Lightice_av wrote...
As I've said repeatedly, the Synthesis means giving a possibility to solve the problem. It puts the ball in our hands, away from the Catalyst. And as for your opinion on insight, sometimes it's necessary for an external party to demonstrate new viewpoints in order for new insights to emerge. That's what Shepard does to the Catalyst, remember? That's what the Reaper code does to Legion.
So you're argueing possibility with possibility? It certainly is possible that after a couple of generations there will still be war, but synthesis doesn't change that. Not one bit. Your position is as arguable as mine, why should your inherently racist one should be entertained more? (Don't take it as a personal attack, I'm merely trying to make a point) As much as it can be argued that Synthesis might provide new insight, it's premise is inherently racist; it's still an imposition. Supposed insight is not a given.
We both know that differences arise regardless of race and that a consensus can be achieved without everyone becoming one color. Humans fight humans regardless of race and consesus has been achieved with different races (blacks, hispanics, whites, asians, etc.). Conflict is natural to us, I don't see how changing half our cells for transistors will change that.
BTW, Legion chose by himself. Bringing him to the discussion adds nothing because in the end he chose what he wanted, he wasn't imposed with a new paradigm. It doesn't contradict what he said in ME2.
The whole insight thing is at best subjective, a single human shouldn't decide for a whole galaxy. And it shouldn't be touted as the "be all end all solution" to the problems it can't, beyond reasonable doubt, address. If it's just for the sake of establish a starting point, the current united galaxy is as good as any. And it doesn't involve a galactic life altering ray. (For more info read below paragraph)
The problem with the common enemy is that when it goes away, so does the motive for cooperation. It lasts one, maybe two generations, and then problems begin anew. The idea that species should evolve on their own terms is a nice sentiment, but impossible in a universe where they are constantly forced to interact, and especially in a universe where this path always leads to the same, destructive conclusion. The Synthesis, apart from the changed perspective presumably opens new paths for potential transhumanism to the subjects, allowing perhaps similar paths as the Prothean memory-storage and geth mind uploads in the long run, which should help at stabilizing the situation, as well.
You're still talking about possibilities. You have two choices with synthesis, either you just create a new bio-synth chemistry for each living species and everything else remains equal or the changes actually go further up the chain and modify behaviour, somehow.
In the first case racial differences will still exists, leading to self preservation issues. Krogan could still hate salarians and turians again so the whole peace premise goes bananas really fast, because of the lack of common enemy as you suggest. The only thing you actually changed is that people could be more accepting of the geth if they weren't already. But again, it's more of an imposition than new insight. It's as valid as making everyone an invalid so that they gain insight on those that naturally are. The message you're trying to transmit may be good (more tolerance towards invalids) but the method is, to put it mildly, wrong. The same goes with synthesis.
In the second case, if you change behaviour then you essentialy destroyed what you were fighting for. You are not you anymore. You might as well have everyone die and let the next cycle take care of the reapers in a more conventional way. It's even less selfish. Victory through sacrifice. Just ensure the next cycle will have everything they need to kill the reapers for good.
Besides, it
really is disturbing how racist that premise of synthesis is. Content of character is what defines us, not what we're built off. That goes both ways obviously. Following that logic you could argue that synthesis actually doesn't affect anything, but then why do synthesis in the first place.
One of my engineering teachers used to tell me in college that you don't introduce new variables to fix a problem unless necessary. Just choosing synthesis because it might make the problem go away is a poor solution, especially if you asume the reapers to be as godly as they are portrayed. The worse part is that the supposed problem is arguable at best in the current context. Just because it was there in the past doesn't mean it will be there in the future. Remember, you were fighting for a chance to prove the reapers wrong. How could you, if you never got the chance? It makes the whole experience pointless and that's one of the many reasons the ending fails to be thought-provoking.
Yes, in the course of billions of years, not a few million. And the Synthesis may make this development obsolete at least in the Milky Way. If the civilization continues to evolve influenced both by organic and synthetic perspectives and unrestricted by an external force like the Reapers, then the technological singularity is a likely end result, in which case every world in the galaxy may be saturated with Synthesized life that leaves no room for newcomers. They may not be exaggerating in that epilogue stinger.
Arguable, it isn't established when life actually starts and how long it takes to evolve. Organic life, even if primitive can still appear. The chaos problem still stands. If primitive but organic life reappears you'll be confronted with the issue of chaos vs order again. Meaning that you didn't really solve the problem, you just tucked it underneath a carpet. When it arises again you'll either terminate it or leave it to evolve and be presented with the issue the reapers had again all over again. You delayed the problem by a long time, but it will reappear. And that is assuming intergalactic travel isn't achieved. In which case the problem is even more apparent.
And besides, in a few billion years if organic life hasn't reappeared, we will be "colliding" with andromeda (a known fact in real life, given that they use the milky way, it's safe to assume the course of events will continue), meaning that if any organic life exists there, the problem arises again. So you'll have to force a new synthesis. In a way, imposing your way of life again (for the sake of insight and intolerance). Which in a very deep way, contradicts the original purpose (tolerance) that you betrayed for the sake of survival.
It's made perfectly clear that the galactic civilization was surprised pants down, and the Crucible is the only way to victory. The combined military might of all the races has come to Earth, and if they are defeated, nothing stands against the Reapers.
So were the protheans. Hell, they even got divided because of the whole citadel incident, and they fought for centuries. We could argue all day about whether or not it's feasible, but if Palaven could be recovered with good strategies and not as many ships, it's not farfetched to believe that the combined galactic armada couldn't fight the reapers. Maybe the Earth would be lost along with half the galaxy, but the chances are there, however slim.
The game already entertains the other choices for the sake of "possibilities", why not this one?
I found the ending more mature than the rest of the story in this respect. None of the choices available can be classified as Paragon or Renegade, which are pretty narrow definitions to begin with. I didn't allow Wrex to get a cloning facility because it was no true cure, and could only produce slaves for Saren and the Reapers, and I destroyed the Collector Base because I knew it was a trap that the Illusive Man would inevitably spring. I'm Paragon because it's smart and allows me to save as many lives as possible. My Paragon Shepard is willing to lay down her life for her principles, but not the lives of her friends, her fleet or her home planet. The point is to save people, not throw their lives away because the Catalyst's conditions feel somehow unfavourable.
If you don't destroy the collector base your endings are barely affected, I don't see how that classifies as a trap. The decision you face is based primarily on principle, just as much of the rest of the story. Breaking the narrative style for the sake of maturity is a poor argument considering that maturity is really subjective given the context. Besides, if they really wanted to distance themselves from the paragon/renegade/paragade issue, they should've used other colors (or no colors at all).
By using the colors they trained you to associate to moral standings, you are making a moral decision at the end. A moral one they prejudged already by giving them those preset colors. It doesn't really matter if you gave your choices other purpose, the colors already express the moral standing. Given the amount of attention to other details in the trilogy, I can't fathom the color decisions being a oversight. Especially if you defend the endings as meaningful.
We haven't even touched the whole Deus Ex Machina issue, which at this moment in time is pointless to argue IMO. DEM is a granted and I don't see that changing (in the odd chance they change the endings), but I do believe it was a poor decision. In the previous two games you won out of pure will. Hell, you even died and were brough back for that reason. I literally was expecting a whole intergalactic army ready to face the reapers by the third installment. But I digress...
Edit: corrected a few spelling errors
Modifié par Lugaidster, 19 mars 2012 - 10:46 .
Retour en haut
