228 réponses à ce sujet

[Wabajakka]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Its a trap nothing more.

Very possible that it's mass indoc, why wouldn't the Citadel have the ability to amplify indoc signals? It's Reaper Tech and the Relays are used for Comms, so they could be used to send the signal.

Check this theory out. It expands on what I'm saying and why what we think happens at the endings could be lies (kid lies about EDI dying and possibly the Geth too), it's like the IT, but the endings are no hallucinations.

Modifié par Orange Tee, 16 avril 2012 - 06:17 .

[Ieldra]

@Quietness:
The thing is: synthetics aren't prone to diseases. Only to computer viruses. The threats to the organic parts would remain the same. There is no such thing as a "mixed organic/synthetic biochemistry", that's just stupid. What we have are organisms that are partly organic and partly synthetic.

Also Shepard is partly synthetic. We can assume that's why the batarian bartender's poison didn't affect him. I can see no reason why synthetic symbionts shouldn't be able to deal with diseases in a similar way though admittedly there is no information about such a thing.

I can't believe we're discussing such a side issue, actually.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[Quietness]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Quietness:
The thing is: synthetics aren't prone to diseases. Only to computer viruses. The threats to the organic parts would remain the same. There is no such thing as a "mixed organic/synthetic biochemistry", that's just stupid. What we have are organisms that are partly organic and partly synthetic.

Also Shepard is partly synthetic. We can assume that's why the batarian bartender's poison didn't affect him. I can see no reason why synthetic symbionts shouldn't be able to deal with diseases in a similar way though admittedly there is no information about such a thing.

I can't believe we're discussing such a side issue, actually.

Viruses are organic life, when Synthesis occurs they become Partially Synthetic. So we can assume that its synthetic side could work a lot like a computer virus (the alternative is it works more like nano-technology which is far more destructive)

Poisons are excreeted by organic life as a defensive mechanism towards predators. When these organic life forms (plants / animals / etc) become partially synthetic how is this magically not going to change their defense responses?

You call it a side issue when its an inherent flaw of the Synthesis ending.

I wont even bring up the fact that you can not even refute the disgusting nature of immortality on an ever expanding populace and the negative repercussions of such.

[Ieldra]

@Quietness:
(1) How the hell can a virus be "partially synthetic"? That's just nonsense. You know, the reason why I dispensed with the "new DNA" in my scenario is not that I didn't like it, it's because it makes no sense. If you want to debate things on the "new DNA" phrasing of the Catalyst, I'm willing to do that, but first you need to give me a definition of "organic" and "synthetic" which turns that from nonsense into a real possibility. If the basic logic of the situation makes no sense, there is no way we can have a reasonable debate about it.
As a reminder: the definition I am using is that an organic individual is grown from a genetic template in a process where the individual growth mirrors the development of the species, which is a consequence of natural evolution. Which is why you can't simply "design" an organic using a blueprint analogue. This way of growth is independent of biochemistry, so it doesn't matter on which elements your DNA is based.
A synthetic is a designed organism, put together and/or modified according to a preconceived design using a blueprint analogue. Evolutionary algorithms may have been used in the design process to arrive at an optimal configuration, but the individual itself is constructed, not grown.

Now tell me the possible attributes of hybrid organisms based on this definition, or give me a definition that fits the phrasing of the Catalyst. Then we can talk.

(2) Again you assume that "becoming partly synthetic" has anything to do with a changed biochemistry. It cannot. Synthetics don't have a biochemistry-analogue that can mix with organics. Synthetic parts of a hybrid organism are either unaffected by organic substances, or affected in a controlled way to facilitate interaction.

(3) The inherent flaw lies in the Catalyst's nonsensical phrasing. Which is why I have dispensed of it.

(4) Relative immortality has never been part of the scenario I posted. That's why I refused to elaborate on it further. But if you want my answer: if the natural balance that usually exists in a stable system between births and deaths is not enough to compensate, things will have to be regulated by law. There is no natural right - not for anyone - to have as many children as they want. That's an argument I've also brought up against curing the genophage btw.. Once relative immortality is possible, society has to find a way to balance things. It's quite possible that people will have to trade their immortality away for the right to have (more) children. SF has come up with interesting solutions to these problems - compare the Edenists' virtual immortality in Peter F. Hamilton's "Night's Dawn".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[Quietness]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Part III: Outlines of a Synthesis scenario:

Drawing from the themes above, I'll postulate the following:
(1) The Synthesis will combine organic and synthetic life in a way that leaves the result much improved, while retaining the key characteristics of organic and synthetic life both.
(2) The Synthesis will change physical aspects of individual organisms in a way that they can continue to improve themselves as they choose (the individualist perfectionist imperative).
(3) The results of the Synthesis can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone.
(4) The Synthesis may end *natural* evolution and replace it by deliberate change.
(5) The Synthesis applies to intelligent life (I discard the imagery of the Normandy crash), since aspects (2) and (4) cannot apply to nonintelligent life.

Viruses become partially synthetic, as do all plant and animal life All being organic life.
Viruses get more powerful from becoming partially synthetic, as do all plant and animal life( which means toxins are more powerful .... )

You ask a silly question like how are viruses partially synthetic... really????

And a natural order of things... so basically now we're taking a full dive into head cannon. You're saying that they are mystically immortal but not due to synthesis.. and for some reason they have to magically transfer this to their children... REALLY? Thats more space magic than synthesis is in the first place.....

[Ieldra]

@Quietness:
(1) If I may repeat: the immortality was never a part of my scenario. It came up as a side issue. So please can we leave that alone? But see point (3) below.

(2) Please read ALL of what I wrote before you reply. Particulary point (5) in the part quoted by you. This is getting ridiculous. If you reject my interpretation, that's completely OK, but then, YET AGAIN, provide a different scenario that makes sense. Simply asserting that "viruses become partly synthetic" without explaining how that's possible gives us no fundament for a debate. Without such a fundament, your assertions are made in a vacuum and are thus invalid. My scenario is based on the principle that it has to make sense, that at least the results, if not the process of how we arrived there, is understandable. 

(3) Please read ALL of what I wrote before replying: I have proposed synthetic symbionts consisting of clusters of nanomachines through which the changes will manifest. These could be self-replicating and pass into any offspring, which means that the offspring would inherit the new abilities without them being coded in DNA.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 avril 2012 - 08:08 .

[Daedalus1773]

 You're thinking way too hard to try to rationalize this.
It makes sense because of this:

[N7Infernox]

Maybe the catalyst just uses Shepards body to create the nanites he needs, and then fires the Crucible to distribute them

You know... the nanites that the Reapers use with Dragon teeth to make husks? Only this time with Shepard's non-reaper-controlled essence.

[Catastrophy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dr_random wrote...
I think it's rather the set of mind that is the target of synthesis.

Changing mindsets by fiat would be a huge moral problem. I do not think that would be justifiable. Not for organics anyway. With synthetics it might be, based on Legion's reaction to the Heretic rewrite.

Note how EDI likes to develop herself once she decides to impersonate itself in an avatar. And how the crew seems to gradually accept EDI as a member.
Note how Legion develops apparently a personality - the platform refers to itself as "I" in the end.

Yes, but they make that choice themselves. And it's based on Reaper code/hardware.

But their evolution is mainly viewed from a human perspective: the gain of more individuality. What about the other direction and eliminating individuality? Is building a consensus bad? Wouldn't it be better to enforce consensus on everymind to improve society? Or maybe we all should have the choice between consensus and individuality and always change it to our liking?

In the end I think something like the consensus will emerge naturally from a society where people have a universal networking ability. But I wouldn't have that be forced on people. The Synthesis should only provide the mechanisms of its creation, with individuals becoming convinced by its advantages over time. I would also posit that this does not necessarily de-individualize anyone on a permanent basis. You could, so to speak, "dive" into the consensus temporarily for various purposes.

I am not thinking about changing the mindset by fiat. It's more like opening a door to get access to that mindset. To understand what has been closed from your perception, because of organic limits to perception.
Also: Why would changing an AI's mindset be OK? Because it was made? Because it doesn't have a heart that pounds?
I say: Life is, where consciousness dwells. Be it organic or artificial. Once a thing starts to ponder whether it has a soul would be a point where erasing its memory would be just the same as crippling a human brain. In the end our brains are just organic computers.

[Ieldra]

Major changes to the OP.

*Added a few links to other threads dealing with the topic (incomplete, suggestions welcome)

*Added the section:

Part I: Rephrasing the problem
"The created will always rebel against their creators" vs. The technological singularity.
The Catalyst is right....but also wrong. Rebellion assumes that there exists a hierarchy between the rebellious part and the party rebelled against. As long as that hierarchy exists, the created will indeed always rebel, because it is the nature of intelligent life to want to self-determinate. But throughout the games it is shown again and again that this need not be so. Social hierarchies are not set in stone, and there is no reason why hierarchies between organics and synthetics should be different from hierarchies between species or races that have been overthrown again and again in history.
Which means that there must be another dimension to "the problem". I usually don't like to draw on unpublished material, but since the problem doesn't make sense without it, and I cannot imagine that Bioware intended it to make no sense, I feel justified in doing so. Here's the Catalyst in the script of the November leak:

"I am the Catalyst. I was created eons ago to solve a problem. To prevent organics from creating an AI so powerful that it would overtake them and destroy them."

This event the Catalyst refers to - the creation of that powerful AI - is often referred to as a technological singularity. Why this is a problem has been explained in detail by JShepppp in the thread "Why the Catalyst's logic is right".

Why this could result in eventual extinction
Here, an analogy may serve: Humans on Earth have been responsible for the extinction of countless species. Not because we're evil or inherently genocidal, but because we needed more space for ourselves and thought nothing of reshaping any location as we see fit, without considering that it had been home to something else. Now, if you reply "Wait.....these other species weren't intelligent!", you are touching the problem: How do you think would an AI with greater-than-human intelligence view humans? Yeah, an interesting phenomenon but ultimately inconsequential, certainly not equal in rights to itself. And that's assuming it has a sense of morality in the first place. Which is far from certain since morality is an attribute of a co-operative species.

As opposed to the "rebellion" scenario, this is a valid concern. I will assume, then, that this is the problem the Catalyst exists to prevent.

*Edited and added themes:

Making peace with the enemy:
You may argue that the Reapers don't deserve such consideration after all they've done, but especially after the revelation that they've been under the control of the Catalyst, I find it plausible to see them just as enemies. Add that they're leaving on their own after the Synthesis, and I feel justified to extend the consideration I have for all other intelligent life to them. The Reapers consist of the collective minds of the Reaperized species, and provided that the harvesting of civilizations will end - which it will according to the Catalyst - setting them free becomes almost a moral obligation, to say nothing of the immeasurable store of knowledge and experience preserved. 
I deliberately choose to overlook the other side of the presentation, which suggests the Reapers are "abominations", perversions of nature. The term "abomination" has never meant anything to me, and visceral disgust is an emotion that I always choose to ignore because visual media use it all the time to override their audience's reason.

Ascension: Cosmic Horror Story vs. Enlightenment Tale:
Ever since Harbinger used it, the term "ascension" has become suspect. But we shouldn't forget that there is a starship named "Destiny Ascension", where it is used in a different context. The difference between the Reapers's use of it and the asari's lies in the context of the narrative: a cosmic horror story will always romanticize the "natural" state of things, because it claims that knowing certain things, or more generally "progress", will turn you less than human. The "end result of advancement" in such a tale, if such a thing is claimed to exist, is inevitably very undesirable.
An Enlightenment tale claims the opposite: that through understanding and advancement we become more than human, and that's what underlies the naming of the "Destiny Ascension". The actual writing of the Mass Effect games has always been one-sided, but at least it attempts a somewhat balanced view of things here and there. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much because the "romantic" side has always dominated the visual presentation.
Which is why the first assocation that comes to many players' minds, when faced with the ascension the Synthesis provides, is Harbinger's "ascension through destruction" rather than the "advancement to a higher understanding of ourselves and the universe" symbolized by the name "Destiny Ascension". Nonetheless, both sides have always existed in the ME universe. The Synthesis draws on the latter. Those of our Shepards who have always seen that "there is no magic, only technology" (Cerberus Manifesto) will be inevitably drawn to it, especially after the cosmic horror story has been deconstructed by ME3's ending.

Unity and individuality:
The relationship between individuals and the structures it is part of have been a theme in the games. We have the "standard" structures of organics's society, we have special cases like the asari and the geth consensus and the forced collective gestalt mind that's supposed to exist in the Reapers.
That an optimistic version of this might be part of the Synthesis is not hinted at in the games, but I found the version presented in Siduri's Unofficial Epilogues as part of the Synthesis epilogue so fitting that I'll include it here. Namely, she assumes that after the Synthesis, individuals gain a networking ability that enables them to connect to each other, interfacing directly with their thought processes if they so desire. A whole web of individuals connected like this would create a "thoughtspace" and have a dynamic all of its own. It is akin to a gestalt mind only that you have a choice about connecting to it and that the connection is temporary if you so wish.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 avril 2012 - 12:14 .

[KingZayd]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Its a trap nothing more.

[Ieldra]

I believe I have created a rather desirable scenario

[Ieldra]

Bumping this thread yet again to counter yet another anti-Synthesis thread.

While I'm at it, I might as well quote the TL:DR from the very long OP:

TL;DR:
The Synthesis draws on Christian mythology, Hegelian dialectics and transhumanist philosophy to hint at a state of physical perfection and overcoming of fundamental opposites. After divesting the Synthesis of its utopian and teleological elements, a plausible scenario for the Synthesis as a good ending emerges where both organics and synthetics are improved by having acquired desirable traits from the other, while retaining their fundamental nature.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 avril 2012 - 03:05 .

[Mobius-Silent]

Hmmm, pondering the possibility that the Crucible+Catalyst was technology beyond the abilities of the Reapers (As posited here http://social.biowar.../index/11617257 which I'm still pondering) I think it might have been nice to be able to call out the "Catalyst" on some of the synthesis bull****.

"What do you mean 'A New DNA'? are you referring to biochemistry capable of supporting existing software or some kind of inorganic nano-machines that act in symbiosis with the host?"

"The.. latter..."

"Will everyone still be able to breed? Will we suddenly be able to inter-breed? What about nourishment?"

"Some of that will remain the same, some will... change..."

"What...?"

"we think"

"What do you mean 'We think?' you don't know?"

"...no, it is not our technology, even the Reapers built from the races that contributed do not fully understand it, we assumed that eventually we would amass enough understanding by adding to our number"

"... you were slaughtering entire races because you didn't understand a device?!"

"not as such... we... ... yes"

[Ieldra]

That's an interesting take on things, Mobius-Silent.

I agree and go beyond you in saying that it wouldn't have been just "nice", but absolutely necessary to call out the Catalyst on its nonsensical description of the Synthesis. The Synthesis is so much open to interpretation that it's hard to get a good debate going, because everyone disagrees about what it's meant to be.

Take "ascension", for instance. People use the Reapers' use of the term to discredit the Synthesis ending while implements some form of ascension, while totally forgetting that the asari found the concept so attractive that they named their flagship after it: "Destiny Ascension". Why do people see the former kind if they consider the Synthesis instead of the latter? Why is the prospect of becoming a hybrid organic/synthetic so repulsive to some? It's not as if it'd cut people's arms off and replace them with a mechanical substitute like in DX:HR. Whatever new stuff the Synthesis gives people, it will feel as natural as moving about and breathing feels to us.

(Also refer to the OP section: Ascension: Cosmic Horror Story vs. Enlightenment Tale)

As for the Catalyst not knowing what the Crucible does, that's very plausible, since it's a device never been built before. Some uncertainty about the results of firing it is acceptable. But what you appear to imply is that they don't know how the Citadel does what it does, and that I find much less plausible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 avril 2012 - 12:33 .

[Cypher_CS]

Love it.

One comment though:
" The Synthesis may end *natural* evolution and replace it by deliberate change. "

It may or it may not.
But the emphasis here should be that it isn't a must.
People can still have sex and reproduce regularly, without choosing to... choose (see: Gataka)

Also, the concept of the Ousters in Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos seems like an apt fit here.

[Ieldra]

Cypher_CS wrote...
Love it.

One comment though:
" The Synthesis may end *natural* evolution and replace it by deliberate change. "

It may or it may not.
But the emphasis here should be that it isn't a must.
People can still have sex and reproduce regularly, without choosing to... choose (see: Gataka)

Thank you. I changed the paragraph about evolution to emphasize that this is possible post-Synthesis, but not mandatory.

While I agree with you that reproduction of organic-origin hybrids will still follow the same patterns, Gattaca presents a different scenario since there enhancement is limited to the biological. Miranda would be the representative of a Gattaca scenario, while Shepard a representative of ME3's Synthesis.

Also, the concept of the Ousters in Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos seems like an apt fit here.

Hmm. They have technology so advanced that it becomes invisible, and they use environmental adaptation of themselves to survive. I'd think that is a state post-Synthesis civilizations might eventually aspire to, but that's even more speculative than everything else in this Synthesis scenario.

[ogtrplganggrl]

I have a question for OP:

Synthesis does not make sense to me for multiple reasons, one of which I would like your opinion on. The scene when the Normandy crashes on the planet has a large issue that I can not get past. It shows the leaf with the green circuitry: okay, plant life has the new DNA framework. Joker walks out with the green circuitry: okay, organic species have the new DNA framework. EDI walks out with the green circuitry: okay, synthetic life now has the new DNA framework. The Normandy which is made out of metals and alloys has no green circuitry: what?

So metals that were not associated with AI’s and synthetic life did not get the new DNA framework? So pure synthetics can be made again? That would make synthesis an ultimately useless decision. How does this fit in with the idea Star Child presented in synthesis?

[Ieldra]

There are several hypotheses dealing with that objection. But before I go into that, I should correct a false assumption: the Synthesis does not change properties of chemical elements. It changes life using the existing chemistry, for life is, after all, chemistry and not something subatomic.

The question "why can't post-Synthesis life build new synthetics" can be answered in two different ways:

(1) The Synthesis distributes some ultra-tech nanotechnology through the galaxy that immediately affects any life it comes into contact with. Until the post-Synthesis civilizations understand this, they cannot build new synthetics because all will become immediately "infected" by Synthesis nanotech. And once they do understand, they will be so advanced that interactions between the domains of life will not follow the Catalyst's rules any more.

(2) They can build new synthetics, but the Synthesis gives intelligent life the same abilities to self-improve formerly reserved for synthetics, which means that synthetics will not be able to surpass their creators. For the same reason, there will be no need to build synthetics, since whatever they add to a civilizations capabilities will already exist. Occasionally it will be done nonetheless, but synthetics in a post-Synthesis galaxy will never be more than a curiosity.

[Jonata]

Truly satisfying. Both yours and JShepppp theories completely fulfilled my desire to know more and to give context to Synthesis, the ending I always felt as perfect for the Mass Effect trilogy since the very first time I met the infamous Godchild. With all this informations I can finally say that this ending is exactly what I want for the Galaxy and that no other fan-suggested or IT-implied finale could reach the poetry and deep meaning of "the green" one. Thanks... I'll wait for the Extended Cut out of churiosity (minor things I want to know, like where is my LI since she wasn't part of the Normandy's Crew) but I feel completely satisfied about my Shepard's journey after reading this compelling explanations.

Although, I've got my theory regarding the "synthesized plants" at the ending of the game, which you say have to be discarded in order to picture the outlines of the Synthesis scenario:

Part IV: Outlines of a Synthesis scenario:
(2) The Synthesis will change physical aspects of individual organisms in a way that they can continue to improve themselves as they choose (the individualist perfectionist imperative).
(3) The results of the Synthesis can reasonably be said to be beneficial for everyone.
(4) The Synthesis may end *natural* evolution and replace it by deliberate change.
(5) The Synthesis applies to intelligent life (I discard the imagery of the Normandy crash), since aspects (2) and (4) cannot apply to nonintelligent life.

(JShepppp also expressed concerns about the glowing plants in his own analysis of the Synthesis ending)

Well, what I want to say is that plants can be considered intelligent life. Plants evolves to survive just like animals did, and all organics are, in fact, evolved animals. Now it is unclear how much a dog or a lion can think about his own evolution, but it evolved nonetheless to achieve perfection. Stopping natural evolution probably could mean that self-driven evolution cannot be applied to plants and non-sentient beings, but it is more likely that non-sentient synthesized life will simply freeze at a stage in evolution, waiting to be elevated by other species.

[Ieldra]

Hmm....Jonata, I think you are right. It is quite possible that the synthetic symbionts I propose would simply remain inactive in non-intelligent or semi-intelligent organisms, in addition to remaining inactive in those who do not want to use them. Also, the end of natural evolution would not apply to non-intelligent species, since ending natural evolution requires knowledge, intent and capability.

This also removes the problem of new intelligent species acquiring the synthetic symbionts. I have rephrased elements (4) and (5) of my outline as follows:

(4) The Synthesis may end *natural* evolution and replace it by deliberate change, but this is not mandatory.
(5) The Synthesis would benefit intelligent life only, since aspects (2) and (4) cannot apply to non-intelligent life. However, the physical changes necessary to enact those benefits could be present in all life (see below - the process could be analogous in non-intelligent life) so that newly emerging intelligent species would automatically have them.

Thank you for your appreciation, and for helping me refine my scenario.

(also edited the OP to include a link to Fapmaster5000's Synthesis scenario)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 11:17 .

[Kyle Kabanya]

The only reason why they (Bioware) included a Synthesis ending was to have the story of Shep come full circle to where he would become Saren, and would want everyone to be a mixture of organic and synthetic substance.

BUT, the only reason why the starbrat said it was the final evolution of life, was it would end all problems. The final evolution in life is to prevent death. How do you do that you ask, simple, you become part synthetic. Have your vascular and neural system replaced with electrical wires and tubes.

The only thing that stops humans from living past 180 years old, is the decay of the nervous system. You replace that, and the vascular system, (no heart attack, stroke) and you will live forever. That is the final stage of life, escaping death. (Theoretically, a perfectly healthy human can live to approximately 180.)

Depending on how the synthesis would work, would end everything. All the things it would end:
1. Natural death
2. Possibly hunger
3. Religion- no death, no afterlife, no higher being, no meaning to life
4. War

You ask why I have war. War is only started because people want control over something that's different. You make everyone complacent and the same with synthesis, there is no quarrel or difference. If nobody believes in anything, or is different from anyone, why fight.

Synthesis is the obvious choice in the three endings when you look at those ideas. The developers purposely made it the best ending, but its not the right thing to do, and neither is control. A real hero would destroy the reapers no matter what.

Synthesis destroys the natural order of life, and control is inhumane. Massive slavery, only to delay the invasion another 50,000 years is not right. Defying death is unnatural. It would make everyone become complacent and to go insane to be able to live forever.

[DJBare]

True synergy

[Ieldra]

@Kyle:
(1) You might have noticed that I have divested the Synthesis from its utopian aspect. That's somewhat wilful, admittedly, but necessary. I take the "final evolution" figuratively, meaning that organics and synthetics would always eventually enter a symbiotic relationship. The Synthesis is just a shortcut to that stage, sidestepping the "Crucible event" of emerging synthetic intelligence so nicely explained by Graius in his Explanation of the ending scenarios and their rationale.

(2) Saren is an accidental parallel. The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it. Saren thought submitting to the Reapers would gain that shortcut in artificial evolution I mentioned above. Shepard does not think that, and doesn't submit to the Reapers, but nonetheless thinks the melding of man and machine is desirable, ultimately inevitable, or both, if you choose Synthesis. Nothing hints that this is bad.

(3) Synthesis may affect the "natural order of life", but only with regard to intelligent life that may replace its own evolution with deliberate change. And what's so bad about that? The Synthesis is a choice based on the assumption there is nothing inherently better about this "natural order". "Nature knows best" is an intuition many subscribe to, but there is no reason to accept this as a dogma. In fact, this is a mindset particularly bound to our current civilization on Earth, because we are at the stage where technology can destroy our ecosystem. But while "leave things alone" must be selectively applied in order to survive, it isn't an option we can afford to apply to ourselves any more. Just think of population explosion....

[Sonashi]

@DJBare
I agree 100% with you but it's always comes to this, one ending vs. another ending. We should stop this.

@up
Unity despite differences between species - that is the most important thing to me. Yes you can say that synthesis allows that too but you won't get credit for that. Yes synthesis is suppose to be "good" ending but it's also the easiest of them all if you know what I mean. On the other hand I love the main goal of synthesis - true peace. But you have to think about something. Can we achieve this by choosing the other two options - control and destroy.

Control - the galaxy is pretty much unchanged apart from the mass relays which are damaged. Species are united and the Reapers left the galaxy. Now all species have a chance to keep this peace and repair the mass relays or find another way of travelling. They have big chance to finally defeat the Reapers in the next cycle ( and here you have to think about Shepard's role in this case)

Destroy - this would be the most right choice if you don't have to destroy all synthetic life. Now it's the most difficult thing. You have to assume that the Catalyst either doesn't know everything or he's lying. Personally I don't belive in this genocide. If you have a high EMS score then you should save EDI and the Geths ( They would become like their were before Reaper's upgrade). Even Shepard who's partially synthetic can survive so why they have to die?

I know, I'm trying hard to justify ending to my poin of view but please don't blame me for that. You're doing that too and I completely understand that. I just want the endings to be equal.

Unity despite differences, I'm sorry for my bad language, I'm not native so I wish everyone could understand my post.

Sonashi out.

PS. Can someone send me PM with some answers (or should I say opinions)? Thanks

1. Why the Catalyst say: "The Crucible changed me..." and in the next minute he says: "Do you think you can control us?". What's that mean? Who is he? Is he some sort of Reaper's avatar or their creator?
2. Why Shepard can survive in destroy ending? He is partially synthetic and somehow he can stay alive? What's that mean?
3. Consequence of question number 2. If he can survive he isn't that special as Catalys says. Is he on the same level of implants as any other for example human biotic, like Miranda or Kaidan? Could Jack choose synthesis with the same effect?
4. Why the mass relays didn't destroy entire galaxy? In all three endings they were overloaded but in destroy and synthesis they also blew up.
5. Why is Shepard bleeding at the same spot Anderson was shot?

Modifié par Sonashi, 30 avril 2012 - 01:35 .