@OP: Haven't read all 43 pages... and waaaaay too long a post to address every point you made, but I'll pick out a select few quotes since I found a lot of what you said interesting and well-written. I try to be open-minded.
Nonetheless, what remains – a few words and the imagery of the ending sequences – suggests that Synthesis is a good ending. This is also supported by meta-level arguments about the Catalyst. While the question "Is it justifiable to force such a change on the galaxy?" must be addressed by anyone who makes this their preferred choice, calling the Synthesis "horrific" or "evil" is grounded in false assumptions which are usually the result of association fallacies. We are shown results. I can see nothing evil in those images, only something that has been called "a strange, alien beauty" (jtav in her fanfic "Brave New World). The incoherence of the exposition is exacerbated by the imagery in other places, though, so that it is easy to dismiss the whole notion as silly and nonsensical if you dislike it for unrelated reasons.
The first time around I decided to go with Synthesis (viewpoint B basically). I'll admit, I wasn't quite sure what it would actually involve (as you said, the preceding dialogue by the Catalyst was inadequate), but I felt that suspicion of such an action for suspicion's sake, or just an underlying personal hatred of "biological impurities", would be unwarranted and unwise. I thought that it would prove a moral middle-ground, facilitating galactic peace and equality at the cost of complete molecular renaturing of all organics and synthetics (not inherently a bad thing either). Like you, the physical forms such life would take didn't really put me off, and according to the Synthesis cutscene such fears are unfounded anyway).
However, like me, I think that most people now distrust the Synthesis ending due to its contextual relevance. There are precedents, for example, the conversion of organic lifeforms (Humans, Batarians, Turians, Asari, etc) into hybrid Reaper forms; a process that doesn't ultimately result in a superior lifeform, but a perversion of sapient life as we comprehend it, lacking our most basic and valued instincts and qualities (higher reasoning, freedom of action and thought, emotion, etc). Such hybrids could never constitute an advanced civilisation or society, could never develop culture, art, music, literature, science... they are a reduced form of life, not an advanced one.
Saren also serves to foreshadow this train of thought, convinced that anything but cooperation and possibly eventual amalgamation is futile. Note that he is indoctrinated, serving no goals but those of the Reapers at this point in time.
And even though there's no evidence to support the Synthesis option resulting in Reaper-esque hybrids, I also doubt the cinematic at the end. It can't be real, that is almost a fact. IMO whatever we see as a result (overlayed lines basically) is simply Shepard's interpretation of Synthesis, not the reality of it. We've seen Synthesis, and we've fought it every step of the way. Don't assume that they're abiding by your definitions of "organic" or "synthetic", they aren't. Nanotechnogy, cybernetics, emotive reprogramming... none of it is certain. We aren't aware of the exact processes it would entail.
The Catalyst is more intelligent and knowledgeable than we are.
The Catalyst does not lie.
Where the Catalyst's exposition appear to be not just based on too little evidence, but outright ridiculous, this is because it thinks Shepard is stupid.
I will agree with anyone who claims that there is insufficient exposition about the organic/synthetic problem, the Catalyst's nature and the effects of the three choices, and that this is *the* major flaw of the ending sequence, but I do not think a rejection of any of the choices based on distrust of the Catalyst only is valid. Rather, distrust of the Catalyst is, in almost all cases, an *excuse* to reject a choice one does not like for unrelated reasons.
There isn't enough exposition, I agree totally. It pissed me off, my inability to ask questions, to go into further depth, to fully evaluate my options before undertaking such a massive decision.
But I would disagree that in most cases, distrust of the Catalyst is unwarranted. While I won't deny that it would be foolish to consider Shepard (or oneself) more intelligent than a Reaper, I wouldn't say that it isn't a liar, or condescending.
For a start, it lies about (or is unaware of) developments such as the resolution of conflict and newfound cooperation between Quarians and Geth (organics and synthetics), and the lethality of the Destroy option (it heavily implies that Shepard is part synthetic and will suffer the consequences, which is either a lie, an attempt as misdirection, or evidence that it isn't as knowledgeable as we might think).
I don't think our interpretation should be binary (as in, the Catalyst is either 100% lying or 100% telling the truth), and personally chose to intepret what it says as I would the words of another human being. Somewhat factual, somewhat fabrication, a combination of selective truth and occasional misdirection.
The Catalyst, to many, appears to have an agenda. I totally agree. It attempts to paint the Destroy option in a bad light, and insists that Control and Synthesis are preferable. Obviously it has self-preservation in mind. That's understandable, I can empathise with that. At face value I would even agree with it (which is why I first chose Synthesis).
However, you have to remember that you're talking to a Reaper, or at least an entity closely aligned with the Reapers. Like I said before, there are precedents for these options. The Illusive Man (Control) and Saren (Synthesis), for example. And like I said before, both were indoctrinated...
In fact, this is one of the biggest indicators to me that not all is as it seems. Even if IT isn't correct, I totally believe that the Catalyst is attempting to subvert Shepard in some way at this point in the game. It seems related to what you mentioned about the Reapers believing themselves the pinnacle of evolution, and through their interpretation of ascension preventing any other form of high development (or "cosmicism", as you put it). The Catalyst wants to remain in control of galactic proceedings (for whatever purpose, don't believe his "organic/synthetic cycle" bull**** for a second), and Shepard is the key...
Modifié par I_am_a_Spoon, 25 mai 2012 - 03:04 .
Retour en haut
