9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
If EC was the orignal and only ending, would you have guys have still picked Synthesis?

Yes.

I was just thinking about this the other day and I'm not entirely sure. My intrigue for Synthesis came from the original one. But in EC, Destroy really doesn't sound as bad as it did before (downright bleak), just that the damage would be what was to be expected and nothing irreparable. Then you have the catalyst projecting Synthesis into the future after explaining it. And sure, he may end up wrong, but it reaffirms the idea that it doesn't have to be now.

It should be said that how I decided on "my choice" the first time, and then again in EC, is complicated. But all things in, I think I'd have Destroyed if we got the EC version first. Maybe I'd have reasoned for Synthesis later and switched. Maybe not.

You see, my main Shepard always wanted to understand the Reapers and learn what they knew. He always suspected what they were, right from the first meeting with Sovereign, he found them interesting and wished they weren't enemies. Now he can make it so. Also, he believes in the vision of Synthesis, and my ending choices are ruled by thematic concerns. "Destroy the abominations" is most definitely not what I'd ever want to do if there is another reasonable alternative. Last but not least, I think Destroy - and Destroy alone - should've completely and beyond recovery destroyed all Reaper tech including the relays (Control is ok as shown, Synthesis could go either way). The theme required it, and that Bioware compromised for balance by applying it to other endings as well in the OE, and by removing it from Destroy in the EC, was compromising their artistic integrity. I play as if that were the case (in fact, if I ever chose Destroy, I'd headcanon exactly that to happen).

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
If EC was the orignal and only ending, would you have guys have still picked Synthesis?

Yes.

I was just thinking about this the other day and I'm not entirely sure. My intrigue for Synthesis came from the original one. But in EC, Destroy really doesn't sound as bad as it did before (downright bleak), just that the damage would be what was to be expected and nothing irreparable. Then you have the catalyst projecting Synthesis into the future after explaining it. And sure, he may end up wrong, but it reaffirms the idea that it doesn't have to be now.

It should be said that how I decided on "my choice" the first time, and then again in EC, is complicated. But all things in, I think I'd have Destroyed if we got the EC version first. Maybe I'd have reasoned for Synthesis later and switched. Maybe not.

You see, my main Shepard always wanted to understand the Reapers and learn what they knew. He always suspected what they were, right from the first meeting with Sovereign, he found them interesting and wished they weren't enemies. Now he can make it so. Also, he believes in the vision of Synthesis, and my ending choices are ruled by thematic concerns. "Destroy the abominations" is most definitely not what I'd ever want to do if there is another reasonable alternative. Last but not least, I think Destroy - and Destroy alone - should've completely and beyond recovery destroyed all Reaper tech including the relays (Control is ok as shown, Synthesis could go either way). The theme required it, and that Bioware compromised for balance by applying it to other endings as well in the OE, and by removing it from Destroy in the EC, was compromising their artistic integrity. I play as if that were the case (in fact, if I ever chose Destroy, I'd headcanon exactly that to happen).

I resemble this remark, except for destoy as it's just a matter of picking through the destroyed reaperships bones to reconstruct the MEU techo trap.. I aways pick synthesis as a learning tool..as it were..

The game pronounces all choices to be winners tho.. Leviathan sinches my synthesis gambit, as they're out to get us/the MEU in any event. It's what they do..lol

[Ieldra]

@Wayning_Star:
The game pronounces all choices to be winning choices, yes, but I think Destroy was originally made to accommodate a mindset which would see destroying all Reaper tech, including the relays, as desirable. The "romantic" mindset, so to speak. "Destroy the abominations and all that is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are", rationalized in context by Legion's argument about development paths for technology. Synthesis was conceived to accommodate the opposite mindset: "There are no abominations, there is only the unknown, and the unknown is our future because life exists to grow beyond itself."

For various reasons, that didn't turn out well. Not only is there a large group of players to whom these thematic concerns mean nothing and who just want to kill the enemy, but the extreme presentation of the Reapers and their minions together with the "make this choice for everyone" aspect of Synthesis drew many of those players towards Destroy who would, as a rule, rather like to embrace the latter mindset.

So in the end, nobody is really content. The "I just want to kill the enemy" faction isn't content because even with the themes compromised, you still can't just kill the enemies, the romantics because high EMS Destroy doesn't destroy the relays and they don't want Earth destroyed so low EMS is no solution, the would-be Synthesizers because Destroy is still thematically unappealing but they can't justify making another decision to themselves with Synthesis tainted by "I make the choice for everyone", and the Synthesizers because while they can justify making the choice for everyone, it's still uncomfortable. It's a veritable mess.

I think the endings were written for the wrong audience. There are not many romantics in the SF fandom. Those who would naturally gravitate towards Destroy - those in which the story triggered a strong "us vs. them" mentality - are specifically put off by having to kill their allies, which wouldn't bother the romantics much who'd see organic life as the only valid life, while the radical nature of Synthesis attracts the unconventional individualists, but those are more put off by having to make a global change to everyone than, say, those who naturally gravitate towards Control would be. Basically, the side effects of both Destroy and Synthesis appear to be designed to offend specifically those players naturally attracted to these endings.

Of course there are always exceptions, but as a group the only players who don't have such problems are those who naturally gravitate towards Control. There aren't a great number of those, as the polls show.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 février 2013 - 09:34 .

[Red Panda]

Ieldra2 wrote...


The game pronounces all choices to be winning choices, yes, but I think Destroy was originally made to accommodate a mindset which would see destroying all Reaper tech, including the relays, as desirable. The "romantic" mindset, so to speak. "Destroy the abominations and all that is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are", rationalized in context by Legion's argument about development paths for technology. Synthesis was conceived to accommodate the opposite mindset: "There are no abominations, there is only the unknown, and the unknown is our future because life exists to grow beyond itself."

Oh my, you know what?
That's honestly the most rational thing I've read for the past few weeks. I mean, this is a breath of fresh air.

This is good and you should feel good, no joke.

On the other hand outside this thread...

[Taboo]

Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

And yes, even one Star Trek movie had an entire race being wiped out although I can't remember the name. Picard was there though.

Mass Effect is NOT high art Science Fiction. It's pretty basic.

[Sebby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

And yes, even one Star Trek movie had an entire race being wiped out although I can't remember the name. Picard was there though.

Mass Effect is NOT high art Science Fiction. It's pretty basic.

Mass Effect ceased having any sci-fi credibility when they introduced the Lazarus plot.

[Taboo]

Seboist wrote...
Mass Effect ceased having any sci-fi credibility when they introduced the Lazarus plot.

Hence my point. It isn't Roadside Picnic or anything.

It's just a really, REALLY good episode of Star Trek.

[Sebby]

If poorly written schlock like the ME sequels is equivalent of a good Star Trek ep then I'd hate to see a bad one.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Lazarus Project was a convient way to allow people to respec their Shepards and funnel them into working with Cerberus.

Synthesis is just there.

My point is simply that not all forms of synthesis (lowercase "s") are the same thing.

Reapers =/= biotics =/= Project Overlord =/= Project Lazarus, and what have you.

As Ieldra said, association-fallacy.

Ieldra2 wrote...

You see, my main Shepard always wanted to understand the Reapers and learn what they knew. He always suspected what they were, right from the first meeting with Sovereign, he found them interesting and wished they weren't enemies. Now he can make it so. Also, he believes in the vision of Synthesis, and my ending choices are ruled by thematic concerns.

For better or for worse I kind of see the fate of the Reapers as a secondary issue at the end of the game.

I can see how all three options at hand are solutions to stopping the cycle, which is what I'm there for foremost.

So, I dunno. For some reason EC swayed me a bit towards Destroy when I played it. Not real sure why.

Also, he believes in the vision of Synthesis, and my ending choices are ruled by thematic concerns. "Destroy the abominations" is most definitely not what I'd ever want to do if there is another reasonable alternative.

Cannot agree more!! Personally, when I see people throwing that "A-word" around with the Reapers I just can't take them seriously at all.

That's one of my bigger gripes with ME2, the bad-guys. In ME1 you had Saren and his army of krogan and geth. Saren was not just some mustache-twirling villain, he was a guy doing what he thought was best. The krogan and geth are not simply species that exist for the sake of being evil or violent enemies to shoot at. Sovereign and the Reapers were enigmatic machine-gods. Evil? Sure, but a very sci-fi world evil.

Then comes ME2 and the enemies are reduced to cheap pulp-horror with the likes of Collector Vessel and Suicide Mission. ME1 had husks, sure, but it was explained away with Kaidan's "psychological warfare" line, to make it clear that they're not just sticking zombies/techno-monster enemies into their story for shock appeal.

That ME2 pulp-horror really never had an effect on me. I just felt like, okay, it is what it is. I still don't see them as "abominations." The method to create them is abominable, but the Reapers themselves are rather elegant in design.

As for husks... yeah, I stick with the psychological-warfare. So if you're letting it bother you, you're doing it wrong!

Last but not least, I think Destroy - and Destroy alone - should've completely and beyond recovery destroyed all Reaper tech including the relays (Control is ok as shown, Synthesis could go either way). The theme required it, and that Bioware compromised for balance by applying it to other endings as well in the OE, and by removing it from Destroy in the EC, was compromising their artistic integrity. I play as if that were the case (in fact, if I ever chose Destroy, I'd headcanon exactly that to happen).

I found that somewhat appealing, in fact... see how civilization can do without Reaper-tech accelerating progress.

However, that's more romantic than practical... and not exactly wise either given the post-war issues sure to arise.

I think I'd have picked Destroy in haste, then worked my way back to Synthesis with some later thought.

[Ieldra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
That's one of my bigger gripes with ME2, the bad-guys. In ME1 you had Saren and his army of krogan and geth. Saren was not just some mustache-twirling villain, he was a guy doing what he thought was best. The krogan and geth are not simply species that exist for the sake of being evil or violent enemies to shoot at. Sovereign and the Reapers were enigmatic machine-gods. Evil? Sure, but a very sci-fi world evil.

Then comes ME2 and the enemies are reduced to cheap pulp-horror with the likes of Collector Vessel and Suicide Mission. ME1 had husks, sure, but it was explained away with Kaidan's "psychological warfare" line, to make it clear that they're not just sticking zombies/techno-monster enemies into their story for shock appeal.

That ME2 pulp-horror really never had an effect on me. I just felt like, okay, it is what it is. I still don't see them as "abominations." The method to create them is abominable, but the Reapers themselves are rather elegant in design.

Absolutely. This was one of the changed I hated between ME1 and ME2. The pulp horror is a cheap way of triggering revulsion which is ultimately meaningless. I had hoped they'd tone it tone in ME3, but no, we had to get....the banshee. I wonder if they really knew what they were doing. Considering that the ending called on us to look at the Reapers with emotional detachment, they couldn't have done themselves a worse disservice with this presentation. 

Last but not least, I think Destroy - and Destroy alone - should've completely and beyond recovery destroyed all Reaper tech including the relays (Control is ok as shown, Synthesis could go either way). The theme required it, and that Bioware compromised for balance by applying it to other endings as well in the OE, and by removing it from Destroy in the EC, was compromising their artistic integrity. I play as if that were the case (in fact, if I ever chose Destroy, I'd headcanon exactly that to happen).

I found that somewhat appealing, in fact... see how civilization can do without Reaper-tech accelerating progress.

However, that's more romantic than practical... and not exactly wise either given the post-war issues sure to arise.

I think I'd have picked Destroy in haste, then worked my way back to Synthesis with some later thought.

Romantic, exactly. As I said in one of my posts further up, Destroy was originally intended to appeal to this romantic mindset. 

I like the thematic dichotomy between Destroy and Synthesis - the former affirming the "human condition" and the traditional view of intelligent life, the latter radically breaking with it to catapult us into the unknown. It's beautiful in concept and it could've worked, had they but done two things: Establish Shepard as the avatar of the change, the first (and only) one to be directly transformed with the epilogue showing Synthesis to be embraced by most of civilization, and establish the Reapers' ambivalence - as perpetrators of the cycle on one hand and preserved civilizations, victims of the cycle on the other - more firmly in the story. 

As I see it, it was forcing the sacrifice theme that did the most damage to the ending.     

[Taboo]

You're using the term wrong again. TV Tropes is not an academic terminology database. It is a website that chronicles recurring events in artistic mediums. The term you're looking for is "basic ending."

Romanticism means you're glossing over something to prevent the negatives from being known. Synthesis is just as Romanticized as Destroy is.

In fact Romaticism was a movement used to ESCAPE from the reality of everyday life. Romanticism is an ESCAPE from reality.

One of the literal meanings is "to escape or imagine". And God knows you love to do that.

[Obadiah]

To me Destroy originally seemed more like: destroy the enemy (abomination?) and sacrifice all they have given us (Relays, tech developed by analyzing Relays and past civilizations, etc...)

[His Name was HYR!!]

 @Tabs

I think it's more the idealistic concept of being completely free (of their influence).

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
You're using the term wrong again. TV Tropes is not an academic terminology database. It is a website that chronicles recurring events in artistic mediums. The term you're looking for is "basic ending."

Romanticism means you're glossing over something to prevent the negatives from being known. Synthesis is just as Romanticized as Destroy is.

In fact Romaticism was a movement used to ESCAPE from the reality of everyday life. Romanticism is an ESCAPE from reality.

I am not using the word wrong. You don't understand my point. I am referring to the cultural movement of the late 18th and 19th century when I use the term (as does Tvtropes, btw). I have frequently capitalized it to signify that. Among other things, Romanticism pits nature vs. artifice (not sure if the latter is the right term, but you know what I mean) and asserts that what we truly are can be experienced in contact with the natural, and that industry and technology draw us away from our essential selves. 

Destroy - as originally conceived of, I believe - suggests that keeping *any* Reaper tech will lead us down a path away from our essential nature, and that that is bad. Thus: destroy the Reapers, the relays and all other Reaper-based technology. Synthesis suggests the opposite: if we want to advance/evolve (muddy use of the term intended), our essential nature needs to change. Life exists to grow beyond itself. In that way, Destroy is Romantic while Synthesis is not.

Destroy is pro-organic in the same Romantic sense: our true nature is organic and it is bad to change that, nor to submit ourselves to the rule of those who can't understand this. Synthesis is, yet again, the opposite (in this sense only. In a more general sense, control is the pro-Synthetic choice): the future calls on us to change in order to survive and advance, and that is not just necessary but desirable. Thematically (as opposed to practically), the "make the choice for everyone" problem is a side issue. For a Romantic, Synthesis is an abomination even if embraced willingly, and for the other side, Destroy is informed by a backward-löoking traditionalism even if rationalized in terms of military necessity.

The problem is that neither the original ending nor the EC has realized this dichotomy fully. The back-to-nature aesthetic and the dark age made all the original endings Romantic, and in the EC high-EMS Destroy is compromised too much by the suggestion that all technology can be repaired, even though I don't think it's accidental that we never actually see a repaired relay.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 février 2013 - 08:34 .

[Obadiah]

This is a compilation of how the ME2 squadmates react to the choice of rewriting or destroying the Heretics in Legion's loyalty mission.

Synthesis isn't rewriting of course, but a few of the squad embers refer to the rewrite in terms of "changing personalities", and "who they are," which kind of applies to the effects of Synthesis. EDI does say "All of us, Synthethic and Organic, have been changed."

I suppose the relevance of these opinions relies on how you interpret Synthesis:
- Exact same individuals with upgrades
- People who have been fundamentally transformed to be "better"

[Ieldra]

It depends on whether you think there were alterations in peoples' personalities. That is within the range of plausible interpretations, but it's not a necessary component. If you're using the Singularity Hypothesis as the scenario underlying the Catalyst's existence, then the only necessary changes are upgrades that would enable organics to keep up with synthetics. If you think communication and understanding are the primary problem to be addressed, adding the ability for mental networking might be enough.

I think that the Synthesis epilogue doesn't suggest any fundamental changes to personalities, and that at least for organics, any changes in people's opinions which may eventually happen are the result of adapting to a new way of life. For synthetics, the question is open. It appears that neither EDI nor Legion have fundamental objections to the idea of rewriting anyway.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 février 2013 - 12:01 .

[Helios969]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

[Ieldra]

Helios969 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

I don't know why this misperception is so persistent. Nothing in the epilogue suggests that people's ability to make free decisions is impaired (as free as they ever are, which isn't very in my point of view, but that's beside the point). It's just overridden for one specific decision. If I force you to make one decision, that doesn't mean you are less free to make decisions in the future.

That people are taking one for the other is either a result of false reasoning, or a result of disliking Synthesis for unrelated reasons (I suppose the "sacred nature" intuition is at work) and rationalizing it in terms of "destroying free will". Well, I suspect that while this is in the range of possible interpretations, it doesn't happen in the interpretation of anyone who actually chooses Synthesis. Which means that it never happens and that it's a propaganda item brought up by Synthesis detractors.

[Obadiah]

The Catalyst does stay away from describing Synthesis as any kind of personality alteration or brainwashing, and rather attempts to describe it in terms of what organics fundamentally want through its "Organics seek perfection..." speech.

However, its description of "the Created will always rebel against the Creators" does imply some kind of "change" to at least one side to stop Synthetics from wiping out all Organics. That change in Synthesis is meant to be some kind of accelerated evolution.

This is how the Catalyst describes the source of the conflict:
"Organics create Synthetics to improve their [own] existence, but those improvements [to Organics] have limits. To exceed those limits [to improvements to Organics], Synthetics must be allowed to evolve. They must by definition surpass their creators. The result is conflict."

So, according to the Catalyst, the Creator/Creation conflict prevents the breaking of limitations to improvements to Organics. I guess Synthesis is supposed to allow those limits to Organics to be surpassed by leapfrogging the conflict.

The whole rationale is more interesting than I orignally thought.

Take the Geth/Quarian conflict, if peace is made between the two sides in ME3 and the Synthetics (Geth) were allowed to evolve, the Geth do exceed the limitiations on improvements to the Organics (Quarians) in ways the Qaurians never imagined possible, through the whole suit upgrade thing.

Modifié par Obadiah, 05 février 2013 - 04:36 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Helios969 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

This, and also the fact that the group of people who'd be most opposed the solution are... actually alive in real life.

Control and Refuse are in the same boat, people have strong feelings towards them because we can see how they would directly affect "us" and what our approval/disapproval of that would be. Destroy... not so much. The collateral may make some people "feel" bad, sure, but you can't truly emphasize with what doesn't affect you.

[Cyberfrog81]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

I don't know why this misperception is so persistent. Nothing in the epilogue suggests that people's ability to make free decisions is impaired (as free as they ever are, which isn't very in my point of view, but that's beside the point). It's just overridden for one specific decision. If I force you to make one decision, that doesn't mean you are less free to make decisions in the future.

Depends on what you force on him, and what the long-term consequences of it are.

[blah64]

Helios969 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Destroy is entirely consistent within Western Science Fiction and established core themes. genres. You do the job, then go home with respective loved ones. Synthesis is the exact opposite, which is probably why people hate it so much.

Personally I think people hate it so much because it undermines some core philosophies of free thinking societies.  We are creatures who like our independence and the freedom to choose for ourselves.  A great many feel that we take that basic element of choice away from a galaxy of freewilled people.  I suppose from a purely videogame context there is truth in what you say, though at this point I'm not sure we can separate the game from the fiction (and the philosophical juxtaposition.)

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the issue that bothers me about synthesis; the lack of free will.

I'm not suggesting that synthesis destorys your free will, but that each induvidual in the galaxy had their choice removed when synthesis was forced upon them. I would be none to pleased, to say the least, if I went to do battle witht he Reapers and woke up half synthetic. Rage and horror would be the least of my reactions.

Modifié par blah64, 05 février 2013 - 04:47 .

[Ieldra]

blah64 wrote...
I would be none to pleased, to say the least, if I went to do battle witht he Reapers and woke up half synthetic. Rage and horror would be the least of my reactions.

Complaining on a high level. Would you rather be dead? For that's the more likely outcome when doing battle with the Reapers. Also, I think this anticipation of horror is caused by the idea of having "foreign objects" in your body, but what if everything feels perfectly natural, perfectly "of you", and you have some cool new abilities? As I see it, Synthesis isn't at all like the stuff you see in DX:HR, it's more like DX1's nano-augmentation, perfectly integrated into your body. and if it feels foreign, Synthesis hasn't worked. Exactly that's the difference between mere implants and Synthesis.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

blah64 wrote...
I would be none to pleased, to say the least, if I went to do battle witht he Reapers and woke up half synthetic. Rage and horror would be the least of my reactions.

Complaining on a high level. Would you rather be dead? For that's the more likely outcome when doing battle with the Reapers. Also, I think this anticipation of horror is caused by the idea of having "foreign objects" in your body, but what if everything feels perfectly natural, perfectly "of you", and you have some cool new abilities? As I see it, Synthesis isn't at all like the stuff you see in DX:HR, it's more like DX1's nano-augmentation, perfectly integrated into your body. and if it feels foreign, Synthesis hasn't worked. Exactly that's the difference between mere implants and Synthesis.

Synthesis always came at me as rebooting nature from the ground up with another 'take' on creation. Probably what sets off many about free will, but IF nature is the cause of synthesis, free will is an abstract between actionable, or intelligent beings, not nature, what would be considered 'just the way it is', or the given reality, unchangable absolute.

Everything intelligent life does is taken from their position in nature/space/etc. It's why I kept harping on nature and organic/synthetic beings within that natural event that IS nature it's self. Synthesis, seems to alter the enviornment to become a new type of nature, so that makes it more natural to be synthetic AND organic, as to be related in nature and less the created and the creator.

A balance of sorts to the chaos of existence? Both synthetic LIFE and organic LIFE could look at each other with less difference, more acceptable, as not to be rejected as un natural in evolution, if evolution is even part of nature?

[blah64]

Ieldra2 wrote...

blah64 wrote...
I would be none to pleased, to say the least, if I went to do battle witht he Reapers and woke up half synthetic. Rage and horror would be the least of my reactions.

Complaining on a high level. Would you rather be dead? For that's the more likely outcome when doing battle with the Reapers. Also, I think this anticipation of horror is caused by the idea of having "foreign objects" in your body, but what if everything feels perfectly natural, perfectly "of you", and you have some cool new abilities? As I see it, Synthesis isn't at all like the stuff you see in DX:HR, it's more like DX1's nano-augmentation, perfectly integrated into your body. and if it feels foreign, Synthesis hasn't worked. Exactly that's the difference between mere implants and Synthesis.

Of course I don't want to die. That's why destroy and control are around.

It's also irrelavent how "cool" it might feel, how perfectly "integrated" all the tech was with my body. I wasn't given a CHOICE. You can't just overhaul every single person's body, from the DNA up without their consent and call it moral.

One person isn't allowed to take every free thinking being up and force them to change for their own good, while defining for yourself what that good is. You don't get to decide that for me. My body, my rules.