I respect the OP's stance as reasonable. I have nothing to criticize in avoiding Synthesis from that point of view (though I think the interpretation of Control is one-sided). I do not, however, respect it as authoritative, and this is why:
About storytelling experience, Synthesis and the Reapers:My attitude towards the Reapers, which is also the one I projected onto my main Shepard, has always since ME1 been ruled by curiosity rather than enmity. That I had to fight them has always been an unfortunate necessity, driven by the very regrettable fact that they were enemies bent on the destruction of my civilization. So if I do not automatically reject everything connected to them, that attitude, I can say with conviction, is at least genuine. If you had asked my Shepard after Virmire, he would've said the ideal solution to the Reaper problem was "end the enmity", not "end the Reapers". And if you had presented me with this situation as a theoretical exercise, I would've said the same. My stance is also consistent with the personal ideology I've had for a very long time, which I also projected into my Shepard. So no, there was no "the Reapers messing with Shepard's head", and even less "Bioware's writing messing with my head". Not in my games. In fact, I've always seen the over-the-top horror and abomination aesthetic as the attempt to mess with my head and condition me into a mindset where I would summarily and mindlessly reject anything remotely connected to the Reapers without further reflection. I fought that "indoctrination" from the very start. From a storytelling perspective, I see Synthesis as the attempt to accommodate a mindset like mine. It was clumsily done to say the least, and came perilously close to betraying the spirit of what it set out to accommodate, but I can work with it. If the outcome is good, what does it matter if it was the Reapers' preference?
Also, for me it was always clear the Synthesis was something very different from the crude hybridization we see in the Reaper minions. It wouldn't need Shepard and the Crucible otherwise. For me, its main problem was always "Can I make this choice for the whole galaxy?", while in any other respect I've always seen Synthesis as a good ending. Since the ending is very open to interpretation and heavily suggests that it is good, I see no reason why I shouldn't.
About transhumanism:The attitude towards transhumanism has always been somewhat confusing in the ME trilogy. Let me first correct the definition: transhumanism is a movement that affirms the desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition through technology. Brain augmentations are not a necessary part of it, though their desirability would be affirmed as well, nor is integration of technology a necessary part. Changes can be wrought just as well by genetic modification. There are two elements to the definition of a change that would qualify as "transhumanist":
(1) The change must affect the human condition, i.e. the existential state of an individual, in a way which could reasonably be considered desirable.
(2) The change must be part of the individual.
A real-life example of a technology that fits (1) is reliable chemical contraception. Throughout our history, we have always been at the mercy of our reproductive urges. These days, we can opt out of the consequences. Ask almost any woman in the western world, and she'll tell you it's almost impossible to imagine a world without reliable contraception. Now imagine a technology that gives human women the built-in ability to affect their fertility through an act of will, no harder to realize than the decision to swallow something in your mouth or not. The fundamental empowering of humans that comes with such technologies, against limitations set by our evolutionary history, lies at the heart of transhumanism.
For that reason, while Synthesis invokes transapience (the species-generalized term) as a theme, it also comes close to betraying its spirit, since while the changes may ultimately give the individual more options, the fact that the change itself is non-optional undermines its thematic integrity. No transhumanist, discounting some extremists, will ever be comfortable with ME3's Synthesis. If it is chosen for the theme of transapience, it will nonetheless always be marred by the fact that you are making the choice for everyone. Just as those who choose Destroy often desperately want to find a way to headcanon the survival of the geth, most of those who choose Synthesis would rather prefer a scenario where, for instance, Shepard becomes its avatar, guiding the galaxy towards a transapient future rather than push the button "Synthesize everyone".
Transhumans in the ME trilogy - Shepard *is* a transhuman:Recall Martin Burns, the head of the Alliance Parliamentary Subcommittee for Transhuman Studies? Biotics are considered transhuman. I said that the ME trilogy has had a confusing atttitude towards transhumanism, and nowhere does that show more than in the fact that transhumanism is thematized in ME3 with no mention of biotics, and Shepard is autodialogue'd to be critical of it in spite of being a transhuman himself. The redefinition of "transhuman" as "with an augmented brain" is extremely confusing, until you realize that a lot of people have a reflexive hate towards it, particularly the conservative types. The ME trilogy has a lot of elements that appeal specifically to conservative types, and whose presence is inexplicable if you don't assume that they are intentionally written that way. The writers wanted to distance their protagonist from transhumanism, masking the reality:
Shepard *is* transhuman. He has superhuman strength, he is immune to most poisons, his brain is imprinted with the Prothean Cipher, and he is canonically a (latent or operative) biotic.
Other notable transhumans in the ME trilogy:*Miranda Lawson. Realized through genetics, she is significantly longer-lived and has superhuman intelligence. The only reason why this isn't more apparent is that it's largely an informed trait.
*Keiji Okuda. Carrying a memory augmentation in his brain definitely qualifies.
*Kai Leng. Reaper augmentations count as well. Most players assume Reaper technology was used to bring Shepard back to life, which is somewhat supported by Miranda saying there was "black box" technology involved. Kai Leng may be indoctrinated, but this suggestes that indoctrination is not a necessary side effect of Reaper augmentations.
So, now back to Shepard. As I outlined, Shepard is a transhuman, and Synthesis naturally connects with that aspect of him/her in spite of the thematic concerns raised by the OP and elsewhere. Which aspect will become dominant in any player's mind - the "suspect information source", the "force this choice on everone" or the appeal of a transapient future, that ultimately depends on how you experienced the story. Nobody experiences stories only as a recipient, in an RPG even less. We all put something of ourselves into the stories we play. If I say that Synthesis appears to be genuinely Shepard's choice, for my game, and my main Shepard, that is true, while for others Destroy may be genuinely Shepard's choice.
In the end, I have my transapient future. Whether or not the Reapers had a preference for it does not concern me overmuch, and while I'm not exactly excited about how it comes about, and I outright hate the suggestion of vitalism used in the exposition and try to reframe it in acceptable terms, it is the kind of future my main Shepard has always envisioned as desirable. Now the OP will tell me that this is the way indoctrination works - it makes you believe that the Reapers will realize your fondest dreams. Well, this is why I see the OP's concerns as reasonable. That I nonetheless reject them is because I see the origin of the Synthesis as lying in the Crucible. It also has something to do with the way I look at the story from without. Thematic concerns, meta-level perceptions and in-world rationale all go into my decision, as they go into anyone's. Look at the interpretations and tell me it's not so. For me, Synthesis is not a trick, and that stance is at least as valid as the opposing one. More so, if you take meta-level considerations into account.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 février 2013 - 03:04 .
Retour en haut
But there is MEHEM.
