528 réponses à ce sujet

[Noelemahc]

What device is that? And did it perform surgery on them?

The Monolith, and we don't know: clickie!
What we do know is that it creates husks and that they are different from husks made with Dragon's Teeth as they not only retain the ability to speak, they also gain a crapload of superpowers (which TIM only demonstrates in the comics, haha).

* BioWare's inclusion of genocide into Destroy is distasteful, yes.

I believe it was done to make it seem less of a "perfect outcome". Ham-fisted, yes, but ultimately understandable from a writing point of view, even if it sucks from a narrative one.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for the changes effected by the Synthesis: in my interpretation, they are reversible. This goes somewhat against the description, but since synthetics and organics can't have a hybrid form with in-between basic building blocks because can be no such thing, all you can get - at least if you apply the defintions of synthetics and organics that are, implicitly or explicitly, used in the games - is an organism that is a mix of synthetic and organic parts. A symbiotic life form, if you want. Which means the change can be reversed on an indvidual basis.

This is still a solution to the problem because the Catalyst isn't concerned with individuals but with life in the galaxy as a whole.

1. How are fundamental changes to the DNA of all life forms reversible?
2. The catalyst is only concerned with *organic* life, which no longer exists in pure form after synthesis.

[Ieldra]

frylock23 wrote...
So is synthesis. You are destroying the basic genetic structure of every organic being in the galaxy.

Just forget this "new DNA" bull****. There can be no such thing. It *has* to be taken metaphorically in order to make any sense at all. As far as I'm concerned, arguments based on a literal "genetic rewrite" are invalid.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
So is synthesis. You are destroying the basic genetic structure of every organic being in the galaxy.

Just forget this "new DNA" bull****. There can be no such thing. It *has* to be taken metaphorically in order to make any sense at all. As far as I'm concerned, arguments based on a literal "genetic rewrite" are invalid.

How do you decide what to throw out and what to keep from the description? Why would Shepard ignore that information when given it at decision time?

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
As for the changes effected by the Synthesis: in my interpretation, they are reversible. This goes somewhat against the description, but since synthetics and organics can't have a hybrid form with in-between basic building blocks because can be no such thing, all you can get - at least if you apply the defintions of synthetics and organics that are, implicitly or explicitly, used in the games - is an organism that is a mix of synthetic and organic parts. A symbiotic life form, if you want. Which means the change can be reversed on an indvidual basis.

This is still a solution to the problem because the Catalyst isn't concerned with individuals but with life in the galaxy as a whole.

1. How are fundamental changes to the DNA of all life forms reversible?
2. The catalyst is only concerned with *organic* life, which no longer exists in pure form after synthesis.

Just forget this "new DNA" bullsh*t. There can be no such thing. It
*has* to be taken metaphorically in order to make any sense at all. That's why I said my interpretation goes somewhat against the description. I feel justified in doing that because "hybrid DNA" makes no f*cking sense. I just explained this in a post on the previous page.

Also, yeah, the Catalyst is concerned about organic life. This means that it must still exist after Synthesis in some form. Another argument for Synthesis being a symbiosis rather than a combination at basic-building-block level.

[a.m.p]

Optimystic_X wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Please stop assuming that if something is good for you personally it automatically is good for everyone else. Or even for the majority of those you're deciding for.

I'm not. I'm assuming it's better than the alternatives. (No Geth, and uncertain Control.)
I've said many times that if I had more certainty as to the length and degree of Control, that that would be my preferred option.

How is that diffrent? You are assuming that something that you think is better for you (let me point out that we and Shepard still have zero information on what synthesis actualy is), is therefore better for everyone.
Are we really now debating whether partially rewriting everyone's personality (as proposed by an enemy who would just as gladly simply kill everyone) to make them better people is the right thing to do? Really?

a.m.p wrote...
And you know what? If synthesis is such an awesome thing, how about we first stop the reapers and then, without a knife to the throat of the galaxy start thinking about it. We still have the crucible plans, right? How about we arrive at the conclusion that it is the next logical step in our development and is necessary to solve the synthetic/organic problem in our own time? Now that the catalyst has kindly warned us about this problem's existance (would never have guessed otherwise).

Stop them how? With Destroy, there's no synthetics left to merge with. Whereas Control might fail, leaving us worse off than before (facing the Reapers with no Crucible.)

This is your shot, right here and now. You don't get a second chance.

My usual answer to that is - without activating the crucible, but let's not go there right now. Let's look at the other two options that we have.

Destroy, should the civilization ever recover, potentially allows for returning back to normal and rebuilding everything including synthetics. Shepard surviving allows them to actually inform the galaxy that the reaper boss believed there was this synthetic problem and there was an option for synthesis. If it's so awesome as you people are trying to tell me and the final evolution and stuff, maybe people would, you know, evolve to the point where it is desirable. On their own. So you don't have to rape them to make them better people. Damn, are we seriously debating this?

Control is very much the same, except synthetics don't get destroyed and it doesn't permanently solve the reaper problem.

Modifié par a.m.p, 10 mai 2012 - 02:30 .

[PsyrenY]

Noelemahc wrote...

That's Problem 17 with the game's ending: There Is Such a Thing As Too Much Speculation. Remember what it did to Star Wars and Harry Potter? When people's headcanon ruined their enjoyment of sequels/prequels/midquels/spinoffs?

Honestly, that is on the people themselves. I think it's as easy to envision good from Synthesis as it is evil. Most people that hate it, haven't even tried to do the former.

And again I point out the tone of the ending; had they wanted to portray Synthesis as a non-standard-game-over mistake, that visits horror on the galaxy, they easily could have done so. Instead they evoke images of beauty, harmony, and contentment. Whatever faults you might find with Synthesis' execution, I believe the intent at least was clear.

Noelemahc wrote...
I'm using "robotic" in a broad sense. The ending is obscenely vague whether it considers VIs "dumb computers" (which won't even be affected by Destroy) or close enough to AIs to die in Destroy and become meaty in Synthesis. I mean, where do we draw the divisive line for supercomputers and AIs such as EDI that do not have a humanoid shell? Would have Blake's Seven's ORAC (which is a Demon of Laplace-grade AI packed into a rather rectangular case) become a tangled mass of organs? Would have Terminators and Snatchers and LMDs and Hollow Children grow real internal organs?

I don't think "fleshy parts" are necessary to be more "organic." For instance, EDI has a sense of humor and even a gender identity, while Legion has neither; those things make her far more human than any skin or organs ever would. So clearly there are organic attributes that can be simulated by complex enough code/design. This is what I believe Synthesis does to synthetics - pushing them further along that spectrum, making them capable of empathy, not causing them to randomly sprout livers, lungs and other pointless constructs.

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@frylock23:
So it comes down to "not enough information" again? There I agree with you. We need more information. Though I still think it makes no sense to even include an option like Synthesis if the results aren't implied to be generally beneficial.

For the same reason that they made destroy sound unpleasant by tacking on the destruction of the Geth and EDI.  They tried too hard to "balance the ledger" and try to make all the choices seem legitimate. The problem is that they didn't introduce the idea of synthesis as anything remotely positive in the game. Every example of bio-synthesis we've gotten is horrific. Maybe they got that far in their analysis and that's why they decided to tack EDI and the Geth onto destroy because most people are going to head that way automatically. Destroy the Reapers is what we're supposed to do. It's the mission.

Whatever the reason, they made it look all roses and daises, and I don't think they really thought that deeply about what they were implying with it. I'll be honest; it's not so much the idea of augmenting humans via technology that I find so abhorent, it's the method. The idea that one person should have the power and feel perfectly justified in just jumping into a beam/flipping a switch and forcing such a change on everyone without their knowledge or consent has absolutely uncomfortable and horrific implications. That's what I don't think BioWare thought of or considered. 

[frylock23]

Ieldra2 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...
So is synthesis. You are destroying the basic genetic structure of every organic being in the galaxy.

Just forget this "new DNA" bull****. There can be no such thing. It *has* to be taken metaphorically in order to make any sense at all. As far as I'm concerned, arguments based on a literal "genetic rewrite" are invalid.

Ok, if you throw that out, then we also throw out the Normandy cut scene at the end because it makes absolutely no sense in any way. There is now practical way it could be actually happening as has been explained many times in numerous threads. Therefore, any information you take away from it to make synthesis a beautiful experience also gets to go out the window.

See how that works?

[Noelemahc]

I think it's as easy to envision good from Synthesis as it is evil. Most people that hate it, haven't even tried to do the former.

Oh, I love playing devil's advocate. I know that all three options have their good interpretations (and Destroy is pretty much flawless for people who didn't hook EDI up with Joker and destroyed the Geth; or that there are people who, like Jessica Merizan, subscribe to the "enslave Reapers to rebuild relays with Control" interpretation; and then there's people like you who want to usher in a transhumanist Singularity of magical wonderment), and that they have the bad as well (will the VIs go with Destroy? this means the quarians will die or suffer very badly too; will their dependance on cybernetic implants kill them eventually anyway? if you saved the Geth, this is outright genocide, as well. Will Control really hold the Reapers for long? How exactly will Shepard exist? Will he be eternal or mortal? Reaper or disembodied spirit? Does Synthesis affect brains? How do you rewrite/replace DNA to make techno-organic creatures based off so many different templates? I can accept that they will be living, but will they be the same people in new bodies or what?)

Instead they evoke images of beauty, harmony, and contentment. Whatever faults you might find with Synthesis' execution, I believe the intent at least was clear.

The intent was clear for all the options, yes. But we do have truckloads of issues with the execution and implications they all carry that remain unanswered =(

This is what I believe Synthesis does to synthetics - pushing them further along that spectrum, making them capable of empathy, not causing them to randomly sprout livers, lungs and other pointless constructs.

So why does it cybernate organics then? Necessary evil? Some sort of side-effect? How does it even work? Why does EDI glow in the same green sheen as Joker? Will he ever get some?

They tried too hard to "balance the ledger" and try to make all the
choices seem legitimate. The problem is that they didn't introduce the
idea of synthesis as anything remotely positive in the game. Every
example of bio-synthesis we've gotten is horrific.

Thank you, thank you for those words! That's something I've been firmly holding onto for the longest of times - it's as if they themselves suspected they failed to make the options equal enough, and it went like the fable about the fox and the cheese.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 10 mai 2012 - 02:45 .

[Deemz]

Because one person should not have the right to force the DNA of every living thing. Besides, ... Of never mind ... Just enjoy whatever color explosion you want

[PsyrenY]

a.m.p wrote...

How is that diffrent? You are assuming that something that you think is better for you (let me point out that we and Shepard still have zero information on what synthesis actualy is), is therefore better for everyone.
Are we really now debating whether partially rewriting everyone's personality (as proposed by an enemy who would just as gladly simply kill everyone) to make them better people is the right thing to do? Really?

If he was truly an enemy, here is what he would do:
1) Insufficient EMS: he wouldn't bring you up at all, the Crucible would be inadequate for his master plan and therefore you are useless to him. He leaves you down below, takes out the fleet, and waits for the next organics to arise.
2) Sufficient EMS: He would only mention Synthesis, and tell you that was the Crucible's function.

Any other response is senseless and illogical, especially explaining to you exactly how to destroy him and his creations, and furthermore leaving the possibility of your survival in doing so an open question (not dying is inherently desirable compared to dying) when it is a closed book in the other paths.

a.m.p wrote...
My usual answer to that is - without activating the crucible, but let's not go there right now. Let's look at the other two options that we have.

Destroy, should the civilization ever recover, potentially allows for returning back to normal and rebuilding everything including synthetics. Shepard surviving allows them to actually inform the galaxy that the reaper boss believed there was this synthetic problem and there was an option for synthesis. If it's so awesome as you people are trying to tell me and the final evolution and stuff, maybe people would, you know, evolve to the point where it is desirable. On their own. So you don't have to rape them to make them better people. Damn, are we seriously debating this?

Control is very much the same, except synthetics don't get destroyed and it doesn't permanently solve the reaper problem.

Equating Synthesis with rape is a fallacious argument. Rape has nothing in common with Synthesis save the lack of consent - the circumstances, method and desired outcomes are all completely different. And it isn't the first time Shepard has acted unilaterally, merely the furthest-reaching. So yes, we are seriously debating this, because I don't see it the way you do.

I've already mentioned the problems with Control above. The Catalyst is doubtful as to whether it will work (at least not long-term) and you have done nothing to alter the Reapers' underlying programming, leaving the galaxy in much worse shape than if you had done nothing.

As for Destroy - in our cycle, all AI synthetics were created by accident. Nobody actually knows how to do it, likely because any research in the matter is outlawed and must therefore be conducted secretively. So the next AI could, and likely will, pop up somewhere we don't expect, and quickly learn of the last time AI were around, when the organics used a device to erase all synthetic life from the galaxy. The ramifications of that knowledge could be benign, or they could be malefic.

And finally, for evolving on our own, I personally have no problem with that, but given that the cycle is already underway there is no time for such a lengthy process. And we have no guarantee that we would be able to achieve such a pinnacle before creating our cycle's own Zha'til, or more Geth glitching out to kill all humans and rewriting the others etc.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 10 mai 2012 - 02:50 .

[PsyrenY]

frylock23 wrote...

[Every example of bio-synthesis we've gotten is horrific.

Are Salarians horrific? They "embrace the concept."
Is Adams horrific? He clearly does too.
Is Tali horrific? She has cybernetic implants, as do all Quarians.
Is Shepard horrific? Synthetic parts resulted in a miracle for him/her.

etc.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 10 mai 2012 - 02:49 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

As for Destroy - in our cycle, all AI synthetics were created by accident.

Not all of them. EDI is probably the most obvious example. 

[Noelemahc]

Not all of them. EDI is probably the most obvious example.

She gained self-awareness accidentally. When Cerberus took her in, she was already an AI that self-evolved.

Are Salarians horrific? They "embrace the concept."
Is Adams horrific? He clearly does too.
Is Tali horrific? She has cybernetic implants, as do all Quarians.
Is Shepard horrific? Synthetic parts resulted in a miracle for him/her.

You're confusing transhumanism with full-scale synthesis again. Go have that talk with EDI about transhumanism, please. The one where she makes the distinction that it "doesn't count" if the brain doesn't get augmented. Only Salarians do that of all the organics, and even then it's not widespread and we don't really KNOW how these people are viewed by their own society, as far as Shep's concerned, we never met one.

[Siansonea]

Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis—I feel like I've run across that concept in other sci-fi properties before. Oh yeah, now I remember!

Modifié par Siansonea II, 10 mai 2012 - 03:01 .

[PsyrenY]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Not all of them. EDI is probably the most obvious example.

As Noel mentioned, she was an accident too. Cerberus merely souped up her processing power so she could stand toe-to-toe with Reapers/Collectors. (All AI is not created equal, as we can see when comparing Reapers to the Heretics.)

Noelemahc wrote...
You're confusing transhumanism with full-scale synthesis again.

I am indeed referencing EDI's talk, and I see no meaningful distinction between the two. The Catalyst's estimation of synthesis makes it clear that he is referring to it in a transhuman sense; internalizing the synthetics we rely on so that we don't have to "imagine our life without them."

Noelemahc wrote...
Only Salarians do that of all the organics, and even then it's not widespread and we don't really KNOW how these people are viewed by their own society, as far as Shep's concerned, we never met one.

I honestly don't care how "society views them." Society hates the Geth, Rachni and Krogan too, that doesn't make Society right.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 10 mai 2012 - 03:01 .

[a.m.p]

Optimystic_X wrote...

If he was truly an enemy, here is what he would do:
1) Insufficient EMS: he wouldn't bring you up at all, the Crucible would be inadequate for his master plan and therefore you are useless to him. He leaves you down below, takes out the fleet, and waits for the next organics to arise.
2) Sufficient EMS: He would only mention Synthesis, and tell you that was the Crucible's function.

He is killing you. Regardless of motivations he claims that makes him an enemy. By the time you are asked to pick a choice he has done nothing to suggest he is on any level firendly or trustworthy. Shepard knows as
much about what would happen if they shoot the tube as they would if there was no catalyst there.

He hasn't even stopped his reapers from attacking once he brought Shepard up to his platform. He is literally killing your allies while explaining you how these options are going to solve all your  his problems. But I digress. That is the unresolved problem of looking at it from an in-universe perspective.

Equating Synthesis with rape is a fallacious argument. Rape has nothing in common with Synthesis save the lack of consent - the circumstances, method and desired outcomes are all completely different. So yes, we are seriously debating this, because I don't see it the way you do.

Well, lack of consent is what I am talking about, among other things. You are arguing that rewriting the personalities of every being in the galaxy to agree with your perspective that synthesis is good for them is the right thing to do because if we don't do that then you think we're doomed. You may notice a lot of "you" and "your" in that statement. That is because all of this is your personal opinion and your personal interpretation of what a hostile entity (see above) is telling you. And based on it you're willing to inflict an unknown fundamental change on a galaxy full of people.
And you are saying this is okay.

Modifié par a.m.p, 10 mai 2012 - 03:13 .

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

[Every example of bio-synthesis we've gotten is horrific.

Are Salarians horrific? They "embrace the concept."
Is Adams horrific? He clearly does too.
Is Tali horrific? She has cybernetic implants, as do all Quarians.
Is Shepard horrific? Synthetic parts resulted in a miracle for him/her.

etc.

They aren't actually bio-synthetics. Tali and Shepard are close with implants, but do we consider people with implants in today's society to be cyborgs? No, and in fact, Shepard has to be monitored for rejection of her implants even as extensively as she was implanted, or did you miss that convo with Doc? Yeah, she has implants, but they aren't truly a part of her, or she wouldn't be in danger of rejecting them.

Reapers, Reapers constructs, Saren, TIM, Cerberus in ME3, Zha'til -> those are truer bio-synthetics.

[Noelemahc]

I am indeed referencing EDI's talk, and I see no meaningful distinction between the two. The Catalyst's estimation of synthesis makes it clear that he is referring to it in a transhuman sense; internalizing the synthetics we rely on so that we don't have to "imagine our life without them."

Ah. That's the rub. You're either a very logical or a very unemotional person, maybe both? Never had a hot-headed decision? More Spock than McCoy? There's a very important distinction between "still Species A, just with bits of metal latched on to help it do whatever it is it does" and "something shaped like Species A that has ceased to be it because it's more machine than man now".

And no, Darth Vader is not an example you can bring into this - as far as we know, his brain was never augmented either, although his brain chemistry must've been messed up badly by the time Obi-Wan said that, by the damage and wear and tear done to his body by lava and time. And messed brain chemistry leads to changes in personality.

Synthesis, synthesis, synthesis—I feel like I've run across that concept in other sci-fi properties before. Oh yeah, now I remember!

a.m.p. and I could provide examples from Soviet sci-fi that predate the Borg, but yes, the concept is similar - at some point when you're more machine than organic, your system of values might fundamentally change because your pyramid of needs is now different, and that's as fundamental as it gets. You have to have a very strong grip on your sanity and your personality to retain both, and even then -- the maligned brain chemistry issue will make sure you fail whatever you do =)

"We will make you happy. We will remove your needs, your fears, your pains." (damn, I need to get that whole quote memorized one day)

I honestly don't care how "society views them." Society hates the Geth, Rachni and Krogan too, that doesn't make Society right.

It is important to understand how said Society will react when everyone in it will become partly synthetic.
Some will cry "This is God's punishment for meddling with the unknowable!"
Some will shout "But he said he used protection!"
Some will say nothing and just shoot themselves because they had a traumatic PTSD-grade experience with an out-of-control loader bot in childhood.
Some will say "LOL, LOOKIT WOT I KAN DO NAO" and go stick their fingers in a wall outlet.
Oh, and some will totally go stone the known transhumans/salarians/whatever, because that's what people do in times of sudden and inescapable stress, they lash out.

[frylock23]

Optimystic_X wrote...


If he was truly an enemy, here is what he would do:
1) Insufficient EMS: he wouldn't bring you up at all, the Crucible would be inadequate for his master plan and therefore you are useless to him. He leaves you down below, takes out the fleet, and waits for the next organics to arise.
2) Sufficient EMS: He would only mention Synthesis, and tell you that was the Crucible's function.

Any other response is senseless and illogical, especially explaining to you exactly how to destroy him and his creations, and furthermore leaving the possibility of your survival in doing so an open question (not dying is inherently desirable compared to dying) when it is a closed book in the other paths.

He's the tech singularity. He's been "kind" enough to preserve organic life thus far, but now we've gotten to be too chaotic to be useful to him. So, his preservation solution no longer works. The Crucible does work this far: he has to present you the three options. However, it doesn't stipulate how he presents them, and he doesn't have to present them honestly without spinning them.

If you pick synthesis, you accomplish the stated goal of the tech singularity -> you wipe out all organic life. It hardly matters that no one actually dies. Organic life is no more. The chaos is gone. Only he has any idea what will actually happen afterward or what it will truly mean for those left afterward. One thing is certain -> there is no more organic life. Isn't that what he said he was trying to prevent with his Reaper cycle? Well no wonder the cycles will end. There is no longer any reason for them. No more organic life. Duh!

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
Not all of them. EDI is probably the most obvious example.

As Noel mentioned, she was an accident too. Cerberus merely souped up her processing power so she could stand toe-to-toe with Reapers/Collectors. (All AI is not created equal, as we can see when comparing Reapers to the Heretics.)

Except no. 

The VI malfunctioned and gained rudimentary self-awarness, nearly becoming an AI in full, but wat then destroyed/deactivated by Shepard. 

EDI was loosely based on this VI, but Cerberus created the AI that we came to know. 

Then of course, we have Eva, and the galmbing AI from ME1. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 mai 2012 - 03:32 .

[rev1976]

one word : eugenics

i found it vile and distastful and will NEVER choose it as an option because i aint no ****in n@zi

[a.m.p]

Noelemahc wrote...
a.m.p. and I could provide examples from Soviet sci-fi that predate the Borg, but yes, the concept is similar

That we can.

at some point when you're more machine than organic, your system of values might fundamentally change because your pyramid of needs is now different, and that's as fundamental as it gets. You have to have a very strong grip on your sanity and your personality to retain both, and even then -- the maligned brain chemistry issue will make sure you fail whatever you do =)

"We will make you happy. We will remove your needs, your fears, your pains." (damn, I need to get that whole quote memorized one day)

You know, I would not have minded the existance of synthesis as an option if it wasn't presented as this beautiful utopian future with green eyes and happiness for everyone. Ieldra keeps saying there is no downside.
That is my problem. Because no matter how beneficial the change is there are huge downsides. Show them, dammit. Because when people begin claiming that an ending, that invloves forcibly turning people into whatever it is synthesis turns them into on a galactic scale, is totally awesome (because cyborgs!), there is a problem.

Modifié par a.m.p, 10 mai 2012 - 03:37 .

[akenn312]

Optimystic_X wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

[Every example of bio-synthesis we've gotten is horrific.

Are Salarians horrific? They "embrace the concept."
Is Adams horrific? He clearly does too.
Is Tali horrific? She has cybernetic implants, as do all Quarians.
Is Shepard horrific? Synthetic parts resulted in a miracle for him/her.

etc.

I'm sorry but I don't see this in Mass Effect at all.

There is nothing I see within the Salarian's storyline that show me they embrace bio-sythesis and it's okay. Actually the Salarins are looked down upon and considered extremely shady and untrustworthy at times because of their tampering with Krogan DNA to create the Genophage. Remember that was considered horrible to do to the Krogan. That's a huge theme preaching against tampering with a species evolution to save your own skins. Curing the Genohage is meant to get the Krogan back to where they should be before the Salarians tampered with their evolution. Good or bad they should be given the right to evolve on thier own terms.

What is Adams doing that encourages bio-sythesis? All he does is ask for a thermal pipe or two and if he has brought up anything about bio-sythesis that a reach because he's not even a necessary character to converse with. Am I mistaking another Adams here?

Tali is not horrific of course, but I think the Quarians reliance on technology to make their lives easier shows a bit of karma that they lost their homeworld and started the Geth war. But using a cybernetic implant that is a individual choice is much different than forcing everyone to become bio-sythetic beings.

Shepard's implants were to bring him back yes, but the main theme of this was they didn't change who he was as a person or his DNA he was still organic and still a human being. Shepard still remained himself. That was considered extremely important. Also remember an evil organization did this, it wasn't the Alliance or his crew no one but the Illusive Man would try to play god and resurrect a fallen hero for his own purpose.

Actually to add on I thought the Miranda storyline with her father messing with her DNA and others like the Krogan and Saren's storyline was a great consistant argument against playing god and messing around with genetics....

Which the Catalyst is doing with Synthesis.

So i'm kinda taken back on how people are okay with this story going against those previous themes of letting species evolve naturally or not playing god. The Reapers are tampering with the natural evolution already, why allow them to do it again? The point is to get us back to where the Reapers don't tamper with our genitcs and evolution anymore.

Modifié par akenn312, 10 mai 2012 - 04:40 .