My paragon Jane came to the same conclusion - she opted for synthesis. With the idea of permanently braking the cycle and saving as many sentient species as possible. Lot of poeple won' like being cybernized but at least the fighting will not reach galactic proportion - and they'll live. It may seem cruel to make that choice, but people didn't hesitate to let her carry the load; they're just gonna have to suck it up.Ottemis wrote...
Hmm synthesis is the way to go for me.
I've considered the following, control being a status quo, you only take the reapers out of the equation, plus Shepard. Risk of the impending war/organic annihilation still existing, but you give it a chance to prove the opposite.
Then there's destroy, where you take the reapers out, but also the Geth and EDI, which for all my Sheps is just not an option, however much I want to see them live, that would be going against what they stoold for since the beginning and the choices they made in regards to synthetic life throughout the game. Risk of the impending war/organic annihilation still existing, but you give it a chance to prove the opposite.
Then there's synthesis, believing the impending war threat exists assuming StarChild is what he claims to be, it's the only one that suggestedly assures to break the cycle in therms of war.
To me the main questions were simple, I asked myself:
1. Do I believe StarChild? Yes.
2. Do I believe war is inevitable, do I believe our annihilation in extension is inevitable? Yes.
3. Do I recognise the Geth and EDI as fullfletched lifeforms? Yes.
4. If not synthetic life, but say Turian life, would I merge to save them (and everyone in effect)? Yes.
Outcome Synthesis every time, I can't get around it.
My canon Deirdre thought about picking destroy; she'll probably pick control in the end and see what heppen...
Modifié par SaturnRing, 30 mars 2012 - 01:38 .





Retour en haut














