Optimystic_X wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
You're being disingenuous with your dichotomy.
I can have a happy ending without it being a "Disney Ending"
I was being sarcastic. None of the endings are "Disney," not even MEHEM.
And no, Synthesis isn't Disney either. There will still be challenges, even for those too limited in imagination to conceive of what they might be.
In my opinion, there are more cons than pros to choosing Synthesis. I can't even think of a pro for choosing it. I admit that that is my own subjective opinion.
Here's something I always give in arguments on Synthesis:
I don't believe that condemning the galaxy to an ultimate existence of being perpetually under the Reapers thumb in control is a desirable thing, especially with an AI involved that could eventually lose compassion or care for those it "protects". I can't believe in
Control in being anything as a police state, and I certainly don't believe in the Reapers to maintain that peace or the Shepalyst's long term integrity. I also fundamentally disagree with the logic and motive of the current Catalyst. I'd be controlling for the wrong reason. And yes, I would rather destroy the Reapers than control them.
Why Synthesis is bad:
How it's presented: You ascend a beam into a room openly exposed to vacuum and meet a strange glowing child who is the creator of the machines that are hellbent on annihilating galactic civilization every 50,000 years. He doesn't say much at all, yet you are inexplicably compelled to listen to him and accept his idea's that the cycle, or one of it's presented equivalents are necessary so that you can solve a minor plot theme that was already solved 4 main missions ago, and that a choice that requires your death will somehow alter the fabric of all existing life to make the cycle irrelevant because life has been fundamentally changed forever.
The lore, or 'science' (and lack of it I mean) behind it: "Essence of who you are"? Sounds like vitalism, a theme of mysticism, which is basically superstitious belief in inanimate objects. "New DNA"? How does that even work? Most aliens have a different form of DNA from humans. All synthetics don't even have DNA. How does a big, green energy wave cause everyone, every living thing for that matter, to become a cyborg? How is this carried out across space and time in the galaxy? How can it be the final evolution of all life? Isn't that non-sensical since evolution is not equated to perfection but to mutation and adaptation to changing environments?
Who the presenter of it is: The Reapers, the main enemy throughout the entire trilogy who have been consistently shown to be ired by the mere existence of other beings to the point they feel the need to annihilate them, and how they are known to control and manipulate other beings through indoctrination. Why should I start listening to them (especially their creator) now? Haven't they always tried to kill me or manipulate me into doing their bidding before?(protip: using the antagonist as the mouthpiece to present all the final ending options is a narrative no-no). Even if the Catalyst believes in it's own mission and logic, I don't. I see it as an AI tasked to solve an impossible problem (the nature of the problem is logically at fault) stipulated on faulty logic written by an organic (thus faulty being) and given the ordered logic to enforce its cycle without empathy or remorse. I'm fundamentally opposed to the Catalyst on these grounds.
Why it's being presented: The belief that order vs chaos, or organics and synthetics will fundamentally destroy each other in every circumstance, which I don't believe in. Synthesis may well be possible in the future, but if it's going to be induced, it needs to be for more than a reason to end an infinite cycle of destruction that was started to prevent another infinite cycle of destruction. More like a desire to experience and be more than just a human. The baseline concepts to it is pretty much in line with transhumanism. Transhumanism is a real thing, and it's actually where the technological evolution that we've created and are overseeing today will eventually take us.
What the implications of it are: Shepard's non-sensical and contrived death, forcing it on a galaxy without knowledge or consent, how it somehow gives synthetics understanding to an organic. The implications to Synthesis shouldn't be any of these. They should be a voluntary upgrade if you will, and as an outcome of the evolution of technology via the increasing capabilities of all species. And it really only needs to apply to organics. Ieldra said earlier that the implication of it is also to raise the level of organics to a level of comparison to synthetics so that they aren't left in the dust and thus destroyed in a future conflict. Yet that's not how synthesis is explained. It's explained to be the final evolution of all life everywhere and that everything is somehow better through uniformity. Organics and synthetics will no longer kill each other, for reasons that are not elaborated upon by the developers.
The sheer lack of understanding of the concept on the part of the developers: "But there's no more distinction to life anymore. It's all just life!" - Michael Gamble, everyone.
Plus the sheer lack of information that BW has released on it. It's eminently clear to me that the writers behind Synthesis really had no idea what they were going for, besides trying to assuage Casey Hudson's ego and trying to create an idea that was "deep" and "out there". If they had even half the base knowledge of the actual concept, then it would have been carried out in a way similar to the science that Ieldra has come up with. I still wouldn't pick it since I don't agree with it (presentation by the Reapers bit), but I wouldn't be constantly deriding it as complete bull**** or space magic.
So yeah. Destroy is good, minus forced Geth death and relay destruction. And I will admit: I want a happy ending for Shepard. That is a factor into why I choose Destroy.
Morally opposed to Control.
Morally, logically, and physically repulsed by Synthesis.
Refuse is ideal of the situations presented, but alas, I cannot do it knowing that it is futile as presented.
The whole ending concept itself is just plain bad in my opinion. Inconsistent narrative, faulty logic, terrible execution, and it just plain insults my intelligence.
Edit for you:
Saying that people don't have balls or imagination for not choosing synthesis or control is not correct.
I have both, but I can't see any justification for the cycle or the Reapers. There's no meaning to their existence minus destruction. I don't believe in the preservation nature of the Reapers. The Catalyst and I have two very different idea's of preservation. I don't see anything in the Reapers worth preserving.
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 19 avril 2013 - 10:08 .
Retour en haut
