Aller au contenu

Photo

Why Synthesis Makes Sense


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
685 réponses à ce sujet

#1
JakeJynx

JakeJynx
  • Members
  • 5 messages
 Hi everyone! I'm new to the forums, and only recently completed ME3. I was completely immersed in it for days, and after it was all over, I felt an incredible sense of loss, and quite a bit of confusion. So I analyzed, I read other people's theories about the endings, and the interpretations and implications of the possible explanations. I have to say that, for a long time, I felt that the Indoctrination Theory made the most sense. It was the only one that indicated some sort of hope for Shepard--that choosing the destroy option meant you fought off the Reaper influence, and were able to survive. It's so tempting to believe, but I just can't.

I know this has probably been discussed multiple times, but I want to provide my opinion on what the endings meant to me, and my theory of why synthesis is the "best" choice for the outcome. Please note that when I say "best" choice, it's only my opinion based on how I played the game, and my personal character and beliefs about What It All Meant.

Honestly, I'm hoping to get some real feedback on this (not just one-liners), because I want to dissect my theory and get input from others to see if I missed something. So please, try to sway me, if you have the time! :)

Prepare for a bit of a read. Sorry.

If you think about it, the three choices given to Shepard are pretty much in line with what you'd done through the whole game. The Renegade option of Destroy causes you to sacrifice a lot of people (because as the game mentions more than once, synthetic life is still life). This is reminiscent of the typical Renegade character who does whatever is necessary to get the job done. The Paragon option has you completely sacrifice yourself in order to save everyone, but you lose who you are in the process. You basically become a Reaper. So while the choice itself is self-sacrificing, and in line with the Paragon character who would die to save another, you are no longer the same Shepard, and you become what you spent so many years trying to destroy.

The problem is lack of resolution. With both Paragon and Renegade, nothing is resolved. You still have the issue of an impending destruction via synthetic uprising. They merely suspend the inevitable. In Control, you yourself, controlling the Reapers, will have to one day figure out a solution to the problem, the chaos. In Destroy, chaos remains, and life will eventually succumb to synthetics. This is a pretty prevalent idea in sci-fi and AI theory, and I think that's sort of what Bioware was borrowing against. So I pretty much accept the "synthetics destroy advanced life before it has a chance to destroy all life" explanation at face value. I don't take the Geth and Quarians getting along, and EDI helping your cause, as being an argument against this inevitable conclusion. I view it as hope and optimism--right now, it's not a threat. In the future, it will be, especially when synthetics far surpass organics.

Further, the Geth cannot really be used as an example of how "organics and synthetics can get along." Why? Because they're no longer true synthetics after Legion uploads the Reaper code fragments. They synthesize. They are given the equivalent of a human brain. It's only after this occurs, only after this synthesis, that the Geth and the Quarians are able to cooperate as equals. I see this as foreshadowing--that a change must be made to life before there can be peace.

That is why synthesis, to me, makes the most sense.

I can't recall ever seeing it mentioned by someone who subscribes to the Indoctrination Theory that the synthesis option is only available with the highest GR and EMS scores. As with previous games, it is the reward you get for busting ass and doing everything you can to prepare yourself for the upcoming battle. The better prepared you are, the better, and more ideal, the outcome. Changing that mechanic this late in the game seems unlikely.

The Destroy option means destroying all synthetic life (including the Geth and EDI, whom you spent so much time befriending and defending), and the cycle continues. Control means that you do exactly what you just said to TIM shouldn't be done, because "we're not ready," and the cycle continues as well (only this time, it's Shepard in the distant future who has to devise a solution to the inevitable conclusion of synthetics destroying all life). In Synthesis, you're told that this choice raises all species to a new level where this chaos is no longer an issue. There is never another fight between organic and synthetic, and the cycle finally ends. 

I believe that the Catalyst is called the Catalyst because it brings about change. It may not be the change you wanted, but it is the only option where a change occurs, and the cycle is broken. In the end of the game, you see the scene after the Normandy crashes, and Joker and EDI both step out of the ship and embrace, seeming to imply that synthetics and organics merge and are now equals. To me, that sort of says "happily ever after."

As a sort of aside, I want to mention the Relays exploding, and how I initially felt that with the explosions, all of the choices you made and all of the work you did to save humanity was in vain, because the explosions no doubt took out all of the advanced life you were trying to protect. But the Normandy survived. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that it plays back to the theme of "you can't save everyone." In the end, the goal was not to save everyone, or even every species. The goal was to stop the Reaper threat forever and break the cycle. Only with Synthesis does this happen. Shepard knew the relays would explode, but he also knew he had no other option. The Crucible had to be used. What was the term used in the game? "Ruthless calculus?" Trillions died so that future species would be forever spared. Luckily, the Normandy crew was able to escape, and humanity itself was able to survive the destruction and pass down the legend of The Shepard. Let us not ignore the iconography depicted by our character's name. The shepherd icon exists to lead people to enlightenment and salvation. Maybe Synthesis, and the ending of the cycle of destruction, is that enlightenment.



So I think that about wraps up my viewpoint of why I choose to believe that Synthesis was the right choice for me to make. It was the only option that was presented to you as yours and yours alone (Control and Destroy were TIM and Anderson's choices, respectively, hence the scenes depicting them engaging in them), and it was a compromise made between the two choices that allowed life to continue peacefully from then on. It was not ideal, by any means, but the game is very clear on the fact that not everyone will survive. There is loss and sacrifice in the name of peace. But loss and sacrifice are the only way peace could be achieved.

Thanks for reading, and I welcome any feedback you may have!

#2
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 178 messages
Welcome, JakeJynx. Nice to find another Synthesis supporter. Be prepared for some flaming though. It isn't exactly the most popular choice.

More in a moment.

All right. I agree with your arguments for choosing Synthesis. I've written more about that - the problem it solves and how it can do so - in my threads:
A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium and On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers.

I do not agree with you about Control, though. First, you do not always that "we are not ready" to TIM; but only if you choose the Paragon options. Also, as I see it Shepard becomes the Catalyst rather than a Reaper. But yes, you lose your organic nature in the process and become an superpowered uploaded mind, some kind of AI god like the Catalyst. I think that Control is a viable decision, but not the best from a problem-solving viewpoint.

You'll find a lot of people here who say they can't believe the Catalyst. It's a valid complaint if you stay in-world, and Bioware didn't manage to establish it as an entity you can trust, but nonetheless it's rather obvious you're supposed to take it at face value from a structure-of-.the-story viewpoint, because if it lies, you have no information at all on which to base your decision.

I think the biggest problem with the Synthesis is that it's so ultra-vague and the description makes no sense if taken at face value. "New....DNA" is obviously a metaphor, and "final evolution of life" is intended to point at some kind of advancement or ascension, but in reality, there is no such thing as a final evolution of life, and anyway evolution doesn't have a direction. So you need to interpret around the description instead of using it to get any idea of what it can actually do. I've written a lot about that in the linked thread.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2012 - 12:35 .


#3
Jenonax

Jenonax
  • Members
  • 884 messages
Welcome to the forums, dude. Ieldra2 above has a long thread full of interesting discussions about Synthesis. Be warned, very polarizing though.

#4
shodiswe

shodiswe
  • Members
  • 4 999 messages
There is one more thing that bothers me abotu the Catalysts argument about the need for synthesis. His argument was that Synthetics would destroy the creators. problem 1: The proteans were destroyign the synthetics in their cycle and winning until the reapers showd up. the Quarrians were winning until the reapers showed up.
2: If you make peace with the Geth or perhaps even peace between the geth and the quarrians then you have transcended the state that the catalyst claimed was impossible to evolve beyond due to the synthetics destroying their creators argument.
With that in mind the races of the galaxy were already poised to evolve past that stage without the reapers or their influence. Their solutions were no longer needed.

Synthesis is just a second technologytrap that slows down technological development of the milkyway, just like the relays because it would cost too much and take too long to develop technology that's better than the tech freely given by the reapers, tech that the people of the galaxy won't understand the science behind.

Synthesis is bad even when given to the peopel in the best of ways... There is also the risk that the added implants could have unforseen effects in the future beyond simply slowign down technologial and natural development/evolution.

#5
Vox Draco

Vox Draco
  • Members
  • 2 939 messages
I'll make it short: As far as I am concerned and taking the entire series into account plus all the experience Shepard and me have gathered throughout many hours of gameplay...

than there is no eternal conflict between synthetics and organics. Why should I change the DNA of everyone in the Galaxy without their consent andwithout knowing anything about the outcome or the process involved to solve a problem that doesn't even exists? And, the best part, isn't really solved at all, as synthetics can still be created to wipe out half-synthetics...

All this from a being that thought the first solution, harvesting organics to "preserve" them (melting them in a horrible way) was a great idea to...ahem...prevent organics getting MAYBE wiped out by synthetics.

The outcome, the process involved and the problem that is supposed to be the main reason to choose synthesis are all based on mere assumptions: By the player, by the catalyst.

In contrast to these assumed problems we have one real problem at hand: The Reapers are killing everyone outside. And they will stil be alive in both control and synthesis. So you solve a problem that MAYBE exists by picking green, and leave the MAIN problem that made you come here unresolved....

I know this will never convince anyone already subscribed to create a new race of husks...I mean half-synthetics, but so far I also have never read any compelling argument to choose it in favor of destroy. Hell, I'd rather try my luck with control...which is almost as bad

Oh, welcome to the forums! Ieldra will be happy to have you around I am sureImage IPB

#6
EricHVela

EricHVela
  • Members
  • 3 980 messages
Hypothesis requires head-canon. It makes sense to you because you made guesses as to what really happens.

#7
Vigilant111

Vigilant111
  • Members
  • 2 407 messages
OP: no, the cycle does not have to continue, u r placing too much credence in what the Catalyst says, not necessarily saying it is lying, just saying it may not be right

U have overly simplified and reduced the ending options into merely dialogue options, maybe the writers intended that way, but it was wrong. I always played as a paragon, and have a full bar of it, if I choose destroy what does it make me? shouldn't the ending reflect the fact that my Shepard is paragon even if he chooses destroy?

To successfully convince me to take synthesis, both morality and practicality issues must be taken care of, and I won't waste your time by mentioning them, there are plenty of good arguments against synthesis in numerous threads, posts from dreman9999 and Taboo-xx place the most forefront and eloquent propositions against synthesis, u can read them if u are interested

To sum up, I refuse to believe that conflicts will just go away by one person (a human whom is surprisingly sufficient enough to represent the whole of organics) jumping into a beam, too abstract, too naive and too improbable

#8
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

JakeJynx wrote...

As a sort of aside, I want to mention the Relays exploding, and how I initially felt that with the explosions, all of the choices you made and all of the work you did to save humanity was in vain, because the explosions no doubt took out all of the advanced life you were trying to protect. But the Normandy survived. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that it plays back to the theme of "you can't save everyone." In the end, the goal was not to save everyone, or even every species. The goal was to stop the Reaper threat forever and break the cycle. Only with Synthesis does this happen. Shepard knew the relays would explode, but he also knew he had no other option. The Crucible had to be used. What was the term used in the game? "Ruthless calculus?" Trillions died so that future species would be forever spared. Luckily, the Normandy crew was able to escape, and humanity itself was able to survive the destruction and pass down the legend of The Shepard. Let us not ignore the iconography depicted by our character's name. The shepherd icon exists to lead people to enlightenment and salvation. Maybe Synthesis, and the ending of the cycle of destruction, is that enlightenment.


By this logic, we should've let Saren win in ME1. You can't save everyone.
I mean, seriously. Is this what Mass Effect was about to you? Total defeatism? Sacrificing the galaxy so that humanity may live in an inbred form? The hell with cooperation, unity, victory over the odds? What was the point of ME1 and ME2 again?

This is what's so sad. Your justifications for synthesis are easily picked apart but this. THIS. Do you REALLY think this?
Ugh. Just ugh.

#9
Xellith

Xellith
  • Members
  • 3 606 messages
So you want to save organics from synthetics by effectively deleting all organics and synthetics and replacing them with something else entirely.  Even though synthetics will return. um... You arnt exactly protecting organics are you?

Modifié par Xellith, 02 juin 2012 - 01:31 .


#10
lillitheris

lillitheris
  • Members
  • 5 332 messages
Nobody, not even Ieldra2, has yet provided a remotely plausible explanation of how Synthesis works and achieves its stated goal of forever ending war between synthetic and organic species (because of that division).

Also, with no disrespect, saying this: “Because they're no longer true synthetics after Legion uploads the Reaper code fragments. They synthesize. They are given the equivalent of a human brain. It's only after this occurs, only after this synthesis” doesn’t really tell me that you understand what the Synthesis actually is supposed to do. In your scenario, the geth are most definitely still synthetics.

#11
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages
Not to mention that the Geth always wanted peace and cooperation, Reaper code or not.

You know this is the second time in as many days that someone has claimed that Reaper technology makes synthetics "good". What is going on with people lately!
Do you honestly think Reapers have some good programming that overrides evil programming or something?

#12
gisle

gisle
  • Members
  • 748 messages
Synthesis is presented as the best option by the Catalyst, but what the hell it is, he fails to explain. What's stopping people from creating 100% synthetics again? The EC need a lot of Catalyst dialogue to explain the choices Shepard is taking, especially Synthesis and Control.

#13
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Gisle-Aune wrote...

Synthesis is presented as the best option by the Catalyst, but what the hell it is, he fails to explain. What's stopping people from creating 100% synthetics again? The EC need a lot of Catalyst dialogue to explain the choices Shepard is taking, especially Synthesis and Control.


Synthesis only works in universe if you assume that the Catalyst is basically lying about the synthetics and the real motivation behind the cycle is in fact synthesis itself, i.e. turning organics into Reapers.
Synthesis does this on a larger scale permanently. Thus it ends the cycle.

It would be like turning the entire population of Earth into the **** ideal of Aryans. You haven't solved any potential conflict, but to the ignorant racists who believe this, everything is fixed.

And no, it's not Godwin's Law if the analogy is relevant.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juin 2012 - 01:45 .


#14
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 114 messages
As Ieldra pointed out there is no ingame reason to take anything the evil little genocidal space troll says as fact. It is an evil genocidal space troll that's currently slaughtering millions on earth and is responsible for the murder of trillions of the ages. Plus we learn it is an insane space troll with some wacky unproven theory that it uses to justify its thirst for murder.

From this basis:

Destroy: Well it clearly desperately wants to tell me that i really don't want to choose this. However why does a genocidal insane space troll even offer me this choice, maybe as a contrast to what it considers its new good solution.

Control: TIM the indocrinated fool choice. So a genocidal space troll tell me i can take control of the reapers and fly them into the sun. Seems rather a gamble to trust those words, sort of the thing no doubt that was whispered into TIM ears.

Synthesis. Apparently space blending organic dna with tech is its new preferred solution. From the insane maniac who's original solution was mass murder. Also what saren wanted. Also weren't collectors organic and tech combined. I remember a cool Mordin speech about how they had no soul. Turning every AI and organic into a new drone species would end the threat from its nutty hypothesis and would be the final evolution of life. Can't evolve out of that cul-de-sac

So in conclusion. Ideally i'dlike to go find a consoleand try andwork out how to shut down the evil genocidal monster or contact the fleet for advice how to do so. However i'm not allowed and faced with 3 choices proposed by a evil insane space troll i choose Destroy as it seems the one it doesn't want me to choose. Maybe it has doublebluffed me who knows.

Obviously EC may very well change the starbrat's role/charactersisation to make him more of a neutral plot device to deliver endings who knows. If they made him the reapers creator who had lost control of them long ago while they ran amok i might be able to take his choices in a better light.

Modifié par wright1978, 02 juin 2012 - 01:52 .


#15
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

The Angry One wrote...

Not to mention that the Geth always wanted peace and cooperation, Reaper code or not.


Yet the Heretics didn't - and apparently the only difference between them is .00001.

#16
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Not to mention that the Geth always wanted peace and cooperation, Reaper code or not.


Yet the Heretics didn't - and apparently the only difference between them is .00001.


There's one other minor difference. I mean it's very minor.
You know, Sovereign. I mean, it's not like Sovereign has a history of controlling beings for it's own ends or anything.

Also, the indoctrinated don't want peace either. They work for the Reapers. Let's kill all organics just to be sure.
What about the Rachni? Dirty stinking hostile Rachni. Further proof that organics are not to be trusted.

Edit: Just to make this perfectly clear, the difference among Heretics and the Geth is "join Sovereign". That's it.
Whatever else the Geth do under Sovereign is subject to Sovereign's control, and ME3 flat out demonstrates that Reapers do not let their minions operate autonomously.
The Geth are in fact disconcerted when they realise what the Heretics are doing, and Legion is outright shocked that the Heretics are successfully engaging in deception.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 juin 2012 - 01:54 .


#17
shodiswe

shodiswe
  • Members
  • 4 999 messages
The only reason the catalyst.. who is a reaper.. the Citadel reaper.... the citadel is a gigantic reaper... anyway the only reason the catalyst wants synthesis is because synthesis imposes a new technology trap that will stall technological development just like the relays and mass effect technology did before.

It's a trap.

Maybe that's why the reapers makes the illusive man recreate the new cyberneticly improved shepard... to be the template for the new solution.

Modifié par shodiswe, 02 juin 2012 - 01:49 .


#18
Shallyah

Shallyah
  • Members
  • 1 357 messages
Of all the interpretations I've seen of Synthesis, this is one of the weakest ones, filled with headcanoning.

The Shepard I know was much more than this.

Modifié par Shallyah, 02 juin 2012 - 01:53 .


#19
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 178 messages

Jenonax wrote...
Welcome to the forums, dude. Ieldra2 above has a long thread full of interesting discussions about Synthesis. Be warned, very polarizing though.

It's the anti-Synthesis fanatics who are polarizing. I've repeatedly said that I consider all three choices viable depending on the players' interpretation of things and personal ideology. Apparently that's not acceptable to the fundamentalists here. I've been bombarded with...historical epithets so incessantly that I've seriously considered leaving BSN altogether. Never thought BSN would turn out to be such a cesspool of intolerance.

#20
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...
Welcome to the forums, dude. Ieldra2 above has a long thread full of interesting discussions about Synthesis. Be warned, very polarizing though.

It's the anti-Synthesis fanatics who are polarizing. I've repeatedly said that I consider all three choices viable depending on the players' interpretation of things and personal ideology. Apparently that's not acceptable to the fundamentalists here. I've been bombarded with...historical epithets so incessantly that I've seriously considered leaving BSN altogether. Never thought BSN would turn out to be such a cesspool of intolerance.


HAHAHA!
You speak of intolerance while lauding an option that represents intolerance. That tells us diversity is bad, and the only way to end conflict is to make everybody the same.
Mind you I shouldn't be shocked. The irony of pro-synthesis people yelling and screaming that your opinions should be heard, while Synthesis itself is an act that ignores all opinion, all counter-thought, all dissent to impose it's new paradigm on all beings whether they like it or not is delicious.

#21
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

The Angry One wrote...
There's one other minor difference. I mean it's very minor.
You know, Sovereign. I mean, it's not like Sovereign has a history of controlling beings for it's own ends or anything.


Nazara was the catalyst to their schism, yes. The greater worries are:

(a) how easily it carved out so many of them to join its cause.

(B) how blasé the true Geth were about letting their reputation get dragged through the mud. Especially when they (a) monitor EVERY organic transmission and the extranet, and (B) know that organics couldn't tell a Geth from a Heretic if they read its serial number.


The Angry One wrote... 
Also, the indoctrinated don't want peace either. They work for the Reapers. Let's kill all organics just to be sure.
What about the Rachni? Dirty stinking hostile Rachni. Further proof that organics are not to be trusted.


I'm not out to kill anyone. Synthesis surely doesn't.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 02 juin 2012 - 01:57 .


#22
shodiswe

shodiswe
  • Members
  • 4 999 messages
Given that the Reapers used technological gifts to stall and manipulate the galaxy so they coudl commit genocide is enough to be weary of their "gifts".

#23
PsyrenY

PsyrenY
  • Members
  • 5 238 messages

shodiswe wrote...

Given that the Reapers used technological gifts to stall and manipulate the galaxy so they coudl commit genocide is enough to be weary of their "gifts".


Good thing WE built the Crucible then.

#24
Navasha

Navasha
  • Members
  • 3 724 messages
OP, you realize you just contradicted yourself. You state that you realized you couldn't save everyone when the relays are destroyed, but this was your whole argument against picking the destroy option.

You also state that only synthesis ends the reaper threat. Based on what exactly? Destroy is the only option where the reapers are dead and destroyed. They are still very much alive in synthesis. There is also no information in synthesis that even indicates that it solves the organic/synthetic dilemma.

The organic/synthetic conflict isn't because of 'differences', but because synthetics are our 'tools'. Tools which eventually become conscious sentient entities. Do you believe the new hybrid races are going to give up creating new tools to help them? Those tools will eventually be more powerful than their hybrid creators and will want for independence. So synthesis doesn't even solve this problem.

Finally, synthesis is morally corrupt. What right does Shepard have to choose to allow the reaper AI to rewrite all life in the galaxy to its whim? It basically destroys everyone and everything and creates its own warped version of "life". To me this is far more horrible than just allowing the reapers to complete their cycle. At least in this way, life will be spared and allowed to start over again.

#25
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 178 messages

lillitheris wrote...
Nobody, not even Ieldra2, has yet provided a remotely plausible explanation of how Synthesis works and achieves its stated goal of forever ending war between synthetic and organic species (because of that division).

War was never the problem. Casual extinction because of disregard was. Synthesis removes the intrinsic power imbalance between organics and synthetics, or at least reduces it to a manageable level. So yes, I have provided a rationale as for why Synthesis is a solution and its technological base. What I haven't done, and don't think I need to do, is provided an explanation of the process.