1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Aylyese]

Anyway, this has been fun, but it is 1am and my bed is at least 36 times warmer than where I am sitting right now. I am outy.

[Krunjar]

memorysquid wrote...

RebelReya wrote...


Yeah, that's my point. Their are no more organic beings in the universe. How can you be okay with that? 

I generally go with destory. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that people would actually trade the organic, evolving nature of life for stagnat unchanging sythesis, because of some pretty images.

Because who cares?  I was born into this body; no one asked me upfront if I was cool with that.  I couldn't care less what it is made of.  If it was made of replaceable toaster parts, I'd live longer, which would be nice.  My consciousness is what I find important about life; not living in a body made of meat.  Synthetics evolve too; you watch it happen in the game.  Further, I don't live to evolve; I live because life is enjoyable.

 /applause

[Forbry]

RebelReya wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

You guys do realize that no matter how happy and 'perfect' (to quote TIM) they paint it, Synthesis is still the elimination of all organic life? Their is NO more organic life, because only one person out of unknown trillions decides so. Even the plants are synthetic.

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction.  It doesn't make everyone one or the other or even a mix of both.  It is transcendent.  That's not even my headcanon, Mike Gamble actually tweeted that there's no distinction post-synthesis, just 'life.'  The writers' intention has been plain since pre-EC.  It's Hegelian dialectic. 

The writers viewed AND wrote synthesis as a way to overcome the old organic/synthetic dichotomy.  You can disagree with their premise, but the writing is clear enough that the fiction is clear.  You just don't like the fiction then, which is better to deal with than continually demanding everyone accept your headcanon rewrite as what ME3 REALLY means.

Yeah, that's my point. Their are no more organic beings in the universe. How can you be okay with that? 

I generally go with destory. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that people would actually trade the organic, evolving nature of life for stagnat unchanging sythesis, because of some pretty images.

If  I stay pretty much the same person in mind and in heart, I really don't care if that means I'm not an organic anymore. In that case, it's no more than a label.

[savionen]

o Ventus wrote...

Aloren wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
According to synthesis, synthetics and organics will never get along. Therefore the only solution is to make them the same.
Now, replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice. See the problem now?

Well, this kind of reasoning works both ways though...
According to Synthesis and Destroy, organics and synthetics will never get along.
Therefore the solution is to kill all synthetics, or to allow synthetics and organics to be "mixed".
Replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice, and your problem just got even worse... cause extermination by principle of one group by the other sure looks a lot more racist to me than unavoidable "miscegenation" of both .

With Destroy the intent is not that Shepard wishes to destroy all synthetics, only the Reapers. Synthetics just happen to be a very unfortunate side effect, and can be rebuilt.

Destroy killing synthetics is also shaky at best.

Shepard lives even though he/she is basically half-synthetic.
Garrus's face doesn't fall apart.
Ships are not damaged, therefore simple robots and machines are not damaged.
VIs are not destroyed since ships can still fly.
The Normandy survived, EDI is part of the Normandy.

[Aloren]

Aylyese wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

You're biasing your argument.  Synthesis eliminates the distinction. 

That really does not make it better. It is outright saying that the solution to problems of differences is to remove the differences. 

Example, you are a Catholic and I am a Muslim. We can never get along with these differences, so lets synthesise us both to Scientologists. 

Horrible, disgusting precident and bioware should be ashamed.

Well, it's either that or kill all muslims so that you can still be the same and they all instantly cease to exist. It sure isn't an easy decision, but that's precisely why it's interesting.

[memorysquid]

RebelReya wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

RebelReya wrote...


Yeah, that's my point. Their are no more organic beings in the universe. How can you be okay with that? 

I generally go with destory. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that people would actually trade the organic, evolving nature of life for stagnat unchanging sythesis, because of some pretty images.

Because who cares?  I was born into this body; no one asked me upfront if I was cool with that.  I couldn't care less what it is made of.  If it was made of replaceable toaster parts, I'd live longer, which would be nice.  My consciousness is what I find important about life; not living in a body made of meat.  Synthetics evolve too; you watch it happen in the game.  Further, I don't live to evolve; I live because life is enjoyable.

Because Shepard is forceing it on the entire galaxy!!! That's why. Again, it's the very notion of choice that upset many fans in the ending. They felt they didn't have a choice. None of the trilions of life-forms in the galaxy have a choice.

Every ending and almost every situation prior to the ending has involved people being affected by Shepard's decisions that he doesn't consult.  He blew up a solar system without consulting the Batarians in it.  He destroys or preserves the Collector base on his own.  He orders in the fleet to save the Destiny Ascension or not.  The game is about making tough choices, not about gaining informed consent from every person who might potentially be impacted by your actions [which is impossible anyway.]

None of the trillions of beings in the galaxy were consulted about being born; we don't view childbirth as the original sin, now do we?  Forcing people into situations not of their choosing is a big deal, sure.  It isn't a bigger deal than genocide.  It isn't a bigger deal than making oneself Reaper tyrant.

[Nerevar-as]

Forbry wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

How about the fact that everything about synthesis is just so nonsensical?
I mean, they're all silly, but synthesis is on it's own level of absurdity here.

So what?  That doesn't mean you get to invent a whole new story and demand that it be reality!  Talk about entitlement.  The writers were plain enough about what synthesis was that all this headcanoning nonsense is just making a different story.  So write another story then.  See who will buy it.  But stop demanding that internal fiction be accepted as the actual meaning of a fairly plain work.

It seems to me the only thing they're demanding is that the writers write a story that makes sense.
Synthesis makes none, it's magical, it's sinister and it's flat out stupid.

It's a well-known and often used theme (in one form or another) in scfi, so I don't think many people agree with you on this point. 

Not like this. As executed in ME3 is a miracle.

If you want to feel good about it, go play Deus Ex: HR.

[memorysquid]

savionen wrote...

Destroy killing synthetics is also shaky at best.

Shepard lives even though he/she is basically half-synthetic.
Garrus's face doesn't fall apart.
Ships are not damaged, therefore simple robots and machines are not damaged.
VIs are not destroyed since ships can still fly.
The Normandy survived, EDI is part of the Normandy.

It's not shaky; it is fiction.

[o Ventus]

savionen wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Aloren wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
According to synthesis, synthetics and organics will never get along. Therefore the only solution is to make them the same.
Now, replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice. See the problem now?

Well, this kind of reasoning works both ways though...
According to Synthesis and Destroy, organics and synthetics will never get along.
Therefore the solution is to kill all synthetics, or to allow synthetics and organics to be "mixed".
Replace synthetics and organics with ethnicities of your choice, and your problem just got even worse... cause extermination by principle of one group by the other sure looks a lot more racist to me than unavoidable "miscegenation" of both .

With Destroy the intent is not that Shepard wishes to destroy all synthetics, only the Reapers. Synthetics just happen to be a very unfortunate side effect, and can be rebuilt.

Destroy killing synthetics is also shaky at best.

Shepard lives even though he/she is basically half-synthetic.
Garrus's face doesn't fall apart.
Ships are not damaged, therefore simple robots and machines are not damaged.
VIs are not destroyed since ships can still fly.
The Normandy survived, EDI is part of the Normandy.

But EDI's name goes on the memorial wall. Thus we have to assume she is dead. There also aren't any dead geth seen anywhere. 

[Forbry]

Shadowvalker wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

So, it just better to kill people then?

Yes! It's the universal law of life

Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.

Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

Oh come on, I'm sure you live your life in utter contradiction with anything you've just written there.

Nope. That it's actually the way I live - sorry to disappoint you.

You never have visited a doctor in your life? You've never taken medicines or other kind of treatment? You never advised (or wanted) someone else (to do) any of these things?

[tyrvas]

savionen wrote...

Destroy killing synthetics is also shaky at best.

Shepard lives even though he/she is basically half-synthetic.
Garrus's face doesn't fall apart.
Ships are not damaged, therefore simple robots and machines are not damaged.
VIs are not destroyed since ships can still fly.
The Normandy survived, EDI is part of the Normandy.

Shepard may also die in Destroy depending on the amount of your EMS,
in EC DLC the EMS required has been lowered.
If you don't have the minimum EMS requirement, it's even worse.

Modifié par tyrvas, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:16 .

[Forbry]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Forbry wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

How about the fact that everything about synthesis is just so nonsensical?
I mean, they're all silly, but synthesis is on it's own level of absurdity here.

So what?  That doesn't mean you get to invent a whole new story and demand that it be reality!  Talk about entitlement.  The writers were plain enough about what synthesis was that all this headcanoning nonsense is just making a different story.  So write another story then.  See who will buy it.  But stop demanding that internal fiction be accepted as the actual meaning of a fairly plain work.

It seems to me the only thing they're demanding is that the writers write a story that makes sense.
Synthesis makes none, it's magical, it's sinister and it's flat out stupid.

It's a well-known and often used theme (in one form or another) in scfi, so I don't think many people agree with you on this point. 

Not like this. As executed in ME3 is a miracle.

If you want to feel good about it, go play Deus Ex: HR.

I have played DE:HR. That one and ME are actually my favorite games of all time. I liked the way they executed the theme in that game and I liked it the way they handled it here

[RebelReya]

memorysquid wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

RebelReya wrote...


Yeah, that's my point. Their are no more organic beings in the universe. How can you be okay with that? 

I generally go with destory. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that people would actually trade the organic, evolving nature of life for stagnat unchanging sythesis, because of some pretty images.

Because who cares?  I was born into this body; no one asked me upfront if I was cool with that.  I couldn't care less what it is made of.  If it was made of replaceable toaster parts, I'd live longer, which would be nice.  My consciousness is what I find important about life; not living in a body made of meat.  Synthetics evolve too; you watch it happen in the game.  Further, I don't live to evolve; I live because life is enjoyable.

Because Shepard is forceing it on the entire galaxy!!! That's why. Again, it's the very notion of choice that upset many fans in the ending. They felt they didn't have a choice. None of the trilions of life-forms in the galaxy have a choice.

Every ending and almost every situation prior to the ending has involved people being affected by Shepard's decisions that he doesn't consult.  He blew up a solar system without consulting the Batarians in it.  He destroys or preserves the Collector base on his own.  He orders in the fleet to save the Destiny Ascension or not.  The game is about making tough choices, not about gaining informed consent from every person who might potentially be impacted by your actions [which is impossible anyway.]

None of the trillions of beings in the galaxy were consulted about being born; we don't view childbirth as the original sin, now do we?  Forcing people into situations not of their choosing is a big deal, sure.  It isn't a bigger deal than genocide.  It isn't a bigger deal than making oneself Reaper tyrant.

We're not talking about childbirth. We're not talking about creation. We are talking about forced change. Let me quote you. "Forcing peple into situations not of their choosing is a big deal.' It is genocide. "New DNA" a new genome, by removing what evolved natually. Universally. Unquestionibly. Permenantly Changed. The old organic nature is removed, and universally replaced with the hybrids that are both Organic, and Sythetic, like the Reapers. The Universe then entirely consists of those who fit the Reaper's idea of perfection, their is no one else. Sythesis is genocide.

[Caenis]

Malditor wrote...
This same question can be applied to "Destroy", what do you do when humans build Synthetics, and the cycle continues again war and peace, and then someone after billions of years decides to create a Catalyst for peace, except this time the Catalyst goes buggy and starts protecting humanity by harvesting them and turning them into massive machines to 'save' them, and stop the violent cycle.

Same logic, you are forcing your decision to kill ALL technology, and sentient beings onto the geth. And since 'science' isn't really advanced and you wouldn't have the backup knowledge of the collective, it would take much longer if not thousands of years to rebuild any of that WITH the chance of that turning into another 'Geth-Quarian' war, leading to the above comment.

But what's that I hear? It MIGHT not happen? It's a hypothetical question in a fictional world? Oh darn! Same thing with Control, it might not happen, and people's methods of dealing with it are as varied as there is diversity. And stepping in doesn't necessarily mean "killing" everyone and "imposing" death, it could simply mean doing what Shepard did in the game, acting as a diplomat. Paragon Shepard is pretty verbally persuasive, and being 'God' now and all...I'm sure the majority would support her.

No it can't be applied to Destroy, you are making one single decision still. You leave it up to whomever comes up against the similar situation again to make their own decision. The only time you get caught in a loop of making decisions is Control because you are now immortal and in control of the Reapers.

In EVERY choice you are making a single decision. And in every decision except Synthesis (because it's the idea of Utopia however long lasting we don't know ) you get caught in a loop.... In Destroy the 'possibility' of a loop, that loop is the 'cycle' continues, again and again if people build A.I's and since Shepard didn't tell them that the war was about A.I's and what the Catalyst was, this whole deal with "The Shepard" would have to happen...again and again..."Control" depending on the motives of your Shepard is the better outcome if you want to end the cycle, and help guide humanity to get to a place where they can make wise decisions without commiting genocide. Synthesis is a cheat button (albeit not a bad cheat button, I LOVE CHEATS , and has very valid points for it), the point is, there's not much you can write in a "After Shepard" that isn't boring without giving Synthesis some more conflict i.e. killing off utopia and giving another threat that destroys the Unity. (Ok that wasn't a point that was just random)...anyway Control delays the inevitable, but still gets you there on humanity's terms, depending on your motivies and the hypothetical things that happen in the course of that hypothetical story.

You're basically  arguing that the choice for 'future' generations is eliminated if you choose Control and Synthesis (which I suppose it is in Synthesis but it's not a problem in that world). You are assuming that X, Y and Z will happen when that's all hypothetical, just like it's 'hypothetical' that the cycle will even continue at all in your particular canon.

With destroy when/if the Catalyst does happen again (which is highly probable) they can make a decision...but do you think that still won't be forcing something onto humanity? It's the same thing just with a different 'flavor' RED. Every choice enforces a decision onto humanity. Whether it be to strip them of technology and kill off synthetics, or whatever choice. You force your opinion in all 4 choices onto a large group of others (except in Control where you even have the option to be a passive observor like the God who just sits up there doing nothing), who may not even all agree. Look at where we live. It has always been one man or a small group of people deciding the fate of everyone else, in politics, in life, it's how it has always been--do you really think that all the billions of people in the galaxy would agree to the destroy Vote? It's like Nuclear weapons, does everyone agree that Iran shouldn't have Nuclear weapons, and that people shouldn't bomb the **** out of the middle east to solve a problem...NOPE. Everyone does not agree on that anymore than we agree now on which ending we would prefer. Some of us would be willing to kill from stopping Destroy to be enforced on us and humanity, others Synthesis and even others Control...press that destroy button and you're forcing your choice to destroy everything I've built and telling me to start from scratch and let the cycle continue.

But, OK so you pressed the destroy button and Catalyst happens again, guess what, another "Shepard" or a small 'group' of "Shepard's" goes into the room and makes a choice for all and we feel better because we let that one other person in the far future decide and didn't because we didn't have the courage to take the burden on ourselves.

Saying Destroy gives choice to humanity, is basically in my opinion a cop-out, because someone else gets to make that choice and it sure as hell won't be the collective! 

Modifié par Caenis, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:22 .

[Siansonea]

Let's say that a scientist creates a virus that rewrites the genetic code of all humanity, and in the process cures all known diseases, as well as eliminating racism, sexism, hunger, obesity and intellectual inequality. Sounds good, right? Happiness for everyone!! Now we can survive on very little food if we have to, or we can eat as much as we want and never get fat, thanks to our improved digestive system. Instead of the multiplicity of ethnicities we once were, all of us now have a medium brown skin town and black hair, with brown eyes, all other variations have been eradicated from the genome. And like the asari, we're all female now, all new children that will be born will be female, and will reproduce through parthenogenesis. Aging has been eradicated as well, we remain youthful and pretty well into our senior years, and our lifespans have been doubled. Also, the human sex drive is gone, it was problematic, so it was eliminated. We've been upgraded! No, you weren't asked if you wanted to be upgraded, is that a problem?

THAT'S Synthesis. Whatever rosy fantasy there is of EDI becoming a real girl (she was already a RealDoll) and everyone living together in perfect harmony like some 1970s Coca-Cola commercial, it doesn't change the fact that all life has been irrevocably altered on a very basic level, without consultation or consent, by ONE person, at the urging of a murderous AI who could be telling Shepard all kinds of lies (and whose explanations are problematic at best).

[Aloren]

o Ventus wrote...

With Destroy the intent is not that Shepard wishes to destroy all synthetics, only the Reapers. Synthetics just happen to be a very unfortunate side effect, and can be rebuilt.

Indeed, it's not his intent, but it is a consequence he is well aware of, just like he is aware that there's a way to avoid it. It all depends on the "price" you're ready to pay. (also, they can be rebuilt... but they're alive, it goes beyond "rebuilding"...)

[Forbry]

Unbelievable that there can be written so much about that ending!!! It's pointless and you get fed up with it after a while , but in its basis it's a beautiful thing, right? We agree on that?

[Shadowvalker]

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Malditor wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

Why I don't fancy synthesis:

Because it is not natures own evolution.

So, it just better to kill people then?

Yes! It's the universal law of life

Interesting, following this idea anyone who gets sick should just be allowed to die instead of finding ways to cure them or prevent others from getting the same illness. We are constantly finding ways to improve ourselves and become more able to survive. However, by your philosphy we should just accept death in whatever form it comes in because it's the law of life.

Yes! When death comes - well it bloody well comes! You can fight it all you want but it comes anyway. You accept life but not death? The you should not have swum as fast as you did when you were a merly spem.

Oh come on, I'm sure you live your life in utter contradiction with anything you've just written there.

Nope. That it's actually the way I live - sorry to disappoint you.

You never have visited a doctor in your life? You've never taken medicines or other kind of treatment? You never advised (or wanted) someone else (to do) any of these things?

That is beside the point - but I don't understand what people have against life? Do you resent the seasons as well? Do you truely only want summer or winter?

For every action there is a reaction. Everything has a counterpart. The univers began and supprise - it will end at some point.

[pseudonymic]

how would you like to wake up one day part human part roach?

same concept.

[Baronesa]

Siansonea II wrote...

Let's say that a scientist creates a virus that rewrites the genetic code of all humanity, and in the process cures all known diseases, as well as eliminating racism, sexism, hunger, obesity and intellectual inequality. Sounds good, right? Happiness for everyone!! Now we can survive on very little food if we have to, or we can eat as much as we want and never get fat, thanks to our improved digestive system. Instead of the multiplicity of ethnicities we once were, all of us now have a medium brown skin town and black hair, with brown eyes, all other variations have been eradicated from the genome. And like the asari, we're all female now, all new children that will be born will be female, and will reproduce through parthenogenesis. Aging has been eradicated as well, we remain youthful and pretty well into our senior years, and our lifespans have been doubled. Also, the human sex drive is gone, it was problematic, so it was eliminated. We've been upgraded! No, you weren't asked if you wanted to be upgraded, is that a problem?

THAT'S Synthesis. Whatever rosy fantasy there is of EDI becoming a real girl (she was already a RealDoll) and everyone living together in perfect harmony like some 1970s Coca-Cola commercial, it doesn't change the fact that all life has been irrevocably altered on a very basic level, without consultation or consent, by ONE person, at the urging of a murderous AI who could be telling Shepard all kinds of lies (and whose explanations are problematic at best).

This is probably the best comparision I have read so far.

+1000

[Malditor]

Caenis wrote...

In EVERY choice you are making a single decision. And in every decision except Synthesis (because it's the idea of Utopia however long lasting we don't know ) you get caught in a loop.... In Destroy the 'possibility' of a loop, that loop is the 'cycle' continues, again and again if people build A.I's and since Shepard didn't tell them that the war was about A.I's and what the Catalyst was, this whole deal with "The Shepard" would have to happen...again and again..."Control" depending on the motives of your Shepard is the better outcome if you want to end the cycle, and help guide humanity to get to a place where they can make wise decisions without commiting genocide. Synthesis is a cheat button (albeit not a bad cheat button, I LOVE CHEATS , and has very valid points for it), the point is, there's not much you can write in a "After Shepard" that isn't boring without giving Synthesis some more conflict i.e. killing off utopia and giving another threat that destroys the Unity. (Ok that wasn't a point that was just random)...anyway Control delays the inevitable, but still gets you there on humanity's terms, depending on your motivies and the hypothetical things that happen in the course of that hypothetical story.

You're basically  arguing that the choice for 'future' generations is eliminated if you choose Control and Synthesis (which I suppose it is in Synthesis but it's not a problem in that world). You are assuming that X, Y and Z will happen when that's all hypothetical, just like it's 'hypothetical' that the cycle will even continue at all in your particular canon.

With destroy when/if the Catalyst does happen again (which is highly probable) they can make a decision...but do you think that still won't be forcing something onto humanity? It's the same thing just with a different 'flavor' RED. Every choice enforces a decision onto humanity. Whether it be to strip them of technology and kill off synthetics, or whatever choice. You force your opinion in all 4 choices onto a large group of others (except in Control where you even have the option to be a passive observor like the God who just sits up there doing nothing), who may not even all agree. Look at where we live. It has always been one man or a small group of people deciding the fate of everyone else, in politics, in life, it's how it has always been--do you really think that all the billions of people in the galaxy would agree to the destroy Vote? It's like Nuclear weapons, does everyone agree that Iran shouldn't have Nuclear weapons, and that people shouldn't bomb the **** out of the middle east to solve a problem...NOPE. Everyone does not agree on that anymore than we agree now on which ending we would prefer. Some of us would be willing to kill from stopping Destroy to be enforced on us and humanity, others Synthesis and even others Control...press that destroy button and you're forcing your choice to destroy everything I've built and telling me to start from scratch and let the cycle continue.

But, OK so you pressed the destroy button and Catalyst happens again, guess what, another "Shepard" or a small 'group' of "Shepard's" goes into the room and makes a choice for all and we feel better because we let that one other person in the far future decide and didn't because we didn't have the courage to take the burden on ourselves.

Saying Destroy gives choice to humanity, is basically in my opinion a cop-out, because someone else gets to make that choice and it sure as hell won't be the collective! 

No, you keep leaving out that in control you are now the one in charge of the reapers and live forever. Unless you never step in on any conflict you will eventually have to make ANOTHER choice about which side you agree with and force the other accept defeat. This could and probably will happen repeatedly and as such you will be constantly making choice after choice of who is right and forcing all to accept it. Therefore you will be imposing your choice on all more than just the one time you do in reject/destroy/synthesis. I'm not telling you that control is wrong, I don't think any of the choices are wrong because it's up to the individual to decide what is right for them. What I'm saying is I don't feel comfortable with control because I would be put in a position to force my choice on all repeatedly anytime a conflict arose that I had to put an end to.
So in short, you make an initial choice that will lead to you making subsequent choices throughout eternity unless you are completely "hands-off" during any conflicts that arise. Problem is, even if you take the completely "hands-off" approach not everyone would agree and would want you to step in and stop it. So even a non-choice would be a forced choice.

Modifié par Malditor, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:32 .

[Caenis]

At the end of the day, every choice you make is imposing an idea onto a LARGE group of people. It's one persons choice enforced onto everyone else.

[Nerevar-as]

Forbry wrote...

Unbelievable that there can be written so much about that ending!!! It's pointless and you get fed up with it after a while , but in its basis it's a beautiful thing, right? We agree on that?

They said they wanted speculation and debate.

This time they´ve succeeded.

[Caenis]

Malditor wrote...
No, you keep leaving out that in control you are now the one in charge of the reapers and live forever. Unless you never step in on any conflict you will eventually have to make ANOTHER choice about which side you agree with and force the other accept defeat. This could and probably will happen repeatedly and as such you will be constantly making choice after choice of who is right and forcing all to accept it. Therefore you will be imposing your choice on all more than just the one time you do in reject/destroy/synthesis. I'm not telling you that control is wrong, I don't think any of the choices are wrong because it's up to the individual to decide what is right for them. What I'm saying is I don't feel comfortable with control because I would be put in a position to force my choice on all repeatedly anytime a conflict arose that I had to put an end to.

And you keep leaving out that Shepard doesn't HAVE to control the Reapers, and that she can ultimately give up control of the Reapers if she chooses, order them to destroy themselves, order them to go to hell, order them to rebuild and then die, free the Reapers, and rebuild herself a body where she can live the rest of her days with her love interest.

[Ryzaki]

Siansonea II wrote...

Let's say that a scientist creates a virus that rewrites the genetic code of all humanity, and in the process cures all known diseases, as well as eliminating racism, sexism, hunger, obesity and intellectual inequality. Sounds good, right? Happiness for everyone!! Now we can survive on very little food if we have to, or we can eat as much as we want and never get fat, thanks to our improved digestive system. Instead of the multiplicity of ethnicities we once were, all of us now have a medium brown skin town and black hair, with brown eyes, all other variations have been eradicated from the genome. And like the asari, we're all female now, all new children that will be born will be female, and will reproduce through parthenogenesis. Aging has been eradicated as well, we remain youthful and pretty well into our senior years, and our lifespans have been doubled. Also, the human sex drive is gone, it was problematic, so it was eliminated. We've been upgraded! No, you weren't asked if you wanted to be upgraded, is that a problem?

THAT'S Synthesis. Whatever rosy fantasy there is of EDI becoming a real girl (she was already a RealDoll) and everyone living together in perfect harmony like some 1970s Coca-Cola commercial, it doesn't change the fact that all life has been irrevocably altered on a very basic level, without consultation or consent, by ONE person, at the urging of a murderous AI who could be telling Shepard all kinds of lies (and whose explanations are problematic at best).

Sounds like Hell.

But yes +1