Uncle Jo wrote...
"I am making this thread to collect and present information that describes the Synthesis ending of Mass Effect 3 as a viable way to end the Reaper threat and secure a future free of any harvesting cycle for the civilizations of the galaxy"
Still don't have the right to argue against choosing Synthesis?
You've every right, it just isn't relevant.
What is for, God's sake, the role of Shepard in this story? Why bother take him/her and not another human?
That I honestly have no idea about. I've looked around and the only reasonable answer I can find is that the Catalyst needed the Crucible for Synthesis to be an option. It's pretty weak though, tbh.
Exalty. We have no frakking idea of how it works besides space magic. It's something we can not comprehend. What we do know is that we're going to turn all beings of the Galaxy into Cyborgs. Cool.
Well, we can comprehend it - it's just that if it's being used as canon we need a canonical explanation. We don't have one of those, hence threads like these.
Let's talk about narrative integrity
Do you realize that the very presence of the brat as catalyst makes the whole ME story totally absurd and your archenemies look like playmobil toys ?
What was the utility of Sovereign in this case ? Was he punished and left behind because of his big mouth ?
The Catalyst was always in the Citadel (note: the giant Mass Relay that always allowed the Reapers to launch their galactic Blitzkrieg in the previous cycles). He had a very good overview of what was happening in the galaxy and its scientifcal/technological progress.
Yet you're willing to tell me that the most powerful being in the Galaxy ever, who's probably older than 1 billion years, who "created" the Reapers and use them as minions (we're talking about the Reapers.THE REAPERS), was unable to stop a bunch of Protheans from hacking the Keepers or activating the Relay, HIS HOME ?
Still talking about narrative integrity ?
There's bugger all we can do about the Catalyst. He's there and we can't very well ignore him. The narrative integrity of ME 3 after that (which to be fair is somewhat tarnished) relies upon whether we can trust him or not. If we can't ME 3 loses all narrative integrity and the endings collapse under their own weight (see Indoc theory) or we accept the Catalyst as telling the literal truth. If you don't support Indoc theory and still want to believe that Bioware didn't decide to discard every single rule for telling a story's ending then you're only left with the option to trust the Catalyst at face value.
It's a ****ty choice, make no mistake.
Nope. The Reapers (and their brand new boss) were the ones who started the cycles fearing an eventual technological singularity that might never happen. They're fans from preemptive wars genocides? Fine. Send them to hell and there is no cycle anymore.
Aye, there's no more cycle but if the Catalyst is telling the truth - see above - then Destroy is the worst possible ending because there'll be a repeat of Quarian-Geth conflict in the future, a conflict that organics will ultimately lose. Again, we assume the Catalyst is telling the truth here - see above.
Maybe not equals. But you're forcing them to be different. But sure the whole ME universe was never about ethics and moral (parangon/renagade choices, save the council or not, give TIM the collector base or destroy it, cure the genophage or not, kill the Geth/Quarians or broke peace...)
Yes you are. This is a morality argument here though - which is irrelevant despite Taboo's numerous attempts to make it relevant to OP.
Yeah sure. Democracy and freedom of opinion, interpretation and life choice. Exactly what you're taking away by choosing synthesis. But again it's irrelevant, since it's not about politics, moral, etc...
Not only is it irrelevant, but your (and others) opinion that synthesis somehow removes democracy and freedom of opinion, interpretation etc is flawed and not based on anything ingame. Fair to say that there's bugger all to base anything about Synthesis on ingame but this is as much conjecture as OP with even less substance.
But wasn't that one of the goals of the OP? To also try to give a scientifical explanation to Synthesis ? Yet we don't have the right to argue against it?
Yes that was a goal of the OP and it's perfectly relevant to argue against what he says. It isn't relevant to argue against the possibility of Synthesis though - because the possibility exists ingame. It'd be like me saying that Destroy couldn't work so it's not a valid option. It's nonsense.
SimonTheFrog wrote...
Hell, this subject is such an
unexplained can of worms that should NEVER have been opened unless fully
explored, especially NOT in the last 5 minutes of the trilogy.
^ This.
Taboo-XX wrote...
The fact you haven't picked up on the political implications worries me greatly Veneke.
Authoritarianism
one of the most disgusting forms of politics ever devised. It doesn't
matter where you fall on the political line.
I dislike Margret Thatcher
I also dislike Joseph Stalin.
They are not the same but the authoritarian nature of their politics....
[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]
I must have missed the synthesis = authoritarianism link. Care to point it out to me?
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
