617 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

ruggly wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The Romantic vibe of Destroy can be summarized in one sentence: "Destroy the abominations and all which is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are". This is of course not the only thematic current in Destroy, but it exists.

To which I disagree for the most part.  I have a problem with the reapers acting as an armada of deadly babysitters over the galaxy, but I have no problem with us possibly reverse engineering their tech after they're gone, or fixing the relays.  Hell, we did it before with the Thanix Cannons.  And I can even go beyond that to say that my Shepards (since two that have gone through have survived) will become an advocate for synthetic rights, or even advocating synthesis on our own terms.  Since now Shepard knows this is possible, would it not be possible to look back at the schematics for the Crucible's ability to do so, and somehow tweak it so it does become optional for people to choose?  That is probably wandering far into headcanon territory, though.

Of course you think all that. You're not a Romantic. That's perfectly ok. But just because you don't subscribe to it doesn't mean the thematic current doesn't exist. It's just meaningless for you. Just as some of the less pleasant thematic undercurrents of Synthesis exist - else there wouldn't be so many people who associate them - but are meaningless for me.  

Anyways, I think destroy presents a lot of exciting possibilities for the future, and that synthesis really nothing more than an Age of Enlightenment.  Apparently, that holds all the exciting possibilities for you, but  nothing exciting will happen for me.  There's plenty of chaos to be faced in destroy, and more challenges to overcome.  I just don't see that in synthesis.

I find the prospect of ascension exciting, of overcoming fundamental limitations of the human condition. I find the prospect of exploring all that knowledge in the Reapers exciting. I don't deny that Destroy can also have exciting possibilities, but as opposed to Synthesis, the epilogue doesn't mention them.

[ruggly]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't deny that Destroy can also have exciting possibilities, but as opposed to Synthesis, the epilogue doesn't
mention them.

Unfortunately no, but I've not been knocked in the head enough after having played two quite physical sports (as physical as they'll allow for women, anyways..) for so long, that I still have some imagination left that I can at least try to picture something.  Just as you can picture all the new exciting adventures that await your Shepard's universe of acension.  I picture pirates/Terminus system folk going nuts over the chaos, and the what's left of the Alliance and other race's forces trying to stop them.  Trying to get the governments put back together, Shepard recovering, races trying to get back home, etc etc.  That's exciting stuff to me right there.

edit: I forget which thread it was in, but you even mentioned having to figure out or go through new frontiers to even try to get back home.  Finding out what's beyond the 1% that we know just by travelling.  It seems with synthesis, there's a less surprising aspect if/when you come upon a new race.

Modifié par ruggly, 15 février 2013 - 06:49 .

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You don't understand the thrust of the argument. I am arguing against letting evolution happen without interference as a matter of dogma, disregarding any negative outcomes thereof because letting this happen is seen as intrinsically good. Overpopulation? Too bad, don't interfere, people will die out the natural way. The Romantic stance often accepts and even embraces suffering caused by this because it thinks the encounter with primal forces elevates our spirit. As opposed to that, I don't care about this mystical elevation of our spirit, I'd prefer the suffering to be reduced. If I must interfere with the natural course of things, then I will not hesitate to do so.

How is generalized and forced interference any better? Organics flawed, synthetics doesn't understand organics? Let's make all of them hybrids. Right here, right now.

If evolution takes (a very long) time, it's not by chance. It occurs gradually and represents an adapted, "personal" response to changes of the environment as well as a way to overcome the previous limits. In other terms you change because you're ready for it.

That's exactly what synthesis completely disregards. It's a galactic revolution of an unknown scale with absolutely unforeseeable consequences. A giant leap of faith. You're free to play the sorcerer's apprentice, as long as it only applies to you. Just because you find it fascinating, doesn't mean I do. You can't make me happy if I don't want to.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 15 février 2013 - 06:50 .

[kal_reegar]

the outcome of destroy is identical to the outcome of control and synthesis: the bad guys are dead/harmless. the future is bright, there aren't negative consequences, all survivors are fine.
the 90% of the ending slides/cutscenes are identical or very similar.

maybe with synthesis and control we can have better and funnier "what if" (what if reap-shep turns crazy? what if synthesized reapers decide to become the dominant race? etc), but these are speculations and fan-fic, not the "ending" itself.

destroy is as boring as control and synthesis.

[Ieldra]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
You don't understand the thrust of the argument. I am arguing against letting evolution happen without interference as a matter of dogma, disregarding any negative outcomes thereof because letting this happen is seen as intrinsically good. Overpopulation? Too bad, don't interfere, people will die out the natural way. The Romantic stance often accepts and even embraces suffering caused by this because it thinks the encounter with primal forces elevates our spirit. As opposed to that, I don't care about this mystical elevation of our spirit, I'd prefer the suffering to be reduced. If I must interfere with the natural course of things, then I will not hesitate to do so.

How is generalized and forced interference any better? Organics flawed, synthetics doesn't understand organics? Let's make all of them hybrids. Right here, right now.

The point of my argument was not to justify Synthesis, but against the dogma of non-interference in natural evolution. 

If evolution takes (a very long) time, it's not by chance. It occurs gradually and represents an adapted, "personal" response to changes of the environment as well as a way to overcome the previous limits. In other terms you change because you're ready for it.

Actually, it is random chance. You cannot foresee in which way something will change. So how the hell is letting random chance determine when and how things change desirable? Also, what if I want to overcome those limits NOW, and not at some indeterminate time in the future? Are you telling me I should not attempt it? On which grounds? You see, evolution has no prescribed direction. There is nothing to indicate that the next change might be what we want, and natural selection cares only for survival. Basically, any change which will result in more surviving children will be selected for, no matter the consequence in any other area. It might even end in extinction. In fact, that's rather possible in the real world before long if things go on as they do.   

[kal_reegar]

Ieldra2 wrote...
So how the hell is letting random chance determine when and how things change desirable? Also, what if I want to overcome those limits NOW, and not at some indeterminate time in the future? Are you telling me I should not attempt it? On which grounds? You see, evolution has no prescribed direction. There is nothing to indicate that the next change might be what we want, and natural selection cares only for survival. Basically, any change which will result in more surviving children will be selected for, no matter the consequence in any other area. It might even end in extinction. In fact, that's rather possible in the real world before long if things go on as they do.    

on the following grounds:
1. self preservation, survival. The hope of a last breath in the rubble and a lazarus project 2.0. is better than being 100% vaporized. If I'm dead, the fact that all life has reach the final stage of evolution is insignificant. Nothing matters anymore.
2. selfishness. Who cares about a future extinction? I'm fine here and now, I like how I am and I want to enjoy every moment. Sacrifice for my grand-grand-children? No way. I don't give a damn about my grand-grand-children

[mvaning]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You don't understand the thrust of the argument. I am arguing against letting evolution happen without interference as a matter of dogma, disregarding any negative outcomes thereof because letting this happen is seen as intrinsically good. Overpopulation? Too bad, don't interfere, people will die out the natural way. The Romantic stance often accepts and even embraces suffering caused by this because it thinks the encounter with primal forces elevates our spirit. As opposed to that, I don't care about this mystical elevation of our spirit, I'd prefer the suffering to be reduced. If I must interfere with the natural course of things, then I will not hesitate to do so.

The idea of letting evolution happen (as opposed to the other 2 options) does not imply that this evolution will occur without humanistic interferance.   I think that it goes without saying that people will mold and create their own futures.  This is part of evolution and un-avoidable.  The idea does not confer with the notion that we should let people starve or suffer.  It lends to the idea that we will come to the solutions for these problems.    Suffering occurs but in the context of the three options, none of the three options provide the idea that suffering will be eliminated.  Within the 3 options, all three options provide solutions to the one main problem: the reapers.   At the same time, they open the door for more suffering by forcing these moral choices.

Accepting human interference is not necessarily a matter of accepting "all given solutions." it is through empirical knowledge that we can choose which interference is best.   If the player chooses to reject control and synthesis because he believes that better solutions can be found with the Destroy option, then I don't think that is Romanticism. 

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Destroy the abominations and all which is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are".

This to me, does not represent a Romantic theme.    Why?    Because this reasoning does not have to be based on dogmatic ideals.    We can take empirical knowledge to lead us to this idea.      Furthermore, just as you can view this romantic theme with Destroy, there are also very strong romantic themes that can be viewed with Synthesis and Control.   If you can't ignore what you view as a romantic theme within Destroy, then how can you ignore the romantic themes as presented within Synthesis and Control? 

(Synthesis = Sacrificing your life so that the galaxy can come to universal forgiveness and acceptance?   Jesus anyone?    I could go on and on making romantic and dogmatic analogies.  ) 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...
But we're winning the argument.  and it's eating you up isnt it?  

No, you're just louder and more persistent than the opposition, and I usually don't bother to reply to posts that bring nothing new to the table.

Heh, ain't that the truth. That dude getting all proud about arguing that the one guy he's arguing against can't keep up with him and four other buddies (two being blatant trolls) ... LOL!

Quality over quantity, my friend. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Almost forgot....

mvaning wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

This just goes back to the idea of "we build our own path." That is, technology is fine, it just must come from us.

Please elaborate. There is no one else to build our technology if we don't do it ourselves.   Or more exactly, what is the counter-argument you are trying to pose?

We didn't build the mass-relays, or Citadel.

Does that answer your question?

A lot of people reject Synthesis on the same grounds -- that jumping the process forward is "unnatural."

It would be more accurate to say that the Reapers represent a solution to organic extinction. They didn't solve the conflict.

The reapers have the mandate to preserve life. However, the catalyst states that he is looking for a solution to "chaos" because "the created will always rebel against their creators" So I believe that my statement is correct. The mandate is the goal of the solution.

Well, him claiming to be looking for a solution would imply he has not actually found it yet, so...

[ruggly]

Ieldra2 wrote...
If I must interfere with the natural course of things, then I will not hesitate to do so.

Perhaps I've misread or am just missing something, but interference on whose behalf? Just yourself, a select group of people who are ok with you doing so, or everyone?  I know that you said you hate that synthesis is forced upon the entire galaxy.  I see nothing wrong if you want to try and speed up evolution for yourself, but if someone tells me that it's for my own good and for the rest of the galaxy's good, we're going to run into some problems.  Like I've said before,  I don't see anything in destroy that says people can't/won't try and evolve on their own terms, outside of natural evolution. Not trying to attack you or anything, just trying to learn more.

Modifié par ruggly, 15 février 2013 - 08:04 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Ieldra2 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, please note: I see Destroy as a valid choice. I just find the outcome extremely boring.

and the world present by synthesis isn't? a world where everything is known, there is nothing left to explore, and there is no conflict, a world that is basically doomed to stagnation and extinction?

I don't see it that way. There is a spirit of advancement in Synthesis. Just listen to EDI towards the end of the epilogue. Also, where the hell did you get the idea that after Synthesis, everything is known? Or that there is nothing left to explore? As for conflict, well, there is a generally peaceful golden age, that doesn't mean it's universally peaceful. Listen to the epilogue when you don't cure the genophage. There is an undercurrent of conflilct. Post-Synthesis civilization is not a stagnant utopia.

I have seen the epilogue and it implied by Edi's words and what the Catalyst says, the catalyst says final evolution. You know what happens to species that stop evolving?

Synthesis the most boring universe conceivable.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 15 février 2013 - 08:11 .

[dorktainian]

I see the comedy is still on.

[Sonashi]

Oh my, after few weeks nothing changed. How nice, may I ask what's the point of this thread? This can only end up badly. You don't like Destroy ending OP, fine. You don't have to make another thread to say that. Always a victim, lol.

I don't understand that kind of people. You do exactly the same thing as your "enemies" do. You should enjoy your vision of the galaxy and stop caring about others opinion. Tell me who's hurting you and I'll eat them, my damsel in distress. lol

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Actually, it is random chance. You cannot foresee in which way something will change. So how the hell is letting random chance determine when and how things change desirable? Also, what if I want to overcome those limits NOW, and not at some indeterminate time in the future? Are you telling me I should not attempt it?

No Ieldra, I won't. I have no right to. As long as you apply your changes to yourself and you don't include me. I'd have sincerely nothing against Synthesis in this case.

On which grounds? You see, evolution has no prescribed direction. There is nothing to indicate that the next change might be what we want, and natural selection cares only for survival. Basically, any change which will result in more surviving children will be selected for, no matter the consequence in any other area. It might even end in extinction. In fact, that's rather possible in the real world before long if things go on as they do.   

Evolution has for key word adaptation. Yes, natural selection allows only the most adapted to survive and thus the perpetuation of the species. That's the general direction. And indeed the results may be quite... surprising. Who would've thought that the birds "ancestors" were theropod dinosaurs? Isn't it fascinating?

Species which fail to adapt, disappear slowly and are gradually replaced by others. All species are also interconnected in one way or another and depend from another. That's why the natural changes, including extinctions, generally occur in a harmonic way, which doesn't endanger the whole chain of life. That, in spans of ten thousands if not millions of years, to not let a "hole" in any ecological niche.

By killing off one or modifying only just one species (and humans are actually pretty good this game), you break this balance and are bound to cause a chain reaction with dramatic consequences. So now, I'm simply trying to imagine what such a sudden and global change like Synthesis would cause. And I really get dizzy.

But I'm disgressing, and the topic is about Destroy being boring. In a sense, you're right, it's nothing new, kill the bad guys,(what follows is headcanon) go home, drink a beer with your pals and take long holidays under the sun with your boy/girlfriend.

Live and let live.

After such a long and a hard journey, I'd take this ending any day. I understand that others have differents aspirations, but every time I remember the narratively horrible scene with the brat, I wish the writers had gone more...mainstream.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 15 février 2013 - 08:32 .

[Galbrant]

kal_reegar wrote...

the outcome of destroy is identical to the outcome of control and synthesis: the bad guys are dead/harmless. the future is bright, there aren't negative consequences, all survivors are fine.
the 90% of the ending slides/cutscenes are identical or very similar.

maybe with synthesis and control we can have better and funnier "what if" (what if reap-shep turns crazy? what if synthesized reapers decide to become the dominant race? etc), but these are speculations and fan-fic, not the "ending" itself.

destroy is as boring as control and synthesis.

False, The Reapers are very much a dangerous threat in Control and Synthesis, because they are still functioning. Eventually The Reapers will come into contact with other galaxies and will attempt to assimilate them just like Shepard assimlated everyone in the galaxy against their will.  To help them acend to the pinnacle of evolution. The New Synthesize universe won't let the other galaxies organics be killed by synthetics. So with nothing to solve in the Milky Way the catalyst will logically go out and solve the other galactic societies problems with Synthetics because that what it is design to do. Solve freaking problems that we already solved at Rannoch..

In Control no one will sit idly by and let the Reapers control the galaxy. There will be revolts until every last reaper is dead.  That A.I. that claims is Shepard isn't a Shepard it's just the Catalyst with a new face with the memories of Shepard, which includes the knowledge of Liara's time capsules. And all of Shepards crimes if you did any like the Genophage Cure sabotage. Oh and if you didn't destroy Keiji's Greybox. Well the Shepard Catalyst knows to track down Kasumi and kill her.  The Shepard- Catalyst will have to kill all of Shepards friends and allies to impose this new order because they won't believe the Reapers. And I like to see the Shepard Catalyst tries to reveal he is Shepard. No one will believe him They'll think they are trying to manipulate them. And there will be more harvest they may not be as many as the usual Reapers eventually Shepard will have to make more Reapers to replace the ones he lost.  

Destroy is not the same,  The only similarity it has that it is back up with no evidence and soley rely on the catalyst word that it'll work. But it actually does solves the problem. It solves the problem in the most despicable manner possible, but it's effective and pragmatic and saves more lives in the end than refuse. No one is tainted by being assimilated or under a dictatorship of a insane A.I.  Sure you proved the catalyst  right that organics and synthetics can never get along... but a dead A.I. can't say he told you so and the only person who knows you betray an entire race of synthetics and EDI is Shepard. So the secret is safe and any new Artificial Intillegence emerge will know the Galaxy's gratitude that are grateful for the Geth Sacrifice and might be given a fair chance. After all we're going to need new synthetics to kill those big stupid cuttlefish that cause this hilariously stupid mess in the first place. They may be stuck in that ocean for now... Wait you know what just nuke the planet they're on.  I already betrayed EDI and the Geth what's one one more race? 

Refuse, the one where shepard actually acts like Shepard and has the best god damn speech ever it tops all of other Shepards speeches combine... but unfortunately its the one where the rock falls and every one dies... but we didn't see the Victory Fleet perish entirely... but we did see  Liara's time Capsule saying the Crucible failed and that instead of an old creepy old man in the Star Gazer scene is an Asari with the same human child in all the endings. And this Asari said "They fought a terrible war so we didn't have to."  So logically we can assume that we kick the Reapers asses so bad that they didn't have enough Reapers to do a full Search of of the galaxy to harvest everyone. And considering this was a united galaxy instead of just one race with a divided empire. I'm am confident enough they were able to hide as many people they can from the Reapers prying eyes.  I mean come on the Salarians and Asari are pretty damn good at hiding and with the Geth and Quarians and EDI helping out too. If they can't come up a way to hide from Reapers no one can. After hiding with the help of the next cycle came in and murder the Reapers in their sleep. Bioware gave us a lot of blanks So I'm filling it in for them.  Also that tweet from Mike Gamble means nothing if its not in the main game then It's null and void.

Same as Emily Wongs Death. It's not in the main game she is just bound and gag by that T-600 wench that works in Zaeeds old spot. I expect in the next Citadel DLC we will find Emily Wong Alive and we will have to terminate Diana Allers. I mean she is obvious a machine. Her faces is nothing but plastic. I am convince her voice doesn't even sound human. Oh my god I let her on the Normandy she is probably trying to hack EDI right now... oh wait EDI is far more advance than that primitive model... nevermind. Wait what are we talking about again?




 

[Ieldra]

mvaning wrote...
The idea of letting evolution happen does not imply that this evolution will occur without humanistic interferance.

I think the difference is between "letting nature run its course without inteference" and "letting evolution happen at all". I'm fine with the latter - as if we could prevent it anyway - but not with the former. Perhaps our positions are not so different. Not that I think evolution will be elimitated in any of the scenarios. Post-Synthesis civilization just has the means to replace it with deliberate change, which I don't see as bad. Controlled evolution has something to be said for.

I think that it goes without saying that people will mold and create their own futures.  This is part of evolution and un-avoidable.

Strictly spoken, it isn't. Biological evolution is independent from any individual impulses. It's a species imperative. Your statement holds if and only if you extend "evolution" to cover technology and culture, which is often done, but should be explicitly mentioned to avoid confusion. 

The idea does not confer with the notion that we should let people starve or suffer.  It lends to the idea that we will come to the solutions for these problems. Suffering occurs but in the context of the three options, none of the three options provide the idea that suffering will be eliminated.  Within the 3 options, all three options provide solutions to the one main problem: the reapers.   At the same time, they open the door for more suffering by forcing these moral choices.

All right. Accepted.

Accepting human interference is not necessarily a matter of accepting "all given solutions." it is through empirical knowledge that we can choose which interference is best.   If the player chooses to reject control and synthesis because he believes that better solutions can be found with the Destroy option, then I don't think that is Romanticism.

Also agreed. It's perfectly possible to choose Destroy for pragmatic and/or practical reasons. I have never contested that. That I say Destroy has a Romantic undercurrent does not mean that this is dominant in players' minds. In fact, I would think that for most it isn't. It's still recognizeable in the presentation, a combined effect of several elements of the writing throughout the trilogy and the "abomination aesthetic" of the Reaper minions. Which brings me to the next point:

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Destroy the abominations and all which is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are".

This to me, does not represent a Romantic theme.    Why?    Because this reasoning does not have to be based on dogmatic ideals.    We can take empirical knowledge to lead us to this idea.

The connotation of the term "abomination" is that it's something like a corruption, an aberration of the natural, which has to be destroyed just for being that, independent of any actions. The presentation of the Reaper minions is suggestive of this. 

(Synthesis = Sacrificing your life so that the galaxy can come to universal forgiveness and acceptance?   Jesus anyone?

I believe you can find several of my posts where I expressed my disdain for this specific religious symbolism in Synthesis. "Shepard died for the Reapers' sins". Ugh. It is, however, just religious, not Romantic. Unfortunately, yes, religious symbolism is very noticeable and obvious in Synthesis. I choose it anyway because of the kind of future it creates, but that doesn't mean I have to like every aspect of it. I re-interpret it in more acceptable terms. I would do that with Destroy as well, if I liked the future it creates. 

@Galbrant:
I find it objectionable that you try to gain agency over others' endings. What happens in my game after the end is not for you to say.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 08:50 .

[Laforgus]

Destroy is the Goal of the game, give me a reason why we cant choose destroy, besides of course the destruction of synthetic organism that of course we can construct again.

[Jadebaby]

BirdsallSa wrote...
The reason I'm a big fan of all of Ieldra2's posts is because all of them consist of pure logic, just like the conversation with the Intelligence, and the entire ending in general.

You arse! I just woke up my sister because I laughed so loud!

Modifié par Jadebaby, 15 février 2013 - 08:50 .

[Argolas]

Jadebaby wrote...

BirdsallSa wrote...
The reason I'm a big fan of all of Ieldra2's posts is because all of them consist of pure logic, just like the conversation with the Intelligence, and the entire ending in general.

You arse! I just woke up my sister because I laughed so loud!

Yeah, if it wasn't that insulting to a specific person, this attempt could have been a 7/10.

[Daniel_N7]

dorktainian wrote...

I see the comedy is still on.

And to see these forums plagued with discussions pro-synthesis, pro-control, pro-destroy, and all the hate they contain, is a true shame. Is this what the Mass Effect saga has become? Instead of a big celebration of the conclusion of a great adventure, instead of cheering or crying for our hero's accomplishments and sacrifices, this is what BioWare leaves us with. A never ending circular debate about these nonsensical "choices". When was this ever our motivation, the driving force of our Shepards? Did we forget what we were fighting for? Did BioWare?

[BatmanTurian]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Well, I put out a call for Destroy fans to actually set aside the binary opposition that they created, which is why this thread exists, and I see they couldn't do that. I wonder at this point whether Destroy is just the straight up the "for limited sociopaths who just need to 'win' and all" option. It's seeming more and more like it. Destroy fans aren't reasonable or nice people.

You project more than my local movie theatre does in a year.

[xAmilli0n]

Ieldra2 wrote...

High EMS Destroy in the EC version is utterly boring and unworthy of the story that came before.

Agreed.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...
Shepard: I don’t think so. I’m going to stop the Reapers. But I won’t sacrifice the soul of our species to do it. 

Just to be absolutely perfectly clear, you still picked Synthebodge after this conversation?  Seriously?

That line is optional. You only get it if you choose the upper option in the first conversation node. My Shepard never says it. 

that line is optional.  the thought isnt.  have fun making fluffy with mass murdering genocidal immortal god like machines wont you?  

I don't believe in pseudomystical crap like the "soul of my species". None of my Shepard would ever use that term in any circumstance whatsoever. It's out of character.

It was a metaphorical phrase, Ieldra. It wasn't religious in the least. Shepard is saying that he's not going to compromise what makes humans what they are, or change them or himself drastically,  to stop the Reapers.

[Ieldra]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Actually, it is random chance. You cannot foresee in which way something will change. So how the hell is letting random chance determine when and how things change desirable? Also, what if I want to overcome those limits NOW, and not at some indeterminate time in the future? Are you telling me I should not attempt it?

No Ieldra, I won't. I have no right to. As long as you apply your changes to yourself and you don't include me. I'd have sincerely nothing against Synthesis in this case.

Believe me, I'm trying to find the strength of imagination to headcanon that Shepard is the avatar and messenger of Synthesis, surviving and presenting the galaxy with this gift, but with the option that individuals can reject it. The problem is that as opposed to my current interpretation, that scenario is not compatible with the Synthesis epilogue. 

After such a long and a hard journey, I'd take this ending any day. I understand that others have differents aspirations, but every time I remember the narratively horrible scene with the brat, I wish the writers had gone more...mainstream.

I wish that they'd done a good non-mainstream scene instead, but yeah, treating the Catalyst scene as a black box is probably good for our sanity.