257 réponses à ce sujet

[Samtheman63]

yeah

you cant take the EC slides at face value, as none of the ending can be taken at face value

[Ieldra]

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

That could be considered a consensus? Nobody 'likes' their decisions taken lightly. OR, it could be just that 'chaos' the catalyst is all buzzed up about?

[EagleScoutDJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

To me Synthesis goes against one of the main themes of the whole trilogy, strength through diversity, and instead tells us that the only way to have lasting peace is to make everyone the same.  And while I don't believe that makes it invalid, it does make it bad.  It all comes down to opinion and anyone that tells someone else there opinion is invalid just because they disagree is wrong.

[Someone With Mass]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

The thing is that Synthesis is based on such BS, because not only is it not explained how and with what this transformation is performed other than the lazy space magic excuse, but it also restricts trillions of organic beings like plantlife, animals and people to their current form of living and they won't be able to adapt to any new environments the organic way, it resets all knowledge in medicine, biology and pretty much all fields of science (if the Catalyst doesn't fully know how it's done, then what chance do we have?) and you're admitting that the Catalyst is right with its broken logic and lets it have its way with you.

Not to mention that the Reapers are free to do whatever they please.

Besides, if this thing is as inevitable as certain people say it is, then what's the point of doing it now? I'd rather leave that change to capable and intelligent people instead of this feces-smearing waste of space:


Say what you will about Destroy and Control, at least they're leaving the future of the galaxy in the hands of the people.

[darthnick427]

Fixers0 wrote...



"Together, we can build a future greater than any one of us could imagine"

So what makes synthesis special?

Indeed

[Ieldra]

dbollendorf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

To me Synthesis goes against one of the main themes of the whole trilogy, strength through diversity, and instead tells us that the only way to have lasting peace is to make everyone the same.  And while I don't believe that makes it invalid, it does make it bad.  It all comes down to opinion and anyone that tells someone else there opinion is invalid just because they disagree is wrong.

Synthesis does not make everyone the same.

[Ieldra]

darthnick427 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...



"Together, we can build a future greater than any one of us could imagine"

So what makes synthesis special?

Indeed

It is a different kind of future. As opposed to most people of the pro-Destroy faction, pro-Synthesis people as a rule do not claim that any other of the three main endings is bad. I perceive it as a tad generic and conventional, and I don't like that, but it is not bad.

[TheJediSaint]

I don't think Synthesis is "evil". I think it's stupid.

[Samtheman63]

harbringer basically tells shepard he wants to indcotrinate him, then when we meet harbringer we are knocked unconscious by his beam (that is powerful enough to destroy a dreadnought in one hit) only to awaken to a series of nonsensical events and surroundings.

during this time we meet the apparent leader of the reapers (which looks like the boy from shepard nightmares, the same boy who has a warning sign next to him everytime he appears on screen) who tells shepard that destroying the reapers would be a bad idea and instead encourages him to pick "synthesis" effectivly turning everyone into synthetic/organic hybrids, which is exactly what the reapers want.

shepard then jumps down a hole, gets huskified and sees the reapers working along side the people of the galaxy to help rebuild the destruction they have created, the same people who have had their home worlds ravaged and their friends and family killed. and they get along just fine!?

and there are people who believe indoctrination doesnt come into it?

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[EagleScoutDJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

To me Synthesis goes against one of the main themes of the whole trilogy, strength through diversity, and instead tells us that the only way to have lasting peace is to make everyone the same.  And while I don't believe that makes it invalid, it does make it bad.  It all comes down to opinion and anyone that tells someone else there opinion is invalid just because they disagree is wrong.

Synthesis does not make everyone the same.

It makes everyone a combination of organic and synthetic, sure feels the same to me.

[Tootles FTW]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Synthesis does not make everyone the same.

Yes, but the whole basis for Synthesis being the "perfect solution" necessitates you agree that organics & synthetics can never live together peacefully.  So the Catalyst's reasoning can either be boiled down to: you must be part-organic to care for organics, and part-synthetic to care for synthetics (AKA "I don't care - and will never care - about you unless it effects me directly") OR the result of Synthesis means we'll all have a hive-mind mentality and thus won't fight amongst ourselves?  

...I mean, I really don't see another analysis for Synthesis that makes sense with the Catalyst's logic that it will solve the organic VS synthetic "problem".  If you have another theory, please tell me as I'm honestly interested to see how people who like this ending break it down.

[Eterna]

dbollendorf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

To me Synthesis goes against one of the main themes of the whole trilogy, strength through diversity, and instead tells us that the only way to have lasting peace is to make everyone the same.  And while I don't believe that makes it invalid, it does make it bad.  It all comes down to opinion and anyone that tells someone else there opinion is invalid just because they disagree is wrong.

Synthesis does not make everyone the same.

It makes everyone a combination of organic and synthetic, sure feels the same to me.

Everybody has the same core DNA structure, does that make us all the same? Why would adding an additional Synthetic component to that structure suddenly make us all the same?

What you're saying is like saying "Everybody has eyes, we are all the same"

[EagleScoutDJB]

Eterna5 wrote...

Everybody has the same core DNA structure, does that make us all the same? Why would adding an additional Synthetic component to that structure suddenly make us all the same?

What you're saying is like saying "Everybody has eyes, we are all the same"

That depends on how technical you want to get, but the really technical arguments annoy me and don't really belong on the BSN so I won't go there.   What I'm saying is that the stupid kid tells us the only way for there to be peace between organics and synthetics is for everyone to be part organic and part synthetic and I feel that that goes against the idea of strength through diversity.

Modifié par dbollendorf, 31 octobre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Reorte]

Sure, the slides can be believed. The best propaganda is always made by carefully selecting bits of truth; lies are all too easily found out and even with it people will get on with trying to rebuild. And it is propaganda to simply ignore the fact that a hell of a lot of people would have a hell of a big problem waking up and discovering that their bodies had been altered against their will at a fundamental level. Even if they get used to it there's no way at all that can be regarded as anything other than abhorrent by anyone with a shred of morality about them.

Furthermore there are the unescapable logical conclusions about it with the other information we're given. If the Catalyst is right about it being the end of evolution then it will result in mass extinction on undeveloped worlds. There's simply no way around that. There's also no way around the conclusion that it does nothing about his so-called problem unless it does actually change people's thinking, which would be another atrocity. It's also rather a huge leap of faith to expect the previously arrogant and destructive Reapers to suddenly become friendly and docile.

Plus the very idea is so completely and utterly ridiculous.

[Little Princess Peach]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Let's look at some pictures. All three slides are exclusive to the Synthesis ending.


"... to recover the greatness that was lost... and surpass it."


"We will reclaim our worlds... and the stars."


"... taking our first steps into a new and wonderful future, where organics and synthetics can coexist peacefully."

BSN, I want you to be absolutely clear with me. Do the majority of you believe that these slides should not be taken literally? That is, the slide are illusions, exaggerations, half-truths, etc.? There is absolutely nothing good about these slides? Is there something sinister or deceptive about them? The krogan really don't rebuild and improve their civilization? The quarians and geth really don't willingly coexist and rebuild Rannoch together?

No matter what we see or hear, Synthesis is a deception?

Slides one and two,three
Why can't Organics achive this without synthetics?
what im saying is that the organics and reapers are fused together by d.n.a or at least thats how I understand it, I hate this ending because no matter how many pretty images Bioware gives me at the end of the day we have seren hybrids.

You recall what happend to seren in me1 when he fused  with a reaper yes? whats stopping the entire galaxy from becoming that.

Modifié par Tali-vas-normandy, 31 octobre 2012 - 07:54 .

[ghost9191]

MY GOD. all those charismatic turains running around, turning into a machine thing saying " I am sovereign and this is my BAR" , not exact but switched it up

[Bill Casey]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

Slides one
Why can't Organics achive this without synthetics?

Because there's intrinsic cultural, historical and artistic value in the restoration of the city of the ancients...
That's not something you just build over...

[Little Princess Peach]

Bill Casey wrote...

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

Slides one
Why can't Organics achive this without synthetics?

Because there's intrinsic cultural, historical and artistic value in the restoration of the city of the ancients...
That's not something you just build over...

granted that with synthetic life organics could achive great things, but we can also build greatness with out merging, think about it, we will evole the same way just things would be a whole lot diffrent

[netfischer]

I really dont like the synthesis ending.

I see a number of problems with it, but what really bothers me is the credibility aspect. I am really not the guy who minds minor flaws and inconsistencies in a story or even a little bit of space magic. But which kind of technology is that, which reconstructs the entire life in the galaxy as synthetic life? Thats just so incredible outrageous!

[CosmicGnosis]

Glad this thread went over well. I wonder if the rest of the internet hates Synthesis as much as BSN does?

[Hey]

I would guess it takes more than a slides out of context to really be sold on such an idea.

[DirtySHISN0]

netfischer wrote...

I really dont like the synthesis ending.

I see a number of problems with it, but what really bothers me is the credibility aspect. I am really not the guy who minds minor flaws and inconsistencies in a story or even a little bit of space magic. But which kind of technology is that, which reconstructs the entire life in the galaxy as synthetic life? Thats just so incredible outrageous!

Eezo.

Enough about outrageous magic that founds the Mass Effect universe.

Not specific to you, but not entirely unrelated - People seem to gang up on synthesis while vehemently defending destroy as the only ending it makes sense to choose.
To me, this just seems like wishful thinking, all of the endings are fraught with incosistencies and logical holes. Defending one in favour of another for any reason that is plot related (which we have already established is broken) is just foolish.

Another point related to ethics that often comes up with synthesis - space rape.

Murder (taking away all that someone is and will ever be) is apparantly preferable to rape.


Crass topic aside, i feel they are issues that need to be adressed so people can see how there is no solace, logic or reason to be found in any ending. 

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dbollendorf wrote...
Synthesis being bad is a matter of opinion, some people are OK with it and some people hate it. I think a better way to put it would be, no matter how much Bioware adds to the game they can't force people to like something they hate.

No ending is made to be liked by everyone. Bioware knew that a large percentage of people wouldn't like Synthesis, and they made the endings divisive on purpose (though they may have underestimated the intensity of the reaction). I have no problem with that. In fact, if the majority liked the ending I prefer I would question my choice, because that never happened before.

The issue I have is that some people don't just dislike it, they claim Synthesis is an invalid ending. They invent bad outcomes based on their visceral rejection of it, disregarding the positive outcome the EC presents us with, and plainly do anything it's possible to do online to ruin the games of those who chose it.

No, the outcome of Synthesis is not bad. You may think it's not worth the price, and that I understand. You may think it's less desirable than others for various reasons, and that I understand as well. But it is not a bad ending. Not by any means. It ends the cycle and gives the galaxy a golden age and the prospect of ascension. And indoctrination does not come into it. Period.

Actually, people tend to expand upon ideas that rational people brought up in the story/games themselves.  In every instance where such a thought was discussed, irrational or indoctrinated people thought it sounded good, reapers thought it sounded good, the AL (artificial lack of intelligence) thought it sounded good, and I know that others think it sounds good.  Even if such a thing were instantly possible or considering that it could happen (not by evolution but by some technological accident), you seriously can't envision there ever being a problem with it?  Here again and in many other instances, you've asserted that people are only imagining bad things will happen, but I'd say and have said they are imagining far less than one must to foresee some good outcome. 

Tech is always flawed since it is created by flawed people.  There is always and will always be some degree of error, no matter how small, but consider how much tech will be within each individual organic on some incredibly small scale, but huge in how it must be spread within just one person.  Then consider how much of a chance for error will exist within each individual organism.  This alone should give you pause.  It is also why those that theorize it one day happening also often take such an idea to the extremes-cautionary tales of what could go wrong.

In ME3, this becomes even more incredible.  We have no idea what tech this is that is integrated within people, and again all tech is flawed.  And even if this tech was the size of one atom, the amount that it would take to fully integrate with the DNA of all organic organisms would still be immense.  And somehow it does this through the crucible in about 20 seconds.  It apparently uses the relays to do this-but unless it's opposite day and the reapers instead of shutting the relays down (supposedly they do this but don't do it in ME3), the reapers open up all relays, then some systems will remain unsynthesized.  Uh oh, organics might create killer synthetics-can't have that.

Synthesis either changes everyone or it doesn't-some want to have it and see it both ways.  What does it do?  It magically makes everyone or just organics and synthetics get along?  And do synthetics still exist?  The kid says they get full understanding of organics, but organics no longer exist so now synthetics have an organic mindset and organics have more of a technological bent.  And why would they magically get along?  They are still different.  And either they do or they do not still have their own individual personalities.  If they do not, that's a problem.  If they do, then conflict will still arise.  Synthesis has averted nothing.  It's just changed the participants.  The only thing it does is changes the composition of the components.  Conflict between organics and synthetics will no longer occur.  Voila, the kid's problem has been solved.  It can't occur as of that moment because the participants in his equation no longer exist.  It's like taking bread, making it all into toast and then telling your family you no longer have any bread.

However, synthesis does not even stop the organic vs. synthetics conflict.  People are given someone's knowledge.  Synthetics are given someone's understanding.  It's all from a certain slant.  But, that also means that someone could create organic life.  The components to make it still exist.  Someone also could create synthetic life-what's to stop that?  As it shows, synthetic life really does still exist but is just changed.  If someone creates organic life, what's to say that some synthetic won't come along and decide it's a bad idea and destroy it?

I don't have to imagine, but merely extrapolate certain things that are known and other things that are said in the game.  We have no fundamental knowledge that could provide a basis for such a thing doing good.  The slides are merely an attempt to make light of what the original endings showed and slides were the cheapest way to do that.  Happy sappy, relays are smiling.

But Shepard and the player do not have enough information to go on to say synthesis is a good thing.  You can't tell me where the tech comes from or what it will do.  They don't tell you where this synthetic understanding comes from and what that means even with organics no longer in existence.  The statements from EDI are laughable though well-acted.  She's alive.  Ok she already was and she already knew that and she had decided to be alive with Shepard's help.  She says they may transcend death and says that happily.  If that happened, conflict then is all but inevitable.  And I said IF.  But if you extrapolate that synthesis is done for some extension of life (who knows about quality of life) idea or if you go with it's some form of perfection (something not generally seen as possible nor even desirable), then immortality should be the considered end point.  And that could have dire consequences.

As it stands, we just don't know enough about synthesis to say it's just a great thing.  What we do know, IMO, is that knee and hip replacements fail, pacemakers fail, all tech has a shelf life and a failure rate.  Putting tech in one's body with no real understanding of what it will do, and no real reason for doing it, other than so that synthetics won't destroy organics, is crazy.  The reasons for doing it are silly and not logical.  It would be like me making someone change some part of themselves just because I want them to. 

[3DandBeyond]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

netfischer wrote...

I really dont like the synthesis ending.

I see a number of problems with it, but what really bothers me is the credibility aspect. I am really not the guy who minds minor flaws and inconsistencies in a story or even a little bit of space magic. But which kind of technology is that, which reconstructs the entire life in the galaxy as synthetic life? Thats just so incredible outrageous!

Eezo.

Enough about outrageous magic that founds the Mass Effect universe.

Not specific to you, but not entirely unrelated - People seem to gang up on synthesis while vehemently defending destroy as the only ending it makes sense to choose.
To me, this just seems like wishful thinking, all of the endings are fraught with incosistencies and logical holes. Defending one in favour of another for any reason that is plot related (which we have already established is broken) is just foolish.

Another point related to ethics that often comes up with synthesis - space rape.

Murder (taking away all that someone is and will ever be) is apparantly preferable to rape.


Crass topic aside, i feel they are issues that need to be adressed so people can see how there is no solace, logic or reason to be found in any ending. 

I can only speak for myself and I find all of the choices to be basically flawed.  They have weak or minimal explanation for what they will do and all they will do is serve the kid's purpose.  He purposely avoids really saying how they are good for the galaxy in what they do, other than that they may remove or minimize the reaper threat.  But he could do that already.  He could stop them and then say, "see I've stopped my current solution, because it no longer works.  Now you can help yourself here by choosing your future and form a new solution."  He's using the reapers as a stick to beat Shepard with so that Shepard will make a choice, even as he says his solution won't work anymore.

All 3 choices to greater and lesser extent, fulfill his purpose.  Many say the AI doesn't understand killing, but then go on to say he wouldn't want to be destroyed and/or replaced.  If that's true, he is not just following his programming.  If he is following his programming, each choice is a solution.  It's just that each choice is part of what he has already tried.  He put Leviathans into machines to control them, and created reapers.  This was an attempt at synthesis and control-he asserts control and all of these aspects constantly.  The reapers already destroy.

As to why people can choose destroy but are against synthesis or other choices-part of it has to do with that always being the goal.  Also, some didn't take the geth side or care about EDI.  They don't see them as alive.  But, still others believe that the galaxy and the geth and EDI gave Shepard tacit approval to do this-EDI said she'd die for the crew.  The geth fight and many have died.  I disagree with all that, because a sacrifice is something you do willingly, that you are given the choice at the moment to give up your life.  It's not something someone does to you.  My Shepard said you don't kill some over here to save others over there.  If synthetic life is life then it has meaning and value.  You don't wipe out a whole race to save yours.  And especially based upon an uncertainty. 

There are still others that believe EDI and the geth can be rebuilt, but that's a lack of understanding as to what happens.  They are more than just data inside a computer infrastructure.  Putting that data into a new infrastructure would fundamentally change who EDI and the geth are.

Synthesis, however, is something that just comes off as the most magical.  You could envision a big shut off all tech beam and even some possible way for Shepard to take control (the kid already put leviathans and others into reapers), but a beam that instantly injects tech into people and all other organic matter and that simultaneously imparts full understanding of organics to synthetics, well that is true magic.  That's why it's widely criticized.  It's also the fact that most people apparently really would not want it done to themselves.