897 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...
There is - thought not in the way you mean it. The difference is a matter of scope and results. I condemn a whole species to death, destroying any future it might have, or I effect a change in physical makeup - on the whole galaxy, but the effect is far less drastic than death and is even implied to be beneficial. I have much less trouble with the latter. I would prefer to give people a choice, but if all I have is a global on/off button, I'll use it.

I don't subscribe to the notion that our physical nature is sacrosanct. We live in a symbiosis with bacteria, and our evolved biology is a complete mess, as if you'd evolved a calculator program into an AI by applying a million patches. What's so special about that? I'm not turning anyone into a monster. The ending sequence implies people are still very much themselves. I have much less trouble making a physical change of that nature than with enslaving the Reapers for the foreseeable future or exterminating all synthetics.

Living in symbiosis with another life form is not the same thing as completely rewriting it.  And Synthesis is just that:  rewriting all life to suit something's opinion on what's "best" for everyone.  Just because the changes appear small and subtle does not mean there aren't bigger changes beneath the surface.  Indoctrination is the same way.  I'm sure The Illusive Man thought everything was fine and dandy right up until the end.

[Klijpope]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
And the problem I have with your last sentence is the sentence above that.  They can take the time, it seems, to hammer home the point that conventional victory is impossible, but couldn't possibly add any foreshadowing about the catalyst and the possibility of peace with the Reapers (and within that scope, synthetics), except for ONE line of dialogue that was delivered just one mission before we return to earth and deploy the crucible?  If that isn't story-fail then I don't know what is.

But there is some foreshadowing. Vendetta states that the pattern exists and that the Reapers are part of the pattern, not its instigators. That implies a creator - something we have not encountered yet. Also the very fact that no one knows what the Catalyst actually is means that we know that we will encounter something we've not met before.

Granted, it is not particularly strong foreshadowing, but it is certainly stronger than Vigil's was, which came out of nowhere on Ilos.

Maybe we're actually kind of mixing our metaphors. The story tells us to expect something unexpected at the end as a means of 'victory'. However, as gamers, we note the collection of war assets and the fact we have a score, and this sets up in our minds that bigger EMS = 'moar winning', to paraphrase another Sheen.

So is it just that here we have got stuck in a dichotomy between gameplay grammar vs story grammar?

These (semi) interactive fictions are still very much a work in progress, and squaring the circle of story progression versus gameplay mechanics hasn't been truly cracked yet. Even crafting a film which had several alternate routes through its narrative hasn't been done effectively. No one can say with any authority that "this is the way that you should do this". The books haven't been written yet - though the key issues may well have been identified on these boards these past weeks, if you can filter out all the noise.

I think that the problem runs deeper then gameplay expectations.  While they surely have colored my overall review of the game, I think the story issues run deeper then just contradictory game mechanics.

To me, the "unexpected" twist was when the catalyst was revealed as the citadel (or at least that's all it should have been).  The information given to us by Vendetta felt cheap - like they couldn't be bothered to actually work the Catalyst (the strange being residing on the citadel) into the game.  What we have here is two separate plot twists - one that was foreshadowed properly through-out the trilolgy (the Citadel being the Key to defeating the Reapers) and another that was thrown in last minute to turn the Reapers into sympathetic villains (which they clearly were NOT forshadowed to be).

I'm not sure it is the Reapers who are made out to be sympathetic. The Catalyst is not a reaper; the reaper's just become diminished - the tools of something else (and that is a victory of sorts over Harbinger, even though we do not get gloat about it). However, I agree that Vendetta was a bit of an infodump out of nowhere (though again, much like Vigil). However, Chorban is conspicuous by his absence, and since I sweated spinal fluid to find that last bloody keeper in ME1, this is a passing disappointment. There's also concept art for a mission in the Keeper areas on the Citadel in the Artbook. This dangling thread could have lead to the Catalyst in some way, so it's a shame it has not been pursued (...yet...).

[Cypher_CS]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I'm going to assume that if you are going to use Pseudo-Science as a source you need to be aware of what that entails. With such claims you are lumped into the same catergory as Ancient Astronaut Theorists.

Read about it here. I can't take you seriously if you are using this area as a source for information because it doesn't really have any basis here.

Oh that.
Okay, bad word.

I actually meant it more like Fringe Science (like in the show).
Again, read my posts and you'll see. I'm actually basing some stuff on scientific research. Not pseudo or para.

[Ieldra]

Klijpope wrote...
Playing through the end again last night I was struck as to how simply they (BW) may have been able to provide, if not justification, at least insight into how Shepard actually feels about these choices. If Shep could raise some objections to each choice, even if they could be shot down and just be chewing the cud, at least it would allow the player to express Shepard's personality at the very end. I actually like the fact that the final choice comes down to a visual, symbolic action (try to control the pillars, shoot the widget, or leap into the unknown), but Shepard still needed a voice before that point to help the player empathise with her.

So maybe it is not about justifying the final decision, but empathising with the character making that choice, like we have with every difficult decision throughout the rest of the series. Some extra dialogue work could fix that aspect.

There I agree with you. We need to ask more questions, we need a way to express our character. In the end, we only need to justify the decision to ourselves.

About the Synthesis, the problem is visual presentation. We have some foreshadowing of good symbiotic relationships between organics and synthetics, but emotionally, that's drowned out by the pictures of Husks and the knowledge that the Reapers themselves are biosynthetic constructs. ME3's ending attempts to subvert the cosmic horror story the trilogy has started as, and many players are unable or unwilling for follow the writers there. For me, this is something I've always hoped for - demystiying the Reapers, giving them understandable reasons for their actions, turning them from Space Cthulhu to superpowered, but in the end just normal enemies. Thus, I have no problem following the writers into scenarios based on that subversion.

Others, however, have fully bought into the cosmic horror story and are unwilling or unable to change their perspective. For them, there can be only one decision: Destroy. Perfectly OK with me, as long as I have an option for a decision based on my view of the story.

 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[Iakus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

If Synthesis sucks but everyone (including the Geth and Reapers) are still alive, it can one day be undone. That is much less possible if I'm going around committing genocide, or if Control doesn't work as advertised and the reaping continues unabated.

If Synthesis kicks ass - you're welcome.

So either way, Synthesis is the right choice for my Shepard.

Assuming the galaxy hasn't been indoctrinated to be passive servants to the Reapers, of course

[Taboo]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I'm going to assume that if you are going to use Pseudo-Science as a source you need to be aware of what that entails. With such claims you are lumped into the same catergory as Ancient Astronaut Theorists.

Read about it here. I can't take you seriously if you are using this area as a source for information because it doesn't really have any basis here.

Oh that.
Okay, bad word.

I actually meant it more like Fringe Science (like in the show).
Again, read my posts and you'll see. I'm actually basing some stuff on scientific research. Not pseudo or para.

Yeah, you worried me there for a minute. You contradicted your posts with that statement. I couldn't believe what I had read. But yes it certainly is interesting as is this topic.......

Regardless of what I say I AM pleased to talk with you guys. It's far more stimulating that the endless bashing threads.

[richard_rider]

Spent 1 game fighting against synthesis (Saren), spent another game fighting against control (TIM), spent 3 games trying to destroy the reapers...the choice is clear.

[Klijpope]

richard_rider wrote...

Spent 1 game fighting against synthesis (Saren), spent another game fighting against control (TIM), spent 3 games trying to destroy the reapers...the choice is clear.

This is a 'good' element of the endings. We all have very strong opinions as to which choice is the correct one. No choice is ideal, and it seems we're reacting emotionally to these decisions. More to the point, while we can share and compare our choices and reasons, I doubt any of us will be able to persuade each other as to why we are wrong.

This is why I like the intention behind this ending. I just wish it did not require weeks of keyboard tussling to get to the point where we at least had any kind of consensus as to what they actually were.

[Taboo]

Klijpope wrote...

richard_rider wrote...

Spent 1 game fighting against synthesis (Saren), spent another game fighting against control (TIM), spent 3 games trying to destroy the reapers...the choice is clear.

This is a 'good' element of the endings. We all have very strong opinions as to which choice is the correct one. No choice is ideal, and it seems we're reacting emotionally to these decisions. More to the point, while we can share and compare our choices and reasons, I doubt any of us will be able to persuade each other as to why we are wrong.

This is why I like the intention behind this ending. I just wish it did not require weeks of keyboard tussling to get to the point where we at least had any kind of consensus as to what they actually were.

This is pretty much where we're at. We'll never be able to convinve one another of anything. Furthermore with what this evidence has proved is that Bioware really needs to provide more information and they CAN do that.

[Sisterofshane]

Klijpope wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

I think that the problem runs deeper then gameplay expectations.  While they surely have colored my overall review of the game, I think the story issues run deeper then just contradictory game mechanics.

To me, the "unexpected" twist was when the catalyst was revealed as the citadel (or at least that's all it should have been).  The information given to us by Vendetta felt cheap - like they couldn't be bothered to actually work the Catalyst (the strange being residing on the citadel) into the game.  What we have here is two separate plot twists - one that was foreshadowed properly through-out the trilolgy (the Citadel being the Key to defeating the Reapers) and another that was thrown in last minute to turn the Reapers into sympathetic villains (which they clearly were NOT forshadowed to be).

I'm not sure it is the Reapers who are made out to be sympathetic. The Catalyst is not a reaper; the reaper's just become diminished - the tools of something else (and that is a victory of sorts over Harbinger, even though we do not get gloat about it). However, I agree that Vendetta was a bit of an infodump out of nowhere (though again, much like Vigil). However, Chorban is conspicuous by his absence, and since I sweated spinal fluid to find that last bloody keeper in ME1, this is a passing disappointment. There's also concept art for a mission in the Keeper areas on the Citadel in the Artbook. This dangling thread could have lead to the Catalyst in some way, so it's a shame it has not been pursued (...yet...).

Now see, to me, ME was much more of an investigative story.  Following Saren, picking up tidbits of information here and there about Saren's Plans.  By the end, what we already knew made sense- Saren wanted the Conduit for the Reapers and it was on Ilos, upon which the Protheans were once established.  The plot twist was when the Conduit was revealed by Vigil to not be a weapon, but a back-door to the citadel, which was all properly fore-shadowed in the very beginning of the game (listening to squad dialogue, the Relay Monument, the importance of the Enigmatic Keepers).  We were allowed as the player to glean as much information as we thought was necessary from Vigil, as well as the key to stopping Saren.  We were not told anything that was contradictory to what had already been previously established within the story...

...Unlike Vendetta, whose existence comes out of nowhere (not once was it speculated that the Asari might have been holding an unfair advantage in the form of a fully-functioning Prothean Beacon before you talk to the Asari Councilor).  We are given no time to investigate what Vendetta tells us, and it doesn't connect at all to the story that has been told (okay, so the Reapers have a leader.  What does that have to do with the Price of rice in china?).  It seems almost counterintuitive to the rest of ME3's story, which is about (until that point) gathering an army and finding the catalyst.

[mauro2222]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

It all depends on how you use the term evolution.  In a biological sense, you can have the end of evolution, humanity has pretty much already reached it.  The fastest human is no longer determined by how quick he can run, but how fast his machine can take him.  Human intellect is supplemented by computers.  We are no longer a slave to our genes as far as adapting to our environment is concerned.

Technology makes us evolve, it does not stop evolution.

But that is where you are wrong, technology does not change our genes to adapt to our surroundings, rather it does the adapting  for us.

Actually, it does. Technology becomes our surroundings. That's why we are going to lose some fingers, agility and strenght.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There is - thought not in the way you mean it. The difference is a matter of scope and results. I condemn a whole species to death, destroying any future it might have, or I effect a change in physical makeup - on the whole galaxy, but the effect is far less drastic than death and is even implied to be beneficial. I have much less trouble with the latter. I would prefer to give people a choice, but if all I have is a global on/off button, I'll use it.

I don't subscribe to the notion that our physical nature is sacrosanct. We live in a symbiosis with bacteria, and our evolved biology is a complete mess, as if you'd evolved a calculator program into an AI by applying a million patches. What's so special about that? I'm not turning anyone into a monster. The ending sequence implies people are still very much themselves. I have much less trouble making a physical change of that nature than with enslaving the Reapers for the foreseeable future or exterminating all synthetics.

Living in symbiosis with another life form is not the same thing as completely rewriting it.  And Synthesis is just that:  rewriting all life to suit something's opinion on what's "best" for everyone.  Just because the changes appear small and subtle does not mean there aren't bigger changes beneath the surface.  Indoctrination is the same way.  I'm sure The Illusive Man thought everything was fine and dandy right up until the end.

I take the "new DNA" as figuratively. Because something like a hybrid DNA is logically impossible. The defining difference between synthetics and organics is not primarily physical. You have three key differences: knowledge of your creation and original purpose, functional immortality and a design that facilitiates self-improvement as opposed to the "chaotic" evolved growth of an organic. According to these key elements, an immortal human who was genetically designed from the ground up for a specific purpose would be almost a synthetic. 

These key differences are logically irreconcilable. Either you know your purpose or not. Either you're bound by time or not. Either you're designed or not. There are no hybrids possible between these aspects. That's why I interpret the Synthesis as more of a symbiosis - organics with synthetic symbionts, synthetics with software inspired by organics' mental and emotional processes. Partaking in each others' nature, facilitating understanding.

Yes, it goes against a literal interpreation of the Catalyst's words. But if the literal makes no sense, I feel justified in using a metaphorical one.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[Sisterofshane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There is - thought not in the way you mean it. The difference is a matter of scope and results. I condemn a whole species to death, destroying any future it might have, or I effect a change in physical makeup - on the whole galaxy, but the effect is far less drastic than death and is even implied to be beneficial. I have much less trouble with the latter. I would prefer to give people a choice, but if all I have is a global on/off button, I'll use it.

I don't subscribe to the notion that our physical nature is sacrosanct. We live in a symbiosis with bacteria, and our evolved biology is a complete mess, as if you'd evolved a calculator program into an AI by applying a million patches. What's so special about that? I'm not turning anyone into a monster. The ending sequence implies people are still very much themselves. I have much less trouble making a physical change of that nature than with enslaving the Reapers for the foreseeable future or exterminating all synthetics.

Living in symbiosis with another life form is not the same thing as completely rewriting it.  And Synthesis is just that:  rewriting all life to suit something's opinion on what's "best" for everyone.  Just because the changes appear small and subtle does not mean there aren't bigger changes beneath the surface.  Indoctrination is the same way.  I'm sure The Illusive Man thought everything was fine and dandy right up until the end.

I take the "new DNA" as figuratively. Because something like a hybrid DNA is logically impossible. The defining difference between synthetics and organics is not primarily physical. You have three key differences: knowledge of your creation and original purpose, functional immortality and a design that facilitiates self-improvement as opposed to the "chaotic" evolved growth of an organic. According to these key elements, an immortal human who was genetically designed from the ground up for a specific purpose would be almost a synthetic. 

These key differences are logically irreconcilable. Either you know your purpose or not. Either you're bound by time or not. Either you're designed or not. There are no hybrids possible between these aspects. That's why I interpret the Synthesis as more of a symbiosis - organics with synthetic symbionts, synthetics with software inspired by organics' mental and emotional processes. Partaking in each others' nature, facilitating understanding.

Yes, it goes against a literal interpreation of the Catalyst's words. But if the literal makes no sense, I feel justified in using a metaphorical one.

I think that considering the hybrd-DNA to be a metaphor at this point is fine.  The Catalyst is trying it's best to explain an unknowable concept to a very badly wounded and out-of time human.  How we are supposed to figure that it will solve any problems beyond the Catalyst telling so is still beyond me.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I take the "new DNA" as figuratively. Because something like a hybrid DNA is logically impossible. The defining difference between synthetics and organics is not primarily physical. You have three key differences: knowledge of your creation and original purpose, functional immortality and a design that facilitiates self-improvement as opposed to the "chaotic" evolved growth of an organic. According to these key elements, an immortal human who was genetically designed from the ground up for a specific purpose would be almost a synthetic. 

These key differences are logically irreconcilable. Either you know your purpose or not. Either you're bound by time or not. Either you're designed or not. There are no hybrids possible between these aspects. That's why I interpret the Synthesis as more of a symbiosis - organics with synthetic symbionts, synthetics with software inspired by organics' mental and emotional processes. Partaking in each others' nature, facilitating understanding.

Yes, it goes against a literal interpreation of the Catalyst's words. But if the literal makes no sense, I feel justified in using a metaphorical one.

And even then, Synthsis would not solve the problem the Catalyst asserted.

Organics have shown over and over they will war with each other.  The Heretic and True geth have shown they will fragment and even war with each other, in their own way (the Heretic virus)

Unless the Synthesis includes some sort of mental compulsion for its recipients not to war on one another, there will be conflict. There will not be peace.  There will be those who hate the geth, or the krogan, or tha batarians, or the humans.

Organic and synthetic are just words to separate different life-forms.  Take those away, and others will be found to describe "the other"  At best Synthesis is a neat parlor trick.  At worst, you're removing free will.

[nicethugbert]

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

[Taboo]

nicethugbert wrote...

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

It's a grey area. That's what is so great and frustrating about the endings in their current state.

I'm fairly certain most mothers would want their children to survive in the Destroy ending rather than have their DNA mixed around.

That's just my opinion though, regradless of circumstance nothing here is really a "good" choice.

[GroverA125]

It's borderline racist, when you think about it. It's basically saying that one kind of person is ultimately going to cause war. I ask any who believe that that point is correct to look at our history. Everyone kills each other, it's a major part of life. It doesn't matter if they come from Germany or from our own country, we still kill each other. To say it's one type of persons fault is beyond racist, it's like me saying that dying of old age is caused by americans. I'm essentially blaming a part of life on someone whom it has no real causal link to.

[frylock23]

nicethugbert wrote...

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

"Give me liberty or give me death"
- Patrick Henry

[nitefyre410]

nicethugbert wrote...

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

 

How about... saying.."No"  <<<  a simple word that carries alot of wieght.

and letting the rest ride...even if the Reapers win. Let the bones be the road  for the next cycle to put an end to this...  ya kinda like the whole idea behind the  Crucible from the start... 

Instead Bioware shoe horns everyone in to 3 three terrible choices that  are completely ludacris. 

Continue the Cycle and agree with  first Catalyst Solution
Activate space magic and other natsy things implied things  or my personal favoriate..

Prescribe to the same logic as the  Catalyst but in reverse... Great message to impart the  Bioware. The  only way  over differences is to complete wipe out the other party....   

So the only way to overcome any difference is either to A.  merge DNA and compents of all parties or B.  Kill off all opposition and those  that are  different from you... 

this is BRILLANT. 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 30 avril 2012 - 08:34 .

[frylock23]

GroverA125 wrote...

It's borderline racist, when you think about it. It's basically saying that one kind of person is ultimately going to cause war. I ask any who believe that that point is correct to look at our history. Everyone kills each other, it's a major part of life. It doesn't matter if they come from Germany or from our own country, we still kill each other. To say it's one type of persons fault is beyond racist, it's like me saying that dying of old age is caused by americans. I'm essentially blaming a part of life on someone whom it has no real causal link to.

Agreed, and the bugaboo is that even if you eliminated the barriers of race, religion, nationality, etc., you would still have people who would find something to make them different from the "other," and there would be those who would use that "otherness" as a justification to kill.

The only way Star brat's so-called solution works is if you take away all freewill on top of homogenizing everyone.

[Merchant2006]

I KNOW YOU SPECULATE THIS!

Modifié par Merchant2006, 30 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[Sisterofshane]

nicethugbert wrote...

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

What I'm reading here is that just because you can, you should.

Morality be damned!

[frylock23]

nitefyre410 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

 

How about... saying.."No"  <<<  a simple word that carries alot of wieght.

and letting the rest ride...even if the Reapers win. Let the bones be the road  for the next cycle to put an end to this...  ya kinda like the whole idea behind the  Crucible from the start... 

Instead Bioware shoe horns everyone in to 3 three terrible choices that  are completely ludacris. 

Continue the Cycle and agree with  first Catalyst Solution
Activate space magic and other natsy things implied things  or my personal favoriate..

Prescribe to the same logic as the  Catalyst but in reverse... Great message to impart the  Bioware. The  only way  over differences is to complete wipe out the other party....   

So the only way to overcome any difference is either to A.  merge DNA and compents of all parties or B.  Kill off all opposition and those  that are  different from you... 

this is BRILLANT. 

Well, you can also take absolute, dictatorial control and override all differences with your ego, too, but I also find that pretty repugnant for similar reasons.

[Taboo]

Sisterofshane wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Shepard may not have the right to make the decision, but, he was the only person in a postion to do so. He is bleeding to death and in the opponents home. Nobody else got that far. The reapers are winning the war and The Catalyst is willing to make a deal.

What do you expect? If it came up to a galactic vote, what do you think would happen? If mothers could look back in retrospect, which option would they choose for their children?

What I'm reading here is that just because you can, you should.

Morality be damned!

It isn't as bad as the Pro-Ender who told me that if people didn't like having their DNA changed they could have it reversed. He left when I pointed out how silly he was.

[Vox Draco]

iakus wrote...

And even then, Synthsis would not solve the problem the Catalyst asserted.

Organics have shown over and over they will war with each other.  The Heretic and True geth have shown they will fragment and even war with each other, in their own way (the Heretic virus)

Unless the Synthesis includes some sort of mental compulsion for its recipients not to war on one another, there will be conflict. There will not be peace.  There will be those who hate the geth, or the krogan, or tha batarians, or the humans.

Organic and synthetic are just words to separate different life-forms.  Take those away, and others will be found to describe "the other"  At best Synthesis is a neat parlor trick.  At worst, you're removing free will.

Well...the catalyst never promises synthesis will bring peace...only that the cycle will end...what that means is once again up to interpretation of you and me...

When you think of it: the majority of the gaalxy has organic DNA. I can only think of the Geth as a true sentient synthetic race. You now, however this is achieved, create a new DNA for everyone. Now we have all organics still have the same DNA + the Geth...and the Reapers, too...

The Reapers who are now not only responsible for trillions of deaths across the galaxy, but also for somehow altering everyone's DNA against their consent. If the Reapers are still around, I don't think the galaxy will be happy about them, even if they are half-synthetcs like the rest now is...war against them continues/sparks again?

And if they just leave, the galaxy will get at each other's throat like they always did. And as long as metal and plastic don't get organic DNA as well (you never know with that spacemagic!), everyone is free to create synthetics again. And hey, they might even find a way to create pure organics! Starchild's comeback then?

Ot this will just be the "final" step in evolution, and everybody in the galaxy stops breeding, adapting, thinking new ideas and is just happy to exist? I don't know, but that speculation is not making me very assured this is the right step to make....