StoneSwords wrote...
wizardryforever wrote...
Not really. If the Reapers share everything they know, then they lose the edge. They're hardly omnipotent. They can be destroyed by mundane means, for one thing. It just takes a lot. And from what we can easily infer from the Catalyst's dialogue, synthesis is permanent and irreversible. Sorta like burning a wooden log to ash. You really can't reverse the process, once it is done, it's done. So this whole "experiment" thing you're angling for really doesn't make any sense on many levels.Dr_Extrem wrote...
wizardryforever wrote...
EDI says that they help rebuild, and that the knowledge of past civilizations stored in them is shared across the galaxy, advancing technology and culture by leaps and bounds. That doesn't strike me as something an enemy would do. He's just looking for stupid reasons to justify his hatred of synthesis. There are semi-intelligent reasons to dislike it, but this one is just stupid, IMO.Dr_Extrem wrote...
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Pyk wrote...
As for Synthesis being abomination, I still believe it doesn't deprive organics of emotions, free will and so on... But the real question is how does it affect synthetics. Adds glands? Animal urges?
The real question is what happens to the Reapers in Synthesis. Are they still controlled by the Catalyst? Or are they now unshackled and independent? Either way, the implications are worrying...
i think that is not even stated .. during the slides, they are just .. standing around. nobody knows.
my interpretation is, that they are still under the catalysts control - just to wait for this experiment to go awry.
they could share their knowledge and help rebuilding, while under the catalysts control - this is not ruled out. sharing technology would not hurt the reapers - they are still omnipotent.
for the catalyst, this is a win/win situation. either this experiment works out or it failes and the catalyst pulls the release cord.
but like o wrote .. it is not stated, what happens to the reapers (control-wise) - this is open to interpretation.
but yeah .. the devs anything out of the slides, that would look synthesis bad.
some of the reasons are not semi intelligent - sorry, but this is downright insulting. taking away the possibility to chose or reject transhumanism is not a small task. in synthesis, shepard makes the decision far the entire galaxy - the personal decisions of every individual are rendered pointless. the freedon to chose is one of our most basic rights.
And I have to marvel at how people are perfectly willing to take Destroy (or even Refuse) at face value, but question everything about Synthesis. And when presented with solid evidence why the belief is wrong, you handwave it as favoritism on the part of the devs? You can't pick and choose what part of the ending to believe. You either believe all of it, like a sane person, or none of it, like an ITer. Thus we go with what we are shown, and no more. People make up crap about synthesis, then call synthesis an abomination because of that made-up crap. I call for an end to headcanon, and to embrace what we actually know about synthesis (what EDI and the slides tell us, in addition to the Catalyst dialogue).
You gotta think about it from Shep's point of view, without metagaming. Honestly, without knowing he's dooming the galaxy to repeat the cycle, most Sheps would probably refuse, and keep fighting, because that's just what Shep does, he finds a better way, he beats the odds. The fact that synthesis will genetically rewrite every living being in the galaxy is presented right from the beginning, and I just can't imagine anyone hearing that and believing its for the best, thinking they have the right to play God and force that change on trillions of people, whether organic or synthetic. Synthesis is actually the least likey to be picked by anyone, there's a reason it's the most infamous choice on the BSN
When I was finishing the game, it was already late night ( 1:30 a.m. ), I was a bit tired, ran a half marathon that day.
I wasn't shot by a lazzor beam, though, but I definitely hadn't got a clear mind; didn't think fast.
My thoughts were:
Control? Too risky, Shep stated that 5 minutes ago.
Synthesis? What is that? How? But that seems like the best ending... TIM - Control. Anderson - Destroy, but Shepard is none of them, my Shep would go for Synthesis... Yet I'm about to change everyone regardless of their opinion? It's tempting, though... But there are so many unanswered questions...
Destroy? Well, that's what the game was about since ME1. But synthetics die. And every civilization stored in Reaper form. That's terrible, horrible genocide. But it sounds safe. Trustworthy. I know what to expect from it.
OK, then... <shoots the tubes>
So that was my choice during first playthrough and the one traumatized Shepard would probably make, because it sounds reliable.
The next morning I rethought everything and now Synthesis is the one I favor:
That's funny to me, because while I blaze in my green synthesist's glory, no one can say that "I got indoctrinated, chose the wrong side, etc.", because of my first playthrough
Destroy is my "choice of passion" and Synthesis is my "choice of premeditation".
Modifié par Pyk, 30 décembre 2012 - 08:23 .
Retour en haut
