jtav wrote...
I'm reluctantly returning to the fold. I'm suspicious at best of the transhumanist element, but Synthesis seems to be the option that most upholds respect for life and dignity.
Thats what I've been saying.....<_<CosmicGnosis wrote...
jtav wrote...
I'm reluctantly returning to the fold. I'm suspicious at best of the transhumanist element, but Synthesis seems to be the option that most upholds respect for life and dignity.
I still think Taboo has the best perspective on Destroy. He knows it's horrible, but he does it to free everyone from the tyranny of beings who think they know what's best for everyone.
. You rang?HYR 2.0 wrote...
STEEL CANNNN!!!!
. I'll take that as a complement;)HYR 2.0 wrote...
'Just felt like saying your name in a hardcore way.
That's pretty much how I read it every time I see it.
And that's perfectly acceptable. I keep wondering what about "None of the options is right, they're just right for different people" those Destroy fanatics on jtav's thread don't understand. However desirable the outcome may be, they are killing allies and destroying the living legacy of countless cycles who have limited responsibility at best for what happened. If you accept that and still say it's worth the outcome, then OK, but weaseling out of it with arguments out of a racist's toolbox just to feel superior? Pfft.CosmicGnosis wrote...
jtav wrote...
I'm reluctantly returning to the fold. I'm suspicious at best of the transhumanist element, but Synthesis seems to be the option that most upholds respect for life and dignity.
I still think Taboo has the best perspective on Destroy. He knows it's horrible, but he does it to free everyone from the tyranny of beings who think they know what's best for everyone.
Modifié par Aurora313, 26 octobre 2012 - 11:03 .
I'm not sure how I should think about this. On one hand it's good that your choice of an ending doesn't depend on buying the Catalyst's logic, on the other I would wish for a more convincing setup in order to link the ending better to the story.jtav wrote...
Actually, I still think the Catalyst is speaking nonsense. But bizarre as it may seem, I have a duty to the Reapers alongside my duty to my allies. I have to free the miserable wretches if I can. Synthesis per se is something of a side effect, but one I think I can justify because it harms none.
pirate1802 wrote...
I like the summarization. My Shepard would probably be revered as a martyr by some while reviled as the one who sold out to the Reapers by some. Hero to some and a monster to some. And I like it that way. Gives me headspace to create an interesting post-synthesis headcanon.
pirate1802 wrote...
I like the summarization. My Shepard would probably be revered as a martyr by some while reviled as the one who sold out to the Reapers by some. Hero to some and a monster to some. And I like it that way. Gives me headspace to create an interesting post-synthesis headcanon.
Modifié par Barquiel, 27 octobre 2012 - 09:29 .
pirate1802 wrote...
Thats true. I believe that's why Shepard is alone in the decision chamber; so no one ever gets to know what really happened (except high EMS destroy ofcourse.)
Modifié par Barquiel, 27 octobre 2012 - 04:28 .
Things like this are the reason my Shepard will stay incognito after he comes back after Synthesis. If it becomes known that Shepard had a choice there will be no end of bickering and recriminations. Eventually the truth will come out, but hopefully, at that time "Did he make the right choice" will be a question for the historians rather than the politicians.Barquiel wrote...
I suppose people will know that Shepard activated the crucible, but not that the crucible presented different options. She'll take the knowledge of the catalyst to the grave (in synthesis and control). The "Destroy" debriefing with the council will be interesting though. I think the salarian councilor is a synthesis guy. He'll mourn the "missed opportunity". Sparatus is never happy. Tevos...I think she'd prefer destroy or maybe control (faster rebuilding).
I think it's rather more extensive than than. In ME3's Synthesis, children are born with the integrated technology interfaces I have envisioned as clusters of nanomachines (see OP). I think it's rather more like the Edenist's society in the universe of Hamilton's "Night's Dawn" trilogy (which, unsurprisingly, I have a great fondness for). You can see their "affinity genecomplex" as building some kind of integrated QE communication device into every Edenist's body as it grows.Dr. Doctor wrote...
I sort of picture Synthesis being a lot like the augmentation technology in Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga where a vast majority of the population have chosen to be implanted with organic circuitry that grants them control over electronics, upgraded sensory perception, and a slew of other abilities.
To use another parallel of the aforementioned universe: As told in the novella "A Second Chance at Eden", the Edenists grew from the vision of one individual to become the most advanced and powerful human civilization, while their counterparts were held back by normative notions about the nature of life. Seeing Synthesis unfold in a similar way from Synthesized-Shepard's vision would have been way more satisfying than what we got, to say nothing of the ethical implications. But of course Shepard would have to survive the ending for that, and Bioware did so want the sacrifice theme that they sacrificed (!) in-world logic for it and ignored the wishes of a majority players for it...I really think that Synthesis would have worked better if Shepard was the only one to undergo the process. Partially because changing all organic and synthetic life at the molecular level is a little over the top even by Mass Effect standards. Having the Reapers suddenly stop attacking and then showing the transformed Shepard emerging from the Citadel beam before cutting to the epilogue would work rather well IMO.
Retour en haut
