decisions or make a point of it in ME3

Not explicitly, no. Admittedly, it's all implied, if it's even there at all. That's just how I see the game trying to present the Synthesis ending. It has its own tone based on what the Catalyst explains, how it stands alone, how it's in the center, how it was tried before but didn't work, how it's green and not paragon and renegade, how the Catalyst acts like it's a solution that's greater than the alternatives. Like I said, only way I can see for this to not be the case is if the Catalyst is lying or wrong. Possible, but I don't know.
---
---The defib is a more useful weapon at range than either T1 shotty. - kenmorr23---
#367billygotenPosted 4/9/2013 2:00:55 AM
For all we know, they still think it was the "correct" choice.

Depends. It didn't seem like there was a correct choice from a moral standpoint and TIM is clearly not the good guy. The entire game, the theme is people trying to convince you mind control is okay and that the bad guy isn't being controlled. TIM, Saren trying to control the Geth and Krogan, trying to convince you he's not under control, the Leviathans acting like it's just cause they're awesome and the Reapers' behavior as an extension of the Leviathans' nature. All game, mind control has been right out there in the open. The game never tries to trick you into being like "oh okay mind control". Don't see why it would start with Synthesis just because it's the only solution we can think of.

how do you know they don't also view synthesis as the lesser of three evils

We don't but there are only 4 endings presented to us. Control feels wrong, but it could potentially be the best choice (Shep makes Reapers destroy each themselves, Shep doesn't rule the galaxy, threat ended, Geth and AI safe!). Destroy can't be right unless Cat is lying about the Geth.

But I keep coming back to why would the Catalyst even do that when it can just reap the galaxy as it was going to? It could've just said "The Crucible made me understand, Synthesis is what we gotta do!" if it wanted to manipulate him.

So how does it not fit the lesser evil

It's going to, to some degree. There are just too many problems with Synthesis even if you're assuming all the best.

So speculation about "bringing an understanding" should be held to as much scrutiny as the "final evolution of life."

Exactly. We don't have much to go on in either case.

the scientific principles involved give more weight to any argument about [evolution].

Except that evolution can happen in different ways to different extents. Just because it's "evolution" or even "final evolution" doesn't mean its meaning can be quantified and calculated on definition or principle alone.

Ex: The Catalyst could mean life literally reaches its apex, but that doesn't make sense logically and makes even less sense when you see that leaves, EDI, and different races still have their same form. However, could the Catalyst have meant that the new DNA is the final basic form of life? It can certainly be seen as a final evolution of life to enter this never-before-seen phase with a new DNA substitute that's both organic and synthetic at the very basic level. And the imagination just boggles at what could be possible with life forms with such a change. That wouldn't mean that life is done evolving forever - life forms would still evolve on individual and racial bases, but the foundation for life in general has reached another whole stage, the apex.

Understanding has no such principles and is a completely "interpreted" concept

We don't know how general or how specific the Catalyst is being because the terms it uses are vague there too. You simply cannot assume that the final evolution of life means no more evolution on any scale ever again ever.

I'm seeing your point of view better though. I know you have to hope for the best with a lot of things for Synthesis to not be awful and it's very hard to separate Bioware's intention for Synthesis to be the "real" good ending, and what's just in the game is kinda a mess. I still just can't assume that Synthesis is a trick or is awful because there'd be no reason for it to exist if it was, but if you just can't get past all the problems, can't control your cringe reflex when the Catalyst says stupid things, it's very hard not to assume the worst.
---
---The defib is a more useful weapon at range than either T1 shotty. - kenmorr23---
#368DestinPosted 4/9/2013 6:48:16 AM
what makes anyone think that the Catalyst is able to calculate what the final evolution of life is?
---
Destin the Valiant
#369severialityPosted 4/9/2013 10:09:25 PM
billygoten posted...
For all we know, they still think it was the "correct" choice.

Depends. It didn't seem like there was a correct choice from a moral standpoint and TIM is clearly not the good guy. The entire game, the theme is people trying to convince you mind control is okay and that the bad guy isn't being controlled. TIM, Saren trying to control the Geth and Krogan, trying to convince you he's not under control, the Leviathans acting like it's just cause they're awesome and the Reapers' behavior as an extension of the Leviathans' nature. All game, mind control has been right out there in the open. The game never tries to trick you into being like "oh okay mind control". Don't see why it would start with Synthesis just because it's the only solution we can think of.

how do you know they don't also view synthesis as the lesser of three evils

We don't but there are only 4 endings presented to us. Control feels wrong, but it could potentially be the best choice (Shep makes Reapers destroy each themselves, Shep doesn't rule the galaxy, threat ended, Geth and AI safe!). Destroy can't be right unless Cat is lying about the Geth.

But I keep coming back to why would the Catalyst even do that when it can just reap the galaxy as it was going to? It could've just said "The Crucible made me understand, Synthesis is what we gotta do!" if it wanted to manipulate him.

So how does it not fit the lesser evil

It's going to, to some degree. There are just too many problems with Synthesis even if you're assuming all the best.

So speculation about "bringing an understanding" should be held to as much scrutiny as the "final evolution of life."

Exactly. We don't have much to go on in either case.

the scientific principles involved give more weight to any argument about [evolution].

Except that evolution can happen in different ways to different extents. Just because it's "evolution" or even "final evolution" doesn't mean its meaning can be quantified and calculated on definition or principle alone.

Ex: The Catalyst could mean life literally reaches its apex, but that doesn't make sense logically and makes even less sense when you see that leaves, EDI, and different races still have their same form. However, could the Catalyst have meant that the new DNA is the final basic form of life? It can certainly be seen as a final evolution of life to enter this never-before-seen phase with a new DNA substitute that's both organic and synthetic at the very basic level. And the imagination just boggles at what could be possible with life forms with such a change. That wouldn't mean that life is done evolving forever - life forms would still evolve on individual and racial bases, but the foundation for life in general has reached another whole stage, the apex.

Understanding has no such principles and is a completely "interpreted" concept

We don't know how general or how specific the Catalyst is being because the terms it uses are vague there too. You simply cannot assume that the final evolution of life means no more evolution on any scale ever again ever.

I'm seeing your point of view better though. I know you have to hope for the best with a lot of things for Synthesis to not be awful and it's very hard to separate Bioware's intention for Synthesis to be the "real" good ending, and what's just in the game is kinda a mess. I still just can't assume that Synthesis is a trick or is awful because there'd be no reason for it to exist if it was, but if you just can't get past all the problems, can't control your cringe reflex when the Catalyst says stupid things, it's very hard not to assume the worst.


He does say that though...
#370FlyingholePosted 4/9/2013 10:30:55 PM
Synthesis violates autonomy, that's why I dislike it.
---
And so he spoke, and so he spoke...
That Lord of Cast-a-mere