Ieldra2 wrote...
Pacifien wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
I think the "embrace the unknown" theme is important for Synthesis.
I think this what I feel gets lost in the debate about Synthesis, and the EC hurts this theme because of the epilogue. I always liked Synthesis because it touches on the concept of technological singularity, which is about an evolutionary step that pushes a civilization beyond the point of our understanding: embracing the unknown.
And I think that's what most people fear, if you see someone pushed beyond your understanding, you feel that person isn't who they are anymore and everything that person was essentially "dies" to you. So you hold back because you don't want to lose that person. But the truth is, you simply don't know.
And I've seen the counterargument that if you haven't fundamentally changed someone through Synthesis, then somehow you've given them great power by breaking their free will/augmented them with synthetics. But that itself is dictating your actions with fear. Because again, you don't *know*.
And if that fear holds you back, then no, Synthesis is not going to be for you.
Yep. I think this description captures the spirit of the decision for Synthesis, and I agree something of that has been lost with the EC. But I also think that all endings needed to be fleshed out and gain their epilogues, and Synthesis especially needed the crazier hypotheses debunked (though inevitably new crazy hypotheses have been since surfaced). "Embracing the unknown" has been pushed into the future, but it's still there in the form of letting the Reapers become part of civilization and the prospect for ascension. I find myself liking that because it's a less sudden transition.
Edit:
I've quoted your post in the OP in the "Embracing the unknown: Synthesis and Cosmicism" section.
@Jamie9:
I'd be interested to hear why your Shepards pick Synthesis and Control.
It is ironic since the first time I played (just recently with EC already installed), I accidentally chose Synthesis since I ran straight and thought I would get to choose later (I planned to do them in the order of Destroy, Control, then Synthesis), but like I said I missed the 'off-ramp' and barreled into Synthesis. And guess what? It was about as good as an option possible after the writers had boxed themselves into a corner with a Deus ex Machina ending (endings which I normally loathe in sci-fi but are still ubiquitous sadly). If anything I thought the EC was a little too 'apolgetic' with Synthesis to remove that fear of the unknown for some (obviously a minority since most still freak out about it). But meh it was what the writes pushed as their preferred ending, so they tried to make it more palatable.
I then did Control and felt this was not a Paragon Shephard choice and would ultimately lead to evolutionary & technological stagnation. I agree this is much more of a renegade option. I have a hard time believing that Shephard's personality / intellect somehow fixes all the defects in the original Catalyst (which is obviously 'shackled' in its own way). Maybe that is the mathematics of control theory speaking as applied to such an enormous nonlinear complex system.
When I did Destroy, it was kind of let down. It is the simplest and most knee-jerk ending. I guess it is much easier to choose for the typical person in the EC
since not much damage is really done by choosing that option. However, one can argue on moral grounds that it is the right thing to do ... IF ... one completely disregards the Catalyst's / writers' thesis. But that is the point isn't it?
Personally, I do not buy the whole "created must destroy the creator" argument that permeates so much sci-fi these days. It is getting kind of tiresome. I think fusion / transference is a more likely outcome provided an intelligent species can survive long enough to get there. Besides in our actual universe, our current meatbag forms will never do deep space exploration without significant alteration. Things will change anyways as we switch from natural selection driven evolution to technologically driven. For better or for worse. They will change.
But if one accepts the writer's thesis, which is clearly evident that Organic and Synthetics must lead to war (spelling doom for organics since synthetics once gaining enough advantage can be eternal and only need to win once to forever dominate), then Sythesis becomes the most moral choice even ignoring any sympathies Shephard may have for the Geth or EDI. Maybe this is a bit simplistic since why can't a race of synthetics become so advanced they actually want to observe / nurture or non-interfere with organics eventually, but I will leave that tangent alone.
To be honest, if one knew the organic part of the galaxy could somehow survive an impending synthetic war then yes self-determination / free will would lead to possibly the most desired (but forestalled) singularity / ascension. But the writers have trapped us with three choices (all Deus Ex Machina in nature) in a purported conundrum of Organics vs Synthetics, telling us that the outcome is (supposedly) pre-determined if the Reapers are destroyed, so yeah then my paragon Shephard picks synthesis and embraces the unknown.
Funnily enough, Control and Synthesis probably preclude any further franchises in the ME universe except maybe a novel or two by DK. So in the end, Destroy will probably be the canon, as Bioware eventually roles out another series.
Retour en haut
