9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Not entirely sure what you mean by negative parrellels, but I don't think it really matters.  Your analogy makes it clear you are missing the point, it wasn't that someone wanted to save people from Dark Lord Cthulu so they created a slightly less worse one.  It was that they created the Dark Lord Cthulhu to save people from something unimaginable.  Another interesting parallel, as Lovecraft was absolutly freaked by Einstein's relativity, and it's reliance on non euclidean geometry (which is why he described the alien realms in his writing as having non euclidean geometry) .  He feared that such technological advances would plunge the world into, guess what? Chaos.  Sound familiar?

Embracing the unkown and unpredicatlbe is why sythesis is such a middle finger to the ideals that the Reapers represented.

The point of the analogy is why the parallels would be out of place and ill-fitting and why I think Lovecraft has little to do with synthesis.  Otherwise, the writing behind the endings comes off as even worse.

If the writers honestly wanted synthesis to be considered a rejection of what the Reapers represent, they shouldn't have made the one who regards it as the "perfect solution" be the Reapers' master introduced at the last minute regardless of whatever developments have occurred.

That's precisely the point, Lovecraft would have little to do with synthesis, it is clear that he felt human kind was never meant to achieve such a result.

What do you think the reapers represent?  Throughout the series, I thought they represented technolgical stagnation through destruction and control, certainly those are the antithesis of what synthesis is.

From a purely superficial standpoint, they are Lovecraftian horrors made more mundane to fit into the story being told; Legion says as much about them in the third game although I doubt they represent technological stagnation specifically (this is a definate byproduct of their methodology, however). 

As long as the cycle is in place civilizations certainly cannot advance beyond a certain degree technologically, though the threat of total subjugation and extinction are far worse consequences. If I were to say they represented anything, it would be oppression that prevents self-determination.

Ha, yea, ME2 definitly did a number on the reapers.  Generally, I think lovecraft horrors are pretty dull, but ME1 didn't do a bad job of handling it, and they definitly had multple ways to move the reapers forward (which I touched on in a post a long time ago)  Unfortunatly what we got was Harby in ME2.

It isn't a by-product of their method, it is THE product, the whole reason they exist.  To cap the technological advancement of the current cycle inhabitants and upload them into reapers where they just do the same thing over and over and over....

[Shaigunjoe]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

The Catalyst lacks the perspective of individual beings. It has no understanding of what being "alive" really means. It's more concerned with "life" as a large-scale concept. I think that is why it appears as the child from Earth.

If my interpretation is correct, what does Synthesis mean in this context? Is it a choice that completely disregards the perspective of the individual? And if so, is the choice really ideal for all beings for all time? I know I've talked about this in the past, but it's on my mind again...

I thought there were a couple of reasons the catalyst was a kid, but I think the biggest ones is two remind shep who s/he was making the decision for.  Not the children, but what the children represent, the future.  And not only the immediate future, but the future, way way down the road.

One of the first modern day ethicists was Spinoza, and he wrote a lot about making the correct moral choice.  From wikipedia:

Even those that consider themselves to exercise free will,
make moral decisions on the basis of imperfect sensory information,
inadequate understanding of their mind and will, as well as emotions
which are both outcomes of their contingent physical existence and forms
of thought defective from being chiefly impelled by self-preservation.
The solution, according to Spinoza, was to gradually increase the
capacity of our reason to change the forms of thought produced by
emotions and to fall in love with viewing problems requiring moral
decision from the perspective of eternity.

I feel like the eternity perspective is important, to make a choice not based on what happens immediatlly but what you think might happen in the severe long term.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I suppose you're right. It's just hard to ignore the fact that Synthesis forces a change on a being. It's too similar to the forced husk transformation, in that a change occurs without the consent of the individual. That's really my greatest lingering problem with the endings. Every choice is "tainted" by some aspect of the Catalyst's methods. Destroy resets the galaxy, just like the Reapers do. Control guides the galaxy, just like the Reapers do. Synthesis forcibly integrates organics with technology, just like the Reapers do. Refuse allows the Reapers to outright win, although they are defeated in a future cycle.

All of the things you just attributed to the Reapers/Catalyst, Organics do as well, just on a smaller scale. You could also say that spaceflight involves moving in space "just like the reapers do".

Garrus decided to pull back the fleet from Palaven, He condemed million of Turians to die in one of the most horrible way imaginable, similar decisions were made by the other species in the Galaxy. The endings make similar decisions at a larger scale, but they are our choices using our technology.

The biggest failure of Bioware's in ME3 was the failure to illustrate that the choices you get have _nothing to do with the Reapers_ and were wholely created by the combined efforts of the previous cycles organics, the OC was _terrible_ in failing to point this out and the EC was only slightly better, "suprise-antagonist-as-narrator" was a terrible idea, however if you look past that failure and see the intent (The destroy and control consoles came from the Crucible, the Catalyst states it can't do anything about the options, etc etc) the choices are intented to be difficult but not a case of collusion-with-the-enemy that so many assume.

I think this point can't be overstated. To me it was always obvious that none of the endings were intended to be a collusion with the enemy, to the point that it took me by surprise to see that some people interpreted them that way. "You must act", "You changed the variables" and "The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen" are rather obvious in that regard. The fact that the Catalyst is the one presenting the choices tends to mask this, and making the antagonist the narrator of the ending exposition was an epic storytelling blunder by Bioware in the last ten minutes of the trilogy, but it's still rather easy to see beyond it. 

+1

[Ieldra]

@Shaigunjoe, Absaroka:
I think what the Reapers represent in a Lovecraftian context is a little more complicated. Yes, the cycle is akin to keeping civilizations in that comfortable ignorance, but the Reapers themselves are an aspect of the feared unknown, the kind we are called to change ourselves to understand. Recall how Legion speaks of a Reaper mind? "Vast and unknowable". Recall the options at the talk with the Rannoch Reaper? You have one asserting the human understanding: "you''re already dead" and one asserting your own badassery against all odds (I'm guessing - I've never seen the Renegade option) - but on the left, you have "make us understand". I've always found taking that option a necessary precondition for choosing Synthesis, for Synthesis will take civilization on a path where it will eventually understand those "vast and unknowable" thought processes (no matter that the Reapers' motivations weren't all that hard to understand, the theme still exists).

Also, the vibe I get from the Lovecraft quote is not that the human mind is intrinsically unable to understand some aspects of the universe, but rather that it doesn't want to let go of comfortable human delusions even while recognizing them as such, i.e. that the human mind is not willing to understand and that those who try tend to lose perspective of their existence as human beings. Synthesis - true to the term - asserts that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Sure, we'll change, and in future we might change in unexpected ways - but we'll do that anyway eventually, and by embracing the unknown willingly we'll have at least some control over the process. Madness, that comes from the attempt to contemplate the truths of the universe while maintaining an exclusively human perspective. Sanity on a higher, "synthesized" level, that is contemplating each aspect of the universe maintaining a perspective appropriate to it. I think that's the meaning of EDI's "we may reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine". It does sound schizophrenic to us now, unsurprisingly so.

All right, this has gotten rather symbolic, for lack of a better term. I hope it's still comprehensible.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Shaigunjoe, Absaroka:
I think what the Reapers represent in a Lovecraftian context is a little more complicated. Yes, the cycle is akin to keeping civilizations in that comfortable ignorance, but the Reapers themselves are an aspect of the feared unknown, the kind we are called to change ourselves to understand. Recall how Legion speaks of a Reaper mind? "Vast and unknowable". Recall the options at the talk with the Rannoch Reaper? You have one asserting the human understanding: "you''re already dead" and one asserting your own badassery against all odds (I'm guessing - I've never seen the Renegade option) - but on the left, you have "make us understand". I've always found taking that option a necessary precondition for choosing Synthesis, for Synthesis will take civilization on a path where it will eventually understand those "vast and unknowable" thought processes (no matter that the Reapers' motivations weren't all that hard to understand, the theme still exists).

Also, the vibe I get from the Lovecraft quote is not that the human mind is intrinsically unable to understand some aspects of the universe, but rather that it doesn't want to let go of comfortable human delusions even while recognizing them as such, i.e. that the human mind is not willing to understand and that those who try tend to lose perspective of their existence as human beings. Synthesis - true to the term - asserts that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Sure, we'll change, and in future we might change in unexpected ways - but we'll do that anyway eventually, and by embracing the unknown willingly we'll have at least some control over the process. Madness, that comes from the attempt to contemplate the truths of the universe while maintaining an exclusively human perspective. Sanity on a higher, "synthesized" level, that is contemplating each aspect of the universe maintaining a perspective appropriate to it. I think that's the meaning of EDI's "we may reach a level of existence I cannot even imagine". It does sound schizophrenic to us now, unsurprisingly so.

All right, this has gotten rather symbolic, for lack of a better term. I hope it's still comprehensible.

really, to simplify, why were the so called choices lined up across with synthesis smack dab in the center?

has Anderson roleplaying destroy, TIM control and Shep gets the all four calling card..

Then to think that it's all just another attempt to alter nature its self to survive. One foot in front of another, as it were. Different levels of change that will or do ultimately alter the nature of organic effects on space it's self, JUST so's we can fly around and look'it stuff..and wonder.. what just happens?

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

From a purely superficial standpoint, they are Lovecraftian horrors made more mundane to fit into the story being told; Legion says as much about them in the third game although I doubt they represent technological stagnation specifically (this is a definate byproduct of their methodology, however).

As long as the cycle is in place civilizations certainly cannot advance beyond a certain degree technologically, though the threat of total subjugation and extinction are far worse consequences. If I were to say they represented anything, it would be oppression that prevents self-determination.

Ha, yea, ME2 definitly did a number on the reapers. Generally, I think lovecraft horrors are pretty dull, but ME1 didn't do a bad job of handling it, and they definitly had multple ways to move the reapers forward (which I touched on in a post a long time ago) Unfortunatly what we got was Harby in ME2.

It isn't a by-product of their method, it is THE product, the whole reason they exist. To cap the technological advancement of the current cycle inhabitants and upload them into reapers where they just do the same thing over and over and over....

It certainly was their chief intention as "revealed" in the third game, but in regards to the Trilogy as a whole it really wasn't the principal threat they represented simply because the writers hadn't really decided a motive until the very end.  Before they did, that the Reapers would reset technological development of galactic civilization was the least worrying thing about what would happen to its inhabitants.

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Shaigunjoe, Absaroka:
I think what the Reapers represent in a Lovecraftian context is a little more complicated. Yes, the cycle is akin to keeping civilizations in that comfortable ignorance, but the Reapers themselves are an aspect of the feared unknown, the kind we are called to change ourselves to understand. Recall how Legion speaks of a Reaper mind? "Vast and unknowable". Recall the options at the talk with the Rannoch Reaper? You have one asserting the human understanding: "you''re already dead" and one asserting your own badassery against all odds (I'm guessing - I've never seen the Renegade option) - but on the left, you have "make us understand". I've always found taking that option a necessary precondition for choosing Synthesis, for Synthesis will take civilization on a path where it will eventually understand those "vast and unknowable" thought processes (no matter that the Reapers' motivations weren't all that hard to understand, the theme still exists).

There is a duality in Legion's description of a Reaper in that conversation which ties back into how I said they are essentially "Lovecraftian horrors made mundane."  While they are far more advanced compared to a relatively primative network intelligence like Legion, when you press the issue in regards to how Legion themselves see the Reapers and if they see them as akin to gods, Legion asserts that they are simply "advanced, but mundane."  The Heretics considered Sovereign as a god, the Indoctrinated Cerberus agents saw the derelict reaper as a god but ultimately they, and the Reapers as a whole are not. They simply put great effort into affecting the appearance of something immesurably beyond their targets and pawns.  Unfortunately, the narrative build-up simply could not deliver in regards to what they truly are behind the curtain.

I've grown to dislike the conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch as there is very little difference in regards to what it says in spite of which of the three options you choose.  Whether you display defiance or a desire to understand it the Reaper still asserts that they are beyond understanding and that their very existence is beyond comprehension despite the fact that it is practically taking its last breath.  In hindsight of the reveal about the Reapers' (actually very easy to comprehend) true goals, it just comes off as being arrogantly petulant and evasive for the sake of suspense.  Too bad the twist was of the Shyamalan variety.

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

It certainly was their chief intention as "revealed" in the third game, but in regards to the Trilogy as a whole it really wasn't the principal threat they represented simply because the writers hadn't really decided a motive until the very end.  Before they did, that the Reapers would reset technological development of galactic civilization was the least worrying thing about what would happen to its inhabitants.

There is a duality in Legion's description of a Reaper in that conversation which ties back into how I said they are essentially "Lovecraftian horrors made mundane."  While they are far more advanced compared to a relatively primative network intelligence like Legion, when you press the issue in regards to how Legion themselves see the Reapers and if they see them as akin to gods, Legion asserts that they are simply "advanced, but mundane."  The Heretics considered Sovereign as a god, the Indoctrinated Cerberus agents saw the derelict reaper as a god but ultimately they, and the Reapers as a whole are not. They simply put great effort into affecting the appearance of something immesurably beyond their targets and pawns.  Unfortunately, the narrative build-up simply could not deliver in regards to what they truly are behind the curtain.

I've grown to dislike the conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch as there is very little difference in regards to what it says in spite of which of the three options you choose.  Whether you display defiance or a desire to understand it the Reaper still asserts that they are beyond understanding and that their very existence is beyond comprehension despite the fact that it is practically taking its last breath.  In hindsight of the reveal about the Reapers' (actually very easy to comprehend) true goals, it just comes off as being arrogantly petulant and evasive for the sake of suspense.  Too bad the twist was of the Shyamalan variety.

I feel like you are stuck on swallowing the blue pill and and refuse to digest the red one.  When discussing the thematic importance of the reapers I feel like it is pretty inconsequential what a sole inhabitant of the current cycle feared from them.  The problem is bigger than one cycle.  You are aware from the first game that they have capped the growth of civilization time and time again, and yes, you don't know for sure why until the end, however it is irrevelvant that the writers weren't entirely sure what the end result would be during the first game, as now that we know what the motives of the reapers are, they were the same across the whole trilogy.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 19 mars 2013 - 08:15 .

[Absaroka]

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

Well now, that isn't the discussion we were having here is it?  Although, the reapers themselves have always been kind of shoehorned into the ME universe, a tale of periodically appearing killer machines that, if removed, would have made the universe a much more interesting place, the genophage, the quarians/geth stories were are much better topics of conversation for any scifi story, while it shared some simliar themes with that of lovecraftian horrors, they go far and beyond the basic premise.

The big problem was, there really wasn't a solid reaper story in place for them to have a story grow organically from.  When you look across all three games, they have trouble finding footing with the reaper story, the first one they didn't do a bad job, but it would amaze me if they managed to salvage anythign good from ME2, instead they had the ending approach the idea of the reapers rather than the reapers themselves, which was a much better choice and a pitch perfect conclusion to the lovecraftian horrors that the reapers represented.

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

Well now, that isn't the discussion we were having here is it?  Although, the reapers themselves have always been kind of shoehorned into the ME universe, a tale of periodically appearing killer machines that, if removed, would have made the universe a much more interesting place, the genophage, the quarians/geth stories were are much better topics of conversation for any scifi story, while it shared some simliar themes with that of lovecraftian horrors, they go far and beyond the basic premise.

The big problem was, there really wasn't a solid reaper story in place for them to have a story grow organically from.  When you look across all three games, they have trouble finding footing with the reaper story, the first one they didn't do a bad job, but it would amaze me if they managed to salvage anythign good from ME2, instead they had the ending approach the idea of the reapers rather than the reapers themselves, which was a much better choice and a pitch perfect conclusion to the lovecraftian horrors that the reapers represented.

Many would and do indeed disagree in how things were handled and concluded.  Even if the Reapers were lacking in development until the third game that doesn't make retooling them around a writer's pet ending at the eleventh hour a good idea.  And even if the themes behind that ending were by themselves something that resonates with you, that does not make the ending itself an appropriate conclusion to the story being told up to that point.

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

Well now, that isn't the discussion we were having here is it?  Although, the reapers themselves have always been kind of shoehorned into the ME universe, a tale of periodically appearing killer machines that, if removed, would have made the universe a much more interesting place, the genophage, the quarians/geth stories were are much better topics of conversation for any scifi story, while it shared some simliar themes with that of lovecraftian horrors, they go far and beyond the basic premise.

The big problem was, there really wasn't a solid reaper story in place for them to have a story grow organically from.  When you look across all three games, they have trouble finding footing with the reaper story, the first one they didn't do a bad job, but it would amaze me if they managed to salvage anythign good from ME2, instead they had the ending approach the idea of the reapers rather than the reapers themselves, which was a much better choice and a pitch perfect conclusion to the lovecraftian horrors that the reapers represented.

Many would and do indeed disagree in how things were handled and concluded.  Even if the Reapers were lacking in development until the third game that doesn't make retooling them around a writer's pet ending at the eleventh hour a good idea.  And even if the themes behind that ending were by themselves something that resonates with you, that does not make the ending itself an appropriate conclusion to the story being told up to that point.

Actually, yes it does, as I am the one that gets to decide for me wether or not the ending is appropriate.  It was an ending much more appropriate for fans that enjoy forumulating their own ending and puzzling things out  (I'm talking Gene Wolfe style, or the more recent Numenera game that was announced) instead of being spoon fed one.

Besides, they were not 'retooled' they were left exactly as what they were to begin with, Lovecraftian horrors, you just got to look at them from a different angle.

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

Well now, that isn't the discussion we were having here is it?  Although, the reapers themselves have always been kind of shoehorned into the ME universe, a tale of periodically appearing killer machines that, if removed, would have made the universe a much more interesting place, the genophage, the quarians/geth stories were are much better topics of conversation for any scifi story, while it shared some simliar themes with that of lovecraftian horrors, they go far and beyond the basic premise.

The big problem was, there really wasn't a solid reaper story in place for them to have a story grow organically from.  When you look across all three games, they have trouble finding footing with the reaper story, the first one they didn't do a bad job, but it would amaze me if they managed to salvage anythign good from ME2, instead they had the ending approach the idea of the reapers rather than the reapers themselves, which was a much better choice and a pitch perfect conclusion to the lovecraftian horrors that the reapers represented.

Many would and do indeed disagree in how things were handled and concluded.  Even if the Reapers were lacking in development until the third game that doesn't make retooling them around a writer's pet ending at the eleventh hour a good idea.  And even if the themes behind that ending were by themselves something that resonates with you, that does not make the ending itself an appropriate conclusion to the story being told up to that point.

Actually, yes it does, as I am the one that gets to decide for me wether or not the ending is appropriate.  It was an ending much more appropriate for fans that enjoy forumulating their own ending and puzzling things out  (I'm talking Gene Wolfe style, or the more recent Numenera game that was announced) instead of being spoon fed one.

Besides, they were not 'retooled' they were left exactly as what they were to begin with, Lovecraftian horrors, you just got to look at them from a different angle.

And you're well within your rights to feel that way but please don't imply those that don't are incapable of of appreciating something because they have to think things out or need everything spelled out for them. It is a ridiculously common, and quite frankly arrogant insinuation in regards to why people don't like the endings.

Numerous people have thought them through, speculated and analyzed the endings; certainly far more than the writers themselves did and have come to the conclusion that they don't hold up to their standards.  You can certainly attribute and associate positive things to the endings that paint them in a better light, but there is a line where you will ultimately be projecting and giving more credit then is due.

And the Reapers were almost certainly retooled, though that is not solely the fault of 3.  But to quote:

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

It still amazes how me how much the whole thing has utterly emasculated Sovereign. I'm replaying ME1 right now, and his speech rings incredibly hollow when you know his boss's actual intentions. Not to mention that like the jerks they are, the Reaper in ME3 don't even make good on his sacrifice and take the Citadel ASAP (you know, the thing we spent the entirety of ME1 trying to prevent). They just kinda let it chill while they fly ominously above every single other planet, taking their sweet little time. They didn't even explain why a Reaper was needed to open the Citadel relay, while the Catalyst is sitting right there.

They turned a race of incredibly powerful, intelligent and arrogant "vanguard of your destruction" that viewed all other life as utterly beneath them into being well-meaning tools that just want to save you but like to talk big for some reason and fail due to numerous egregious tactical blunders. Those might not be absolutely irreconcilable separate characterizations, but certainly strain credulity to the breaking point for many. 

[Getorex]

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

Well now, that isn't the discussion we were having here is it?  Although, the reapers themselves have always been kind of shoehorned into the ME universe, a tale of periodically appearing killer machines that, if removed, would have made the universe a much more interesting place, the genophage, the quarians/geth stories were are much better topics of conversation for any scifi story, while it shared some simliar themes with that of lovecraftian horrors, they go far and beyond the basic premise.

The big problem was, there really wasn't a solid reaper story in place for them to have a story grow organically from.  When you look across all three games, they have trouble finding footing with the reaper story, the first one they didn't do a bad job, but it would amaze me if they managed to salvage anythign good from ME2, instead they had the ending approach the idea of the reapers rather than the reapers themselves, which was a much better choice and a pitch perfect conclusion to the lovecraftian horrors that the reapers represented.

Many would and do indeed disagree in how things were handled and concluded.  Even if the Reapers were lacking in development until the third game that doesn't make retooling them around a writer's pet ending at the eleventh hour a good idea.  And even if the themes behind that ending were by themselves something that resonates with you, that does not make the ending itself an appropriate conclusion to the story being told up to that point.

Actually, yes it does, as I am the one that gets to decide for me wether or not the ending is appropriate.  It was an ending much more appropriate for fans that enjoy forumulating their own ending and puzzling things out  (I'm talking Gene Wolfe style, or the more recent Numenera game that was announced) instead of being spoon fed one.

Besides, they were not 'retooled' they were left exactly as what they were to begin with, Lovecraftian horrors, you just got to look at them from a different angle.

And you're well within your rights to feel that way but please don't imply those that don't are incapable of of appreciating something because they have to think things out or need everything spelled out for them. It is a ridiculously common, and quite frankly arrogant insinuation in regards to why people don't like the endings.

Numerous people have thought them through, speculated and analyzed the endings; certainly far more than the writers themselves did and have come to the conclusion that they don't hold up to their standards.  You can certainly attribute and associate positive things to the endings that paint them in a better light, but there is a line where you will ultimately be projecting and giving more credit then is due.

And the Reapers were almost certainly retooled, though that is not solely the fault of 3.  But to quote:

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

It still amazes how me how much the whole thing has utterly emasculated Sovereign. I'm replaying ME1 right now, and his speech rings incredibly hollow when you know his boss's actual intentions. Not to mention that like the jerks they are, the Reaper in ME3 don't even make good on his sacrifice and take the Citadel ASAP (you know, the thing we spent the entirety of ME1 trying to prevent). They just kinda let it chill while they fly ominously above every single other planet, taking their sweet little time. They didn't even explain why a Reaper was needed to open the Citadel relay, while the Catalyst is sitting right there.

They turned a race of incredibly powerful, intelligent and arrogant "vanguard of your destruction" that viewed all other life as utterly beneath them into being well-meaning tools that just want to save you but like to talk big for some reason and fail due to numerous egregious tactical blunders. Those might not be absolutely irreconcilable separate characterizations, but certainly strain credulity to the breaking point for many. 

The Reapers are all actually Don Knotts.

[Shaigunjoe]

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Absaroka wrote...

I have little interest in swallowing anything that I have to wash down with bad storytelling and narrative inconsistency. The Reapers motives as the were "revealed" have everything to do with shoehorning the Synthesis ending into the story rather than having their motives and the endings grow organically from the story itself.

Well now, that isn't the discussion we were having here is it?  Although, the reapers themselves have always been kind of shoehorned into the ME universe, a tale of periodically appearing killer machines that, if removed, would have made the universe a much more interesting place, the genophage, the quarians/geth stories were are much better topics of conversation for any scifi story, while it shared some simliar themes with that of lovecraftian horrors, they go far and beyond the basic premise.

The big problem was, there really wasn't a solid reaper story in place for them to have a story grow organically from.  When you look across all three games, they have trouble finding footing with the reaper story, the first one they didn't do a bad job, but it would amaze me if they managed to salvage anythign good from ME2, instead they had the ending approach the idea of the reapers rather than the reapers themselves, which was a much better choice and a pitch perfect conclusion to the lovecraftian horrors that the reapers represented.

Many would and do indeed disagree in how things were handled and concluded.  Even if the Reapers were lacking in development until the third game that doesn't make retooling them around a writer's pet ending at the eleventh hour a good idea.  And even if the themes behind that ending were by themselves something that resonates with you, that does not make the ending itself an appropriate conclusion to the story being told up to that point.

Actually, yes it does, as I am the one that gets to decide for me wether or not the ending is appropriate.  It was an ending much more appropriate for fans that enjoy forumulating their own ending and puzzling things out  (I'm talking Gene Wolfe style, or the more recent Numenera game that was announced) instead of being spoon fed one.

Besides, they were not 'retooled' they were left exactly as what they were to begin with, Lovecraftian horrors, you just got to look at them from a different angle.

And you're well within your rights to feel that way but please don't imply those that don't are incapable of of appreciating something because they have to think things out or need everything spelled out for them. It is a ridiculously common, and quite frankly arrogant insinuation in regards to why people don't like the endings.

Numerous people have thought them through, speculated and analyzed the endings; certainly far more than the writers themselves did and have come to the conclusion that they don't hold up to their standards.  You can certainly attribute and associate positive things to the endings that paint them in a better light, but there is a line where you will ultimately be projecting and giving more credit then is due.

And the Reapers were almost certainly retooled, though that is not solely the fault of 3.  But to quote:

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

It still amazes how me how much the whole thing has utterly emasculated Sovereign. I'm replaying ME1 right now, and his speech rings incredibly hollow when you know his boss's actual intentions. Not to mention that like the jerks they are, the Reaper in ME3 don't even make good on his sacrifice and take the Citadel ASAP (you know, the thing we spent the entirety of ME1 trying to prevent). They just kinda let it chill while they fly ominously above every single other planet, taking their sweet little time. They didn't even explain why a Reaper was needed to open the Citadel relay, while the Catalyst is sitting right there.

They turned a race of incredibly powerful, intelligent and arrogant "vanguard of your destruction" that viewed all other life as utterly beneath them into being well-meaning tools that just want to save you but like to talk big for some reason and fail due to numerous egregious tactical blunders. Those might not be absolutely irreconcilable separate characterizations, but certainly strain credulity to the breaking point for many. 

I'm not sure why you think it is arrogant to assume that, some people simply like there stories straight forward, I never even insuinated there was something wrong with that.  Its just that if you do, you definitly won't like the endings.  If you don't mind puzzling things out for yourself and drawing your own conclusions, the ending is so overwhelming open ended that you can pretty much do whatever you want with it.

I feel like thats a pretty weak case that the reapers were retooled, the reapers were largly open to interpretation by the player in ME1 as well, you can build a decent argument that they didn't exist at all.  ME2 squander's that a bit, although toy around a bit with the illusive man and you may be able to make something around that as well if you ignore extended universe stuff (which is definilty worth ignoring)

ME1 just viewed lovecraft horrors through one perspective, and ME3 gave a different one.  If they had gone with the dark energy plot, then yes, that would have been a retooling of the reapers.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 20 mars 2013 - 02:54 .

[Absaroka]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I'm not sure why you think it is arrogant to assume that, some people simply like there stories straight forward, I never even insuinated there was something wrong with that. Its just that if you do, you definitly won't like the endings. If you don't mind puzzling things out for yourself and drawing your own conclusions, the ending is so overwhelming open ended that you can pretty much do whatever you want with it.

I feel like thats a pretty weak case that the reapers were retooled, the reapers were largly open to interpretation by the player in ME1 as well, you can build a decent argument that they didn't exist at all. ME2 squander's that a bit, although toy around a bit with the illusive man and you may be able to make something around that as well if you ignore extended universe stuff (which is definilty worth ignoring)

ME1 just viewed lovecraft horrors through one perspective, and ME3 gave a different one. If they had gone with the dark energy plot, then yes, that would have been a retooling of the reapers.

It's arrogant to assume people don't like ME3's endings specifically because they aren't straightforward; people can and do dislike them for any number of reasons beyond that.  And it is insulting because the implication behind saying such is that they don't like the endings because they don't "get" them and thus are evaluating them from a somehow "less enlightened" or "unimaginative" standpoint. All of this is doubly relevant for Synthesis, because many that choose it not only tend interpret it along the lines of "embracing the unknown" (which is a valid interpretation of it) but also often characterize those that don't as not doing so because of some "deficency" on their part.

Just because the Reapers were open to interpretation does not mean just anything could have been used as adequate explaination, and by extension of what the Catalyst was, not just anything could be used to do away with them. Retroactively making them mere pawns to some wannabe benevolent force with a sympathetic (in theory) appearance at the very end whose only real function gameplay-wise was giving a sales pitch for Synthesis was a recipe for disaster. People do not trust the Catalyst nor the validity of its "perfect solution" because they have no real reason to given all previous experience with the Reapers. Or rather, if immersion has already been lost, see no need for the presence of either as they exist in the game.

[Obadiah]

I've never read Lovecraft, but from what I've read in this discussion in the last few posts, I'll just agree that when speaking to the Catalyst I thought Shep was speaking to an immensely powerful being with a completely alien perspective. It had a different value system, a different perspective, and an alien set of priorities. Hell, how can something so powerful not care for itself so much that it could offer to have itself Controlled or Destroyed?

I pretty much took it at its word that the Creator Created war was inevitable, and that it would probably lead to the destruction of all organic life.

H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"...

...terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

So, yeah, that description seems appropriate to a description of speaking to the Catalyst, and its revelations on how the life in the galaxy was destined to progress.

Modifié par Obadiah, 20 mars 2013 - 06:02 .

[Dendio1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

I...don't see it like that at all. 

Rather than accepting the new reality synthesis offers or attempting to control the reapers to your will, you turn your back on both the representation of the unknown and of madness.

Destroy all synthetics means you erase the "forbidden knowledge" at your fingertips and usher in a literal and figurative dark age where all synthetic tech is no more. Back to simpler "safe" times

Synthesis requires courage to venture out in to the unknown.

Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

EC Destroy is somewhat ambivalent. I think the original Destroy carried the theme of rejecting the "forbidden knowledge" of Reaper technology, but the EC compromised it somewhat by saying the relays can be rebuilt. It is vague about it, though, and while we see a rebuilt Citadel in Destroy, we never see a rebuilt relay. Destroy still carries the theme of running away from truth, both in rejecting the organic/synthetic problem and as rejecting the idea that we need to change in order to survive in a bigger universe. Destroy affirms the "human condition".

Destroy

Even though we rebuild, the destruction of all synthetic life qualifies as a dark age. The catalyst asks if shepard could even imagine his life without synthetics. That question alone speaks to the gravity of destroy. Yes hackett says we rebuild in the far distant future, but the relationship between destroy and lovecraft is shepards choice, not hacketts or any other person. Our Shepard chooses to run from the light (catalyst's revelations about inevitable doom of organics) into the peace and safety of the new dark age. An age is a period of time, not forever. Under this ending all synthetics are no more and there is an age of peace (no organic-synthetic conflict) and it is dark...technological progress is pushed back/ halted for a time.

Around this time last year many people wanted to be able to destroy the reapers without killing all other synthetics (high ems). I wonder if we had to be forced to destroy ALL synthetic life in order to better fit lovecrafts solution.

Im not sure about destroy affirming the human condition. Running away from the light can be, but isn't necessarily, cowardly imo. One could argue that deviating from the original plan of destroying the reapers is something that an organic is more likely to do than a synthetic. There is no doubt that going into the beam shepard was all about destroying the reapers. Maybe his choosing something else in the end affirms his human condition just the same.

Modifié par Dendio1, 20 mars 2013 - 09:49 .

[Dendio1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

I...don't see it like that at all. 

Rather than accepting the new reality synthesis offers or attempting to control the reapers to your will, you turn your back on both the representation of the unknown and of madness.

Destroy all synthetics means you erase the "forbidden knowledge" at your fingertips and usher in a literal and figurative dark age where all synthetic tech is no more. Back to simpler "safe" times

Synthesis requires courage to venture out in to the unknown.

Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Control at first glance, but I don't reject it completely at this time because I need to ponder the merit of this rather unusual interpretation first. BTW, I recommend trying the Renegade lines in the conversation with TIM. No hint of "we aren't ready for that" here. Instead you challenge TIM to take Control and end the war, and because TIM can't, you point out the Reapers won't let him, that he's under their control.

Control: One of the most interesting things about control, is shepard's conversation with TIM. TIM not only wants to control the reapers, he also wants needs to convince shepard that its the proper path. At one point under the conversation with renegade shepard, TIM asks aloud who will control the reapers if not him? He then looks at shepard and asks " Will you control the reapers"?

Its interesting that despite being strongly against control throughout the game and up until the final conversation, shepard never directly answers TIM's question on whether he would personally control the reapers. The player can't respond to it through the conversation system. Only after star kid's revelations are you allowed to answer the question..through action. IMO this means that however much shepard was against control, the question tim posed was a meaningful one.


Now shepard does eventually ask TIM to open the gates, but only after it's shown that both shepard and anderson believe TIM to be indoctrinated. Shepard is goading TIM to do the very thing he knows the reapers won't let him do. Shepard is trying to get TIM to see for himself that he is indoctrinated. The aggressive nature of renegade responses eventually leads to a gunfight, but had shepard used a little more tact, TIM would have realised his lack of control, just as he did under a paragon conversation.

At the end of the day though, whether shepard chose to paragon TIM about how humanity isn't ready to control the reapers or to renegade TIM about how power hungry he is, shepard was against control right up until his conversation with star kid.



Go Mad from the revelation:
Pre-revelation shepard is against control, talks about sending the reapers back to hell and calls TIM out for thinking like them. Shepard is a soldier and despite his renegade/ paragon tendancies he does take orders, he hates politics and he never shows a desire to control/protect/lead all the things the universe

Post-revelation : So the Illusive Man was right after all. Shepard sacrifices him life so he can Control/Protect/Lead all the things through the catalyst. He is no longer a soldier who takes orders. He willingly programs the catalyst to become the unquestionable authority in all known space. Shepard abandons his desires to send the reapers back to hell. Shepard under goes an extreme shift in stance after his conversation with star kid. The desire to subjugate the universe to his will under the command and continued existence of the reapers stands opposed to everything shepard has been about throughout the trilogy. Simply put, Shepard goes mad from the revelation.

Yes I do believe that the desire to control/protect/lead is something present in our commander, but not at such a grandiose stage. Thats why I believe the catalyst shep took his personality and amplified it to an extreme..

IMO Cata-shep is literally shepard gone mad from the revelation, personified.

Modifié par Dendio1, 20 mars 2013 - 09:57 .

[Dendio1]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its pretty obvious that destroy resonants with the statement of retreating into a dark age, shunning knowledge and the revelations that come along with it.

I...don't see it like that at all. 

Rather than accepting the new reality synthesis offers or attempting to control the reapers to your will, you turn your back on both the representation of the unknown and of madness.

Destroy all synthetics means you erase the "forbidden knowledge" at your fingertips and usher in a literal and figurative dark age where all synthetic tech is no more. Back to simpler "safe" times

Synthesis requires courage to venture out in to the unknown.

Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

Yes, I think Synthesis carries that theme of embracing the unknown, something that is fundamentally "other", and I think it's intentional. The green glow is green because it's supposed to be uncomfortable, appear somewhat creepy, indicating that this fast-track advancement will - as any evolution eventually does, artificial or natural - eventually change us into something which can't be comprehended by those who came before. I've called it "invoking a singularity on organic life".  Synthesis transcends the "human condition".

Synthesis:

I find synthesis interesting because unlike control and destroy, it trancends lovecraft's solutions. If control is going mad and destroy is running into the darkness, then synthesis is successfully embracing the unknown. Synthesis could be misinterpreted as being the equivalent of lovecrafts going mad, after all why would shepard transform the universe?

However I think its more than that. I base my feelings on the fact that unlike control and destroy, synthesis is only available under high EMS. Synthesis correspondingly lacks the possible failure state found in control and destroy. The catalyst tells us that synthesis is inevitable so long as organics and synthetics can both coexist long enough to reach it. This tells me that while it's not necessarily the RIGHT ending, it is the natural one.

One might ask, how is synthesis natural? It jerry rigs the crucible to forcibly change all forms of life! The problem is that organics will end up being destroyed by synthetics before synthesis can naturally occur. The synthesis ending allows shepard to speed up the "evolution of life", bypassing the conflict and reaching a state where organics and synthetics are alike enough to prevent the otherwise naturally occuring issues between them.

Getting back to Lovecraft, I think synthesis represents more than the unknown. It represents successfully enduring and learning from the light without going mad from the revelation. In lovecraft's terms this was as the reapers like to say..uncomprehensible. In mass effect? High EMS required!

Edit: the knowledge of infinite captured races being willingly released by the reapers definately fits the bill here.

Modifié par Dendio1, 20 mars 2013 - 10:07 .

[CaptainCommander]

Synthesis is wrong! Just think for a second humans don't exists in the Mass Effect universe and someone else activates the Crucible and selects Synthesis and humanity is now changed into half organic and half synthetic race. Half our population would kill themselves because they would be terrified or think its judgement day or their laptops would be speaking to them and smartphones would be telling them they look at too many dirty websites. The rest of the population would now assume that some sort of machine god rules over us with the power to change our DNA. We would stagnate in our advancement and our culture would die (Mordin states technology destroys culture). So by forcing the Galaxy to become Saren's twisted dream you doom every pre-flight speicies to stagnation and death. And that makes up the majority of the billions of stars in the galaxy. And if you are of the view point that Synthesis creates homogeneity in life then you ruin the very thing that makes life great. Synthesis is bad! It is a Reaper trap if there ever was one!

[Dendio1]

CaptainCommander wrote...

Synthesis is wrong! Just think for a second humans don't exists in the Mass Effect universe and someone else activates the Crucible and selects Synthesis and humanity is now changed into half organic and half synthetic race. Half our population would kill themselves because they would be terrified or think its judgement day or their laptops would be speaking to them and smartphones would be telling them they look at too many dirty websites. The rest of the population would now assume that some sort of machine god rules over us with the power to change our DNA. We would stagnate in our advancement and our culture would die (Mordin states technology destroys culture). So by forcing the Galaxy to become Saren's twisted dream you doom every pre-flight speicies to stagnation and death. And that makes up the majority of the billions of stars in the galaxy. And if you are of the view point that Synthesis creates homogeneity in life then you ruin the very thing that makes life great. Synthesis is bad! It is a Reaper trap if there ever was one!

We have a few things that point to synthesis being a..peaceful transition. We observe EDI calmly telling us about her new capabilities. EDI is not scared or confused with her new access to organic capabilities. We see the reaction from organics on their synthesis transformation. Krogans, Turians, even humans all look calm and curious about the change. We see reapers yielding knowledge from every race ever catalogued, we see technological progress and rebuilding.

While there was always a chance for things to go horribly wrong, the extended cut shows us that a high EMS crucible gets synthesis right

Modifié par Dendio1, 20 mars 2013 - 10:09 .

[CaptainCommander]

Dendio1 wrote...

CaptainCommander wrote...

Synthesis is wrong! Just think for a second humans don't exists in the Mass Effect universe and someone else activates the Crucible and selects Synthesis and humanity is now changed into half organic and half synthetic race. Half our population would kill themselves because they would be terrified or think its judgement day or their laptops would be speaking to them and smartphones would be telling them they look at too many dirty websites. The rest of the population would now assume that some sort of machine god rules over us with the power to change our DNA. We would stagnate in our advancement and our culture would die (Mordin states technology destroys culture). So by forcing the Galaxy to become Saren's twisted dream you doom every pre-flight speicies to stagnation and death. And that makes up the majority of the billions of stars in the galaxy. And if you are of the view point that Synthesis creates homogeneity in life then you ruin the very thing that makes life great. Synthesis is bad! It is a Reaper trap if there ever was one!

We have a few things that point to synthesis being a..peaceful transition. We observe EDI calmly telling us about her new capabilities. EDI is not scared or confused with her new access to organic capabilities. We see the reaction from organics to synthesis. Krogans, Turians, even humans all look calm and curious about the change. We see reapers yielding knowledge from every race ever catalogued, we see technological progress and rebuilding.

While there was always a chance for things to go horribly wrong, the extended cut shows us that a high EMS crucible gets it right

Yes races in the cycle that know about the Reapers and advanced space flight. You forget that isn't the entire Galaxy. Synthesis changes the ENTIRE galaxy in hybrids by force! No race in early development is gonna turn out well from that!! Imagine the Robot on the ISS suddenly being alive. Astronauts would go mad. Imagine ancient Egyptians suddenly being hybrids! You are litterally forcing every race to your ideal! A galactic wide dictatorship!!! They galaxy in ME is made up of mostly of pre-spaceflight speices and you just changed ALL of them

[Dendio1]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...
Control can be seen as madness because you aim to enforce your will upon the universe ( not to mention do a 180 on the whole "humanity is not ready for the responsibilities control over the reapers would impose upon them". I feel control creates a synthetic cata-shep that represents the paragon and renegade shepard personality amplified a hundred fold.

I don't believe that Shep's personality would be "magnified" as such, but I think it's quite clear that the transcription is limited to similar technology to that of the reapers, in that any organic undergoing a synthetic conversion would be stripped of their ability to feel, emotionally that is. Synthesis is the only option that explicitly states that synthetics gain the additional framework that allows them to "understand" Organics and as illustrated by EDI in the EC this is not simply a databank of information, it is the ability to _feel_ that was previously impossible. Hence Cata-Shep would still _remember_ having had these emotions and would also still be driven by the same motivations but would be incapable of experiencing any new emotions hence over time Shep would inevitably lose the grounding and moral sense as new experiences were evaluated simply on the basis of their logic and not with any real emotional weight. Essentially you're making a Shepard frozen in time, incapable of creating any new connections with emotional beings and with only the memory of previous emotional connection. I'd expect totalitarian behaviour within the next 2000 years at most.

Well, unless cata-shep planned on re-creating the Crucible and enacting synthesis with some other voluntary sacrificial emotional-matrix, perhaps without detonating the relays, maybe even in a localised area.

Personally I don’t see why you can’t do control _and_ synthesis, do a destructive read of Shepard for _both_ the emotional matrix and the current mind-state, that way you get digital-Shepard _with_ intact (well, scrubbed and re-created) emotions.

Catashep is not a post synthesis AI. Catashep is bound by the same limitations as pre-synthesis EDI...more so actually in that it is a shackled AI

The creation of a post synthesis shepard is interesting ..and feasable, but even if they made a complete clone with memories and all, its still not the same guy...

Modifié par Dendio1, 20 mars 2013 - 10:21 .

[Dendio1]

CaptainCommander wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

CaptainCommander wrote...

Synthesis is wrong! Just think for a second humans don't exists in the Mass Effect universe and someone else activates the Crucible and selects Synthesis and humanity is now changed into half organic and half synthetic race. Half our population would kill themselves because they would be terrified or think its judgement day or their laptops would be speaking to them and smartphones would be telling them they look at too many dirty websites. The rest of the population would now assume that some sort of machine god rules over us with the power to change our DNA. We would stagnate in our advancement and our culture would die (Mordin states technology destroys culture). So by forcing the Galaxy to become Saren's twisted dream you doom every pre-flight speicies to stagnation and death. And that makes up the majority of the billions of stars in the galaxy. And if you are of the view point that Synthesis creates homogeneity in life then you ruin the very thing that makes life great. Synthesis is bad! It is a Reaper trap if there ever was one!

We have a few things that point to synthesis being a..peaceful transition. We observe EDI calmly telling us about her new capabilities. EDI is not scared or confused with her new access to organic capabilities. We see the reaction from organics to synthesis. Krogans, Turians, even humans all look calm and curious about the change. We see reapers yielding knowledge from every race ever catalogued, we see technological progress and rebuilding.

While there was always a chance for things to go horribly wrong, the extended cut shows us that a high EMS crucible gets it right

Yes races in the cycle that know about the Reapers and advanced space flight. You forget that isn't the entire Galaxy. Synthesis changes the ENTIRE galaxy in hybrids by force! No race in early development is gonna turn out well from that!! Imagine the Robot on the ISS suddenly being alive. Astronauts would go mad. Imagine ancient Egyptians suddenly being hybrids! You are litterally forcing every race to your ideal! A galactic wide dictatorship!!! They galaxy in ME is made up of mostly of pre-spaceflight speices and you just changed ALL of them

The change is forced yes, but it peacefully expands capabilties of both organics and synthetics. Furthermore, where control leaves the reapers enforcing shepards will upon all, synthesis leaves the universe to its own devices.

[Ieldra]

@Dendio1:
About Control: an interesting take on it, but as I see it, Shepard is only against Control because he thinks it's an insane proposition, impossible. Also, there is exactly one place in the game where Shepard explicitly favors destroying the Reapers: on Thessia. Everywhere else this is avoidable, and all the aggressive talks about sending the Reapers to hell are avoidable as well. In the talk with TIM on the Citadel, you can use the first three Renegade options and still make TIM kill himself with the final paragon option. There's no other place in the game where you can make the conversation adapt to your interpretation of things so well.

About Synthesis: I agree. The statement that Synthesis is inevitable is a giveaway in that regard. It actually is inevitable, but contingent on the survival of organic and synthetic life to that point. Synthesis bypasses the dangerous period.