I picked synthesis.
Why? Well. It made sense.
Throughout all three games I had wondered why on earth the Reapers do what they do. Why harvest civilization? Why melt people? For what purpose were they made or came into being? Sovereign and Harbinger always hinted at some greater purpose, and I wanted to know what it was. And then throughout the last game I begin to see the idea of organics vs synthetics solidify. The idea was more or less always there, what with geth vs. quarians, with rogue AI on Luna, with EDI and Legion in ME2, but it was in ME3 where these ideas began to knock louder at the back of my head. The problem which the Starchild presents makes sense: to allow synthetics to develop, either through organics working on them or through their own independent ways, would ultimately result in a conflict where organics will lose. This isn't a new idea. The Morning War between geth and quarians is an example of this. So is the Terminator movies. And the Reapers solution and mass relays, by forcing organics down a particular tech path, more or less maintains a balance (albeit a balance which is rather cruel every 50,000 years or so).
But the line that really got me was when the Starchild said something along the lines of "Organics seek perfection through technology, synthetic seek perfection through understanding." And to me, that is just so true of the universe the game is in (and I dare say in real life too). Every organic looks for ways to better their lives through tech (just see how pervasive tech is, it's pretty much the reason for technology). Almost everyone has tech to augment their daily lives. Shepard himself is alive only because of technology. And it is in the nature of organics to seek further developments and improvements to quality of life through technology. This is practically fact, even in reality, otherwise I wouldn't be typing this out now. And practically every major synthetic (ie EDI and Legion) tries to understand what it is to be alive. Legion spends every conversation trying to understand organics, and understand what makes himself different from them (who can forget the line "Does this unit have a soul?"). EDI's questions throughout the game and the final.conversation in London is another example. By and large, synthetics want to be alive. Hence, if given the chance to allow both to attain these dreams of perfection, so to speak, then why wouldn't I take that opportunity? And EDI's narration at the end of synthesis, her descriptions of pursuing a more perfect union, so to speak, merely confirms I made the right choice for me.
I want to try tackle the main objection of the synthesis ending, that it forces the change onto everyone. To me, I don't think the magnitude of the change has much to do with whether or not synthesis is a good or bad ending. In making the decision, all that I considered was whether or not it is a good solution to the recognised problem: that is, the organic/synthetic dichotomy. Is synthesis the best solution to this problem? And, given the above, I feel that it is.
Furthermore, Shepard has had to make similar decisions with these kinds of impact, albeit perhaps on a smaller scale. For example, wiping the heretic geth, killing the last Rachni queen, and delivering the genophage cure. Take the Rachni, for example. You can either kill the Queen, and perhaps sparing the galaxy from a massive future problem, or let it go, and potentially risk another Rachni War and the security of the galaxy. This goes for the genophage cure for the Krogan too. It is up to your Shepard to decide whether or not the Krogan get a chance to be saved from extinction. The decisions impact in a similar way (removing the right to self-determination, to reproduce, and, well, to live), except on a smaller numerical scale. If you object to Shepard being given the right to determine the form of existence for everyone (i.e. choosing synthesis), then why has the same right to make a decision which has a wide-ranging impact on a lot of people been exercised by him over and over again throughout the games? Apart from scale, there is no real difference between the substance of these decisions. The Shepard I played has essentially become "The Man" of the galaxy. He is the "Problem Solver in Chief". Time and time again he made tough decisions, to the point where he's had a say in every single major interracial conflict and issue in the galaxy. In fact, I'd argue that in making all these decisions, he's already impacted on everyone in the galaxy anyway. To challenge whether or not Shepard has the right to make this decision, to ask what gives him the right to make the change for everyone through synthesis, would be to effectively challenge the game because the same question could be asked of every single decision he has had to make in the last few years.
Perhaps that argument doesn't come off as too convincing, and I know that many of you would still baulk at the idea of changing everyone. I recognise that it is a true difficulty in this decision. But fo me, it is one which can be argued and rationalized.
Finally, I want to deal with another objection, one which I find fairly persuasive. Yes, I do hate the green. =)
This is all just my personal opinion, and you are welcome to have your own, as I have my own. I see the appeal in all three endings (I honestly didn't like rejection..... it is just so..... I dunno how to say it..... stubborn?). In fact, I think it is a testament to how well the EC is that for me, all three options presents viable outcomes, being so well executed. Control and Destroy are perfectly valid choices and consistent with the games before it. I watched all three on the one playthrough that I had (I watched reject too, but didn't like that at all), and I honestly couldn't decide which one was the best. Ultimately to me, the synthesis choice represents the ultimate choice and decision for my "Problem Solver in Chief" to take, the man who has had to make the hard calls and decisions at every step of the way. And as the synthesis world just sat very well with my ideals, for me, it was the best option.
And call me naive, but please don't flame or abuse. Please do have a read.
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
(edit: formatting)
Modifié par macroberts, 28 juin 2012 - 05:00 .
Retour en haut
