101 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I love how destroy is the only ending that has a major downside. You know why it has a downside, because everyone would pick it otherwise, as it is the right decision.

[KaiserShep]

Unless you were anti-synthetic and killed the geth on Rannoch, then it's essentially only EDI.

[Obadiah]

Rasofe wrote...

Roleplay does not work that way. Roleplay involves dialogue. Dialogue is an element of narrative. No dialogue for a decision is a lack of narrative connection.
...

I don't think that's really true.

Maybe some players need an explicit "this is why I'm doing this" dialog to choose Synthesis (I'm pretty sure they'd still want more tho), but when Synthesis is proposed, Shepard is either not sure it is a good idea or actively opposed to it, and then has to decide after the conversation. The scene played out fine for me.

Modifié par Obadiah, 03 décembre 2013 - 03:31 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I wanted to know how it actually worked, I'd never pick it anyway because final evolution sets off too many alarm bells.

[Rasofe]

What you think is true doesn't have to correspond to what is true, of course.

KaiserShep wrote...

Unless you were anti-synthetic and killed the geth on Rannoch, then it's essentially only EDI.

I was anti-synthetic on Rannoch, but my anti-Leviathan was at that point even stronger, so I let the Geth live. Besides, they can pack a few shots on the Reapers before they die. This is speaking OOC, of course, since my decision to let Legion upload the Reaper code was actually pretty damn out of character for Shepard.

EDI alone is a very unfair downside to destroy. She's a terran-designed AI, who is much closer-kin to humans than asari are, for example. I guess they just want to cite "life isn't fair, we're so deep". Or maybe they think knee-jerk reactions to pick synthesis and then defend it like crazy would accomplish their message delivery.

Modifié par Rasofe, 03 décembre 2013 - 03:38 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Rasofe wrote...

The axiom that I used and have repeatedly stated is not that natural is better than unnatural. It is that the human mindset is the best possible psyche for human beings. Reason doesn't factor into this at all, it's a bloody axiom. It's not a logical conclusion or a bias, it's a fundamental fact on which to build everything else. Like 1 = 1. It's what must be assumed for any further conclusion to be even remotely relevant between human beings. Otherwise, we spin of into ridiculous metaphysics about "natural vs unnatural" or "slave morality vs overman" or other useless tripe.

Is there any way you can show that this is a proven fact? Because I have legitimately never heard of it.

If you can, I'll eat a hearty dose of crow for you.

[His Name was HYR!!]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm not saying the Reapers wouldn't know how to build the 'relays, but the fact remains, they are notably absent in the Green ending. EDI's quote, though, indicates that the galaxy is looking to reclaim what they lost and improve over it. So the mass-relays could be one of many things they collectively decide to improve upon and move past. It would explain why they're not there, though they should be as easy to rebuild here as in the Blue ending, and easier than in Red.

Headcanon

I took "final evolution of life" to mean that it's the point where organics and synthetics reach an "equilibrium" -- synthetics won't evolve at a faster rate than organics -- provided organics don't fall victim to their own stupidity before reaching it.

Headcanon

That's a pretty cheap way of discrediting two valid explanations:

1.) We're not told what the future of space-travel is in the Green ending, at all. It's completely open to interpretation. Nothing contradicts the notion that the galaxy is moving past it, and both a quote by EDI and the notable absense of the 'relays in Green (while being notably present in Red and Blue) back me up. It's a valid interpretation, and it makes sense of things without using "bad writing" or "indoctrination" palmwaves. Or do you have an interpretation that's better than mine?

2.) Again, I don't see anything that expressly contradicts the way I interpretted it. If anything, my interpretation, when applied, makes more sense of it than the idea that "evolution ends here." You yourself don't think the idea of "evolution ends here" makes any sense, yet you hold on to it because it "sounds like" what you heard. But it could be that the writers meant something else that makes more sense. And again I will ask, do you have a better explanation for it than I do?

You use that H-word like a drunken man uses a lightpost -- for support rather than illumination.

I didn't get the impression it meant "evolution stops here."

Isn't that what "final stage" means?

It wasn't "final stage." It was "final evolution (of life)" ... which doesn't mean anything in particular on its own.

Which leads me to the next part...

If you want an agreement so badly though then YES, from a purely in-game standpoint, it is nonsense. That's just more reason, though, why I find it necessary to do a little headwork (without using "indoctrination" or "bad writing" as crutches).

I'm sure the writers thank you for putting more thought into the endings than they did

We get it, you're jaded about the ending, but that doesn't mean there are no valid/sensible explanations to be had.

I was responding to the implication that it's somehow bad/undesirable to live with "unnatural" conditions, which is subjective and therefore cannot be right or wrong, but it's still rooted in the flawed logic of equating being natural to being good.

How about being forced into that life?

I don't think it requires any lifestyle change, other than having green circuitry patterns tattooed onto your skin, which if you told me was the only cost of surviving the war, I'd take and not think twice (and that doesn't strike me as something that would take very long for people to find ways to hide). And I would say the fact that people (namely, former squad) are predominantly doing the same things in the Green ending as they would be in Blue/Red, reinforces my assertion.

It may or may not be the best outcome of three choices to everyone, but you literally cannot do worse than the guaranteed fate of being harvested or huskified (suicide cannot even save you from the latter).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 03 décembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[Rasofe]

Facts aren't proven. They are shown, through arduous study. Fundamental facts, such as the axiom of translational equivalence of physical laws, are assumed since they allow a functional understanding of physics, and are also in line with empirical evidence. Even more fundamental assumptions such as the scientific method are completely heuristic, but also completely true.

No functional discussion or evaluation of philosophy can be done if the statement that humanity is not absolutely self-benefactory can be made, because that would contradict the principle that humanity is good. If we allow that contradiction, we have no initial relevant and absolute statement to function as the basis of all philosophy. By Ex Falso Quodiblet, we can then logically justify anything about social, psychological or moral conditions; both any statement and the complement of that statement. Therefore, nothing stated will be relevant, because it will be both true and false.

In short, you either assume that's a fundamental fact, or nothing you conclude is relevant. The trick is in figuring out what humanity IS through research, but unless you've got field research studies showing that human beings seek perfection through technology, the burden of proof is on you.

Modifié par Rasofe, 03 décembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


That's a pretty cheap way of discrediting two valid explanations:

1.) We're not told what the future of space-travel is in the Green ending, at all. It's completely open to interpretation. Nothing contradicts the notion that the galaxy is moving past it, and both a quote by EDI and the notable absense of the 'relays in Green (while being notably present in Red and Blue) back me up. It's a valid interpretation, and it makes sense of things without using "bad writing" or "indoctrination" palmwaves. Or do you have an interpretation that's better than mine?

2.) Again, I don't see anything that expressly contradicts the way I interpretted it. If anything, my interpretation, when applied, makes more sense of it than the idea that "evolution ends here." You yourself don't think the idea of "evolution ends here" makes any sense, yet you hold on to it because it "sounds like" what you heard. But it could be that the writers meant something else that makes more sense. And again I will ask, do you have a better explanation for it than I do?

You use that H-word like a drunken man uses a lightpost -- for support rather than illumination.

And you are using your own imagined lightpost to lean against, pretending there is no darkness.

It wasn't "final stage." It was "final evolution (of life)" ... which doesn't mean anything in particular on its own.

Pretty sure it means "we are the pinnacle of evolution and existence"  Not much left to aspire too but spreading that pinnacleness elsewhere

We get it, you're jaded about the ending, but that doesn't mean there are no valid/sensible explanations to be had.

I question this.  If you like the ending, fine.  But I wouldn't try to pretend it makes sense.  Heck I like the Citadel DLC, but don't pretend it makes sense.

I don't think it requires any lifestyle change, other than having green circuitry patterns tattooed onto your skin, which if you told me was the only cost of surviving the war, I'd take and not think twice (and that doesn't strike me as something that would take very long for people to find ways to hide). And I would say the fact that people (namely, former squad) are predominantly doing the same things in the Green ending as they would be in Blue/Red, reinforces my assertion.

It may or may not be the best outcome of three choices to everyone, but you literally cannot do worse than the guaranteed fate of being harvested or huskified (suicide cannot even save you from the latter).

And if the only way to survive a war would be to undergo gene therapy forcing everyone to have blonde hair and blue eyes, would that be "worth it"?

Yeah,  Went there

[Obadiah]

I like how this thread is developing...

Humans are inherently good! We should just let evolution take its course.

Just ignore that part where evolution inevitably breeds humans into some other species better adapted for the environment, or humans just lose outright to another competing species.

[Rasofe]

Evolution - natutal selection, that is - has nothing to do with my argument. It is one more challenge that humanity will have to prevail at to ensure our dominance.
So I see your "inevitably" and raise you a "Watch me." Humanity is more than a species. It is an attribute, a characteristic, and also a scientific mystery. It is the self-evident outcome of the existance of a human being that humanity survives. The rest is a matter of effort.

[Clayless]

Rasofe wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Jason, the entire story is in your mind.
The important part is what you get to put on the screen. You don't get to put any reasoning for Synthesis on the screen - at all. You can tell Shepard to do it but you can never justify it with character development.

Not true, you can easily consider wanting peace, a bright future, and coexistence of synthetics and organics to be a justification of it.

Destroy wouldn't, as it considers genocide better than coexistence, and Control wouldn't as it's more about, well, control.

Trying to say that you can't justify Synthesis with character development is simply untrue.

Character development that you headcanon doesn't count.
For destroy, Shepard can spend all game agreeing that the Reapers have to be destroyed, and that difficult choices may be necessary to eliminate the enemy completely.
For Control, Shepard will explain the choice after you've made it. That's not ideal, but it works.
For Synthesis there's not a peep. Shepard never says why they're doing it. You'd only be making up reasoning. So there's no character development involved - just your assumptions. The narrative connection between character development and
character action is missing. That's a roleplay 101 failure in other scenarios of ME1 and ME2 where this happens as well.

Incorrect, it's there, you're just choosing to ignore it because it undermines your argument. Saying events and character development which clearly take place during the series is "headcanon" is just plain disingenuous.

[JonathonPR]

True. Legion gives a great explanation of what happens in ME2. Basicly the discovery of a technology on its own leads to creative uses of that technology. When given technology it is unlikely that a creative use for the technology will occur if instruction and what the provider does with it is told. How many of the technologies in your own home are used for different purposes than they were intended? How many time have you purchased something with a purpose in mind that is not what the producer intended or what someone else told you you could do with it?

The description of a lack of adversity due to the sudden increase in technology means that there is little motivation to innovate. Human history gives many examples of how a lack of adversity creates stagnation in technology. Many regeims, civiliztion, and nations have fallen due to a lack of perceived adversity. The corporate world has hundreds of examples of companies that failed to innovate because they believed that they were so large that they never needed to worry about competition or implement new technology until it was too late.

The interconnected nature of the races thanks to the new technology also has historical evidence that in time dominant cultural traits will homogenize the galaxy culture. Viewpoints start to align with each other and groupthink becomes dominant. Population density and distribution of each race will alter to match their niche within the culture.

None of this means that the synthesis ending is bad for a large majority of the galaxy whose individual standard of living will be greatly improved. In time war between different factions will decrease as the number of factions decreases as the previously mentioned social changes come into effect. However it must be remembered that the flaws within that system will be amplified by its dominance and will likely go unnoticed due to majority inclusion within that system. It is all based on an AI that thought the Reapers and Cycles were the only solution.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Rasofe wrote...

Facts aren't proven. They are shown, through arduous study. Fundamental facts, such as the axiom of translational equivalence of physical laws, are assumed since they allow a functional understanding of physics, and are also in line with empirical evidence. Even more fundamental assumptions such as the scientific method are completely heuristic, but also completely true.

There's a saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****."

You are bull****ing me right now, and you know it, too. Or do genuinely believe that laypeople on the internet adhere to strict, scientific standards in the course of casual conversation? Well, they don't. In this setting, there's absolutely nothing difficult or tricky about proving that a fact is indeed fact -- you simply provide evidence to support your claim that the other guy cannot argue with. That's it. Finito. I've asked, and you've utterly refused to provide any evidence to back your assertion.

But then again, you were also trying to sell me that role-playing requires the character to always explain themselves.

No functional discussion or evaluation of philosophy can be done if the statement that humanity is not absolutely self-benefactory can be made, because that would contradict the principle that humanity is good. If we allow that contradiction, we have no initial relevant and absolute statement to function as the basis of all philosophy. By Ex Falso Quodiblet, we can then logically justify anything about social, psychological or moral conditions; both any statement and the complement of that statement. Therefore, nothing stated will be relevant, because it will be both true and false.

In short, you either assume that's a fundamental fact, or nothing you conclude is relevant. The trick is in figuring out what humanity IS through research, but unless you've got field research studies showing that human beings seek perfection through technology, the burden of proof is on you.

You've given me no reason to assume it's a fundamental fact. If you had, I'd have shut up about this by now.

I'm just about ready to conclude that you've got nothing, and move on.

[His Name was HYR!!]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

That's a pretty cheap way of discrediting two valid explanations:

1.) We're not told what the future of space-travel is in the Green ending, at all. It's completely open to interpretation. Nothing contradicts the notion that the galaxy is moving past it, and both a quote by EDI and the notable absense of the 'relays in Green (while being notably present in Red and Blue) back me up. It's a valid interpretation, and it makes sense of things without using "bad writing" or "indoctrination" palmwaves. Or do you have an interpretation that's better than mine?

2.) Again, I don't see anything that expressly contradicts the way I interpretted it. If anything, my interpretation, when applied, makes more sense of it than the idea that "evolution ends here." You yourself don't think the idea of "evolution ends here" makes any sense, yet you hold on to it because it "sounds like" what you heard. But it could be that the writers meant something else that makes more sense. And again I will ask, do you have a better explanation for it than I do?

You use that H-word like a drunken man uses a lightpost -- for support rather than illumination.

And you are using your own imagined lightpost to lean against, pretending there is no darkness.

If by "darkness" you mean "bad writing," no, I've never said there are no issues/holes with the ending. However, there are not nearly as many of them as the staunch anti-enders believe, and not significantly more/less than there are elsewhere in the story. Only difference is that fans don't scrutinize the rest of the story the same way they do with the ending.

Unless you're in smudboy's camp.

It wasn't "final stage." It was "final evolution (of life)" ... which doesn't mean anything in particular on its own.

Pretty sure it means "we are the pinnacle of evolution and existence"  Not much left to aspire too but spreading that pinnacleness elsewhere

"Pretty sure" doesn't mean much. You can be "pretty sure" of something that's ultimately untrue.

OTOH, if you take my explanation, it makes sense on two fronts: (1) one can see how it solves the Catalyst's problem: synthetics cannot evolve to "surpass" organics if they are at this equilibrium; (2) it doesn't imagine something impossible -- an end-point of evolution for organic life. Only remaining issue is that the Catalyst shouldn't have worded it in such a convoluted manner, but we've long since concluded that the Catalyst can't articulate himself clearly in the least.

We get it, you're jaded about the ending, but that doesn't mean there are no valid/sensible explanations to be had.

I question this.  If you like the ending, fine.  But I wouldn't try to pretend it makes sense.  Heck I like the Citadel DLC, but don't pretend it makes sense.

There's nothing to pretend. I've made sense of almost all of it. Again, a few holes exist here and there, but not nearly as many as people think, and they are largely the same very kinds of issues you can find elsewhere in this story.

Whether or not you're willing to accept my explanations is another matter. However, nothing in the game contradicts the interpretations I hold, and when applied, they do make sense of the story events. I hold firmly to those rules. If anyone can offer better explanations than my own, I'll concede to theirs, but only then. Until then, I say I'm correct.

It should be said that lots of revision of my initial beliefs and adopting outside opinions got me to where I am now.

And if the only way to survive a war would be to undergo gene therapy forcing everyone to have blonde hair and blue eyes, would that be "worth it"?

Yeah,  Went there

It's not "a war" [sic] like it's just any other military conflict. It's arma- f***ing -gaeddon.

When faced with certain-extinction, a species in the Mass Effect universe literally chose the Catalyst's solution: uploading themselves into a spaceship. People find a way to survive, Cortez. Do whatever it takes to live another day.

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
If by "darkness" you mean "bad writing," no, I've never said there are no issues/holes with the ending. However, there are not nearly as many of them as the staunch anti-enders believe, and not significantly more/less than there are elsewhere in the story. Only difference is that fans don't scrutinize the rest of the story the same way they do with the ending.

Unless you're in smudboy's camp.

If you're trying to associate me with him, I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy for that.  Red Baiting ro something?

What you seem to be doing is whitewash all the bad writing, then say there is none.  Props to you for soming up with stuff in your head to make it palatable (to you, anyway) But that doesn't take away that Aynthsis is wildly inconsistent with pretty much the entire trilogy.

"Pretty sure" doesn't mean much. You can be "pretty sure" of something that's ultimately untrue.

And here I was shooting for droll understatement...

OTOH, if you take my explanation, it makes sense on two fronts: (1) one can see how it solves the Catalyst's problem: synthetics cannot evolve to "surpass" organics if they are at this equilibrium; (2) it doesn't imagine something impossible -- an end-point of evolution for organic life. Only remaining issue is that the Catalyst shouldn't have worded it in such a convoluted manner, but we've long since concluded that the Catalyst can't articulate himself clearly in the least.

1) Is doing this by making organics not-organic.  Or at least, as organic as the reapers are now. 

2) As long as our environment changes, evolution must continue.  Or else disaster.

"What had been our strength, our empire, became a liability.  All races conformed to one doctrine, one strategy.  the Reapers exploited this.  Once they found our weaknesses, we could not adapt."  Javik

"Technology changed us.  It made life too easy.  So we looked for new challenges--and found them in each other.  Nuclear war was inevitable."  Eve

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations.  Can't carry a load, so invent wheel.  Can't catch food, so invent spear.  Limitations.  No limitation, no advancement.  No advancement, culture stagnates.  Works other way too, advancement before culture is ready.  Disasterous.  Saw it with krogan.  Uplifted by salarians.  Disasterous.  Our fault"  Mordin.

Whether or not you're willing to accept my explanations is another matter. However, nothing in the game contradicts the interpretations I hold, and when applied, they do make sense of the story events. I hold firmly to those rules. If anyone can offer better explanations than my own, I'll concede to theirs, but only then. Until then, I say I'm correct.

See aqbove quotes.  THose were just the ones off the top of my head.

It's not "a war" [sic] like it's just any other military conflict. It's arma- f***ing -gaeddon.

When faced with certain-extinction, a species in the Mass Effect universe literally chose the Catalyst's solution: uploading themselves into a spaceship. People find a way to survive, Cortez. Do whatever it takes to live another day.

Every big war is Arma-frakking-geddon to those who fight it.  It was still a war.  Just bigger than the previous ones.  

 And doing "whatever it takes" to survive has led to some of the most brutal, shameful savagery in both history  and literature.  That is absolutely no excuse.

[loungeshep]

Synthesis just seems like an easy 'yay everyone's on equal footing now!' cop out. I tend towards Destroy since really that's been the idea from game 1: Destroy the Reapers, not control, not merge, destroy.

[Obadiah]

iakus wrote...
...
1) Is doing this by making organics not-organic.  Or at least, as organic as the reapers are now. 

2) As long as our environment changes, evolution must continue.  Or else disaster.
...

The way that works is that everyone that doesn't develop some random mutation to allow them to flourish in the new enviornment suffers or dies. Evolution is at work, but it is a sub-optimal solution to adaptation.

iakus wrote...
...
"What had been our strength, our empire, became a liability.  All races conformed to one doctrine, one strategy.  the Reapers exploited this.  Once they found our weaknesses, we could not adapt."  Javik

"Technology changed us.  It made life too easy.  So we looked for new challenges--and found them in each other.  Nuclear war was inevitable."  Eve

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations.  Can't carry a load, so invent wheel.  Can't catch food, so invent spear.  Limitations.  No limitation, no advancement.  No advancement, culture stagnates.  Works other way too, advancement before culture is ready.  Disasterous.  Saw it with krogan.  Uplifted by salarians.  Disasterous.  Our fault"  Mordin.
...

Except, none of that happens in Synthesis.

[His Name was HYR!!]

iakus wrote...

If you're trying to associate me with him, I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy for that.  Red Baiting ro something?

Nope, just saying that fans don't scrutinize the rest of the story the way they do the ending... unless, you are him.

1) Is doing this by making organics not-organic.  Or at least, as organic as the reapers are now.

They're not not-organic.

Organics just have new conditions of life than before (wasn't that the Catalyst's words -- altering the "matrix" of life?)

And, say what you want about the writers, but I for one don't believe that's the idea/message they were going for.

2) As long as our environment changes, evolution must continue.  Or else disaster.

Is that more reason to accept my explanation?

"What had been our strength, our empire, became a liability.  All races conformed to one doctrine, one strategy.  the Reapers exploited this.  Once they found our weaknesses, we could not adapt."  Javik

Irrelevant. Nothing suggests that Green society is conforming to one doctrine.

"Technology changed us.  It made life too easy.  So we looked for new challenges--and found them in each other.  Nuclear war was inevitable."  Eve

"All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations.  Can't carry a load, so invent wheel.  Can't catch food, so invent spear.  Limitations.  No limitation, no advancement.  No advancement, culture stagnates.  Works other way too, advancement before culture is ready.  Disasterous.  Saw it with krogan.  Uplifted by salarians.  Disasterous.  Our fault"  Mordin.

History is not just about learning from failure. It's also about learning from success as well. That's why it's fruitless to look at these events in a vaccum. You have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis to truly understand them.

The krogan's problem was cultural, not technological, not even a lack of brains. They had nuclear weapons, which means they had to have had scientists as smart as Einstein. However, violence was a part of their lifestyle, and they needed to move past it after they advanced. They simply failed to do that. Salarians compounded the issue by making them fight.

Little-known-fact: the elcor were an uplifted species. The asari discovered them and helped advance their spaceflight abilities to use mass-relays. It had no ill-effects on their species. Then again, their culture wasn't like the krogan's.

What constitutes "readiness" anyways? Seems like a pretty arbitrary construct to me. When humans uncovered the mass-relays, they were dealing with technology they did not build or understand from prior study. We jumped into it anyway. It advanced us hundreds of years forwards and the benefits have far and away outweighed the cons. Without it, we may not have even been around in the galaxy. Earth was very densely populated. Thane indicates that humans could have gone the way of the drell, dodo bird, dinosaur, whatever... had it not been for discovering the 'relays.

Similarly, I don't see the change in Green being too big of one for this now-united galaxy to handle.

Whether or not you're willing to accept my explanations is another matter. However, nothing in the game contradicts the interpretations I hold, and when applied, they do make sense of the story events. I hold firmly to those rules. If anyone can offer better explanations than my own, I'll concede to theirs, but only then. Until then, I say I'm correct.

See aqbove quotes.  THose were just the ones off the top of my head.

Your quotes only prove that there is thematic dissonance between the ending and themes that came before.

And in that, I blame the writers for what came before. They should have presented the other side of the argument better on matters like these. This is a core problem with Mass Effect in general IMO: one-sided presentation of many ideas.

What also contributes to this is human negativity-bias: remembering bad examples more readily than the good.

But that's just more reason to emphasize arguments on the pro- side of things.

It's not "a war" [sic] like it's just any other military conflict. It's arma- f***ing -gaeddon.

When faced with certain-extinction, a species in the Mass Effect universe literally chose the Catalyst's solution: uploading themselves into a spaceship. People find a way to survive, Cortez. Do whatever it takes to live another day.

Every big war is Arma-frakking-geddon to those who fight it.  It was still a war.  Just bigger than the previous ones.

Well, that's the difference right there.

A war typically doesn't involve those who aren't fighting it, but this one does -- every single one of them, at that.

That imminent supernova in the virtual-aliens' home system is a more apt comparison than any war.

And doing "whatever it takes" to survive has led to some of the most brutal, shameful savagery in both history  and literature.  That is absolutely no excuse.

And, at the same token, past transgressions are not reason to reject any principle altogether. In the case of the war refugees, you see a positive example of survival. No principles are inherently good or bad. They can go either way.

If folks find that being "synthesized" is an act of savagery onto and not justified by their survival, they always have the choice to... not survive. However, I think the vast majority will implicitly realize that idea holds no water and live with it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

DragonIroh001 wrote...

I know the endings have been discussed to death, but I saw something with regards to Synthesis on Tvtropes that I thought interesting and I want to know your opinions.

After choosing the Synthesis ending (and by extent agreeing with someone who has committed genocide for possibly billions of years) the Reapers stop their harvest of the current cycle and help with the reconstruction of the damage they caused along with the races of the galaxy. In the Extended Cut EDI explains that the Reapers also gave the galaxy the collective knowledge of all the past races they harvested bring the galaxy into a Utopia. But think about this, how long have the Reapers been doing this? How many races they harvested? And they just give this knowledge? By turning the galaxy into a technological utopia the galaxy is at its most advance in any given cycle, but where to build up from that? How more can you advance?

If all previous knowledge and tech of past races were used then there isn't really anywhere to go from there on. The destiny of everyone in the galaxy was just handed to them, something the Geth should be entirely against has it goes against one of the core beliefs of their philosophy. Legion said it best in ME2, that a people need to find their own future and not have it merely given to them as it stunts their development. That the journey is just as important as the destination. It doesn't help that Creative Sterility was already setting in on the galaxy before Humans showed up, and when they did more in 30 years then most did in a century it freaked people out. So what do you think will happen in a future where technology is already so advance that no further research is needed?

So would the races of the galaxy, in a couple centuries or so after Synthesis occurs, become creatively stagnant once again (like the council races did when they found Prothean Tech) after their tech boom has finished? Or will science still progress in new and interesting ways?

I personally don't think so, although Synthesis has plenty of other things wrong with it.

The important part is that one of the purposes of the Reaper trap is to have the Organic races develop along the Reapers own technological paths. Because of this most of the technology created by the other races is probably remarkably similar to what already exists. In ME3 there were some research stations and such that were experimenting with advance technology that deviated from Reaper tech. It would make sense for the other cycles to develop similar deviations. However, most of these research stations were immediately destroyed after invasion and all the researchers were killed; so it unlikely that they were around to be harvested. If that was the case in this cycle it was probably the case in the other cycles.

All said and done there probably isn't much to be gained technology wise from the Reapers, just history from races that were unfortunately killed in that whole Reaper fiasco.

[Iakus]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

They're not not-organic.

Organics just have new conditions of life than before (wasn't that the Catalyst's words -- altering the "matrix" of life?)

And, say what you want about the writers, but I for one don't believe that's the idea/message they were going for.[/quote]

"Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with  synthetic technology.  Synthetics, in turn will finally have full understanding of organics"

"We are the harbingers of your perfection" 

[quote]
[quote]2) As long as our environment changes, evolution must continue.  Or else disaster.[/quote]
Is that more reason to accept my explanation?[/quote]

No.  Because deciding "This is the final stage of evolution", is the first stage of dissolution

[quote]
[quote]"What had been our strength, our empire, became a liability.  All races conformed to one doctrine, one strategy.  the Reapers exploited this.  Once they found our weaknesses, we could not adapt."  Javik[/quote]

Irrelevant. Nothing suggests that Green society is conforming to one doctrine.[/quote]

Well, except everyone in the galaxy has uniform green glowing eyes and are getting along with everyone like a galaxy of Stepford Wives...


[quote]
History is not just about learning from failure. It's also about learning from success as well. That's why it's fruitless to look at these events in a vaccum. You have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis to truly understand them.

The krogan's problem was cultural, not technological, not even a lack of brains. They had nuclear weapons, which means they had to have had scientists as smart as Einstein. However, violence was a part of their lifestyle, and they needed to move past it after they advanced. They simply failed to do that. Salarians compounded the issue by making them fight. [/quote]

I'm not looking at these events in a vacuum.  If anything, Synthesis does.

There are about a dozen known spacefaring races in the Mass Effect galaxy.  Are all of them ready, culturally? What about the non-spacefaring races ike the yahg?  What about races beyond the relays whom we haven't even met?  Are pyjaks ready?  Thresher maws?  Oak trees?

And speaking of technology, the Crucible was built using someone else's instructions, with no knowledge of what it did (aside from "it's some kind of weapon") How dos this mean anyone in the galaxy is ready for it?  Hackett was basically in charge of a bunch of cave men building an atomic bomb.

How does any of this make the galaxy ready to handle what Synthesis may bring?  Particularly if it happens to every member of their race at once, whether they will it or not?

[quote]
Little-known-fact: the elcor were an uplifted species. The asari discovered them and helped advance their spaceflight abilities to use mass-relays. It had no ill-effects on their species. Then again, their culture wasn't like the krogan's.

What constitutes "readiness" anyways? Seems like a pretty arbitrary construct to me. When humans uncovered the mass-relays, they were dealing with technology they did not build or understand from prior study. We jumped into it anyway. It advanced us hundreds of years forwards and the benefits have far and away outweighed the cons. Without it, we may not have even been around in the galaxy. Earth was very densely populated. Thane indicates that humans could have gone the way of the drell, dodo bird, dinosaur, whatever... had it not been for discovering the 'relays.[/quote]

You're only reinforcing my point.  Elcor were ready.  Krogan weren't.  A dozen races, each with their own cultures and mindsets are out there.  And who knows how many others whom we never even met.  EDI even mentions how the salarian equivalent of transhumanism is accepted in their society while it was still a contentious issue among humans.  Why should Synthesis be forced on an entire galaxy, spacefaring or not, sentient or not, just because one wonky AI declares "You're ready"

Oh, and the relay was left there for humans to discover.  It was a trap, meant to channel technological development down a particular path.  I'd say humanity benefited in spite of the relays (they were already researching FTL technology on their own)

[quote]
Similarly, I don't see the change in Green being too big of one for this now-united galaxy to handle. [/quote]

Given Bioware's tendancy to go "Forget what we told you before, this is how it is now" I suppose the galaxy could handle it if the writers wave thier hands enough.


[quote]Your quotes only prove that there is thematic dissonance between the ending and themes that came before.

And in that, I blame the writers for what came before. They should have presented the other side of the argument better on matters like these. This is a core problem with Mass Effect in general IMO: one-sided presentation of many ideas.[/quote]On this, we can somewhat agree.  Though I should point out that two of those quotes came from the same game that gave us the Catalyst.  And, in theory, from writers that contributed to EC.  

[quote]
What also contributes to this is human negativity-bias: remembering bad examples more readily than the good.

But that's just more reason to emphasize arguments on the pro- side of things.[/quote]

Backfired spectacularly here.  The endings (all of them, not just Synthesis) are so over-the-top saccharine in how aweseome everything is, how every potential negative aspect is swept under the rug, it just screams "Whitewash!"  Nothing is perfect.  Except Synthesis.  Trust Synthesis.  Try the Kool-Aid.  It's green. 


[quote]

Well, that's the difference right there.

A war typically doesn't involve those who aren't fighting it, but this one does -- every single one of them, at that.

That imminent supernova in the virtual-aliens' home system is a more apt comparison than any war.[/quote]

Umm, wars have civilian casualties all the time.  


[quote]And, at the same token, past transgressions are not reason to reject any principle altogether. In the case of the war refugees, you see a positive example of survival. No principles are inherently good or bad. They can go either way.

If folks find that being "synthesized" is an act of savagery onto and not justified by their survival, they always have the choice to... not survive. However, I think the vast majority will implicitly realize that idea holds no water and live with it.[/quote]
"Accept it or kill yourself?"  Seriously? 

That's right up there with...no, those examples would be way too inflamatory.

Modifié par iakus, 04 décembre 2013 - 05:10 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

[quote]iakus wrote...

"Organics will be perfected by integrating fully with  synthetic technology.  Synthetics, in turn will finally have full understanding of organics"[/quote]

Yes. But integration can come on a mental level, as well as physical.

Pre-Sync, the only way organics can integrate with technology is physically (implants/augmentations).

Post-Sync? I bet they can now integrate other devices through a mental link.

[quote]"We are the harbingers of your perfection" [/quote]

No. The thing that causes it (the Crucible) was not even touched by Reaper tentacles.



[quote]Well, except everyone in the galaxy has uniform green glowing eyes and are getting along with everyone like a galaxy of Stepford Wives...[/quote]

So? If I attached wings to every Mass Effect speices, they wouldn't become one avian master-race.

They would just be their species plus wings.

As for getting along, that can be said of the other endings too, and doesn't necessarily require assimilation.


[quote]I'm not looking at these events in a vacuum.  If anything, Synthesis does.

There are about a dozen known spacefaring races in the Mass Effect galaxy.  Are all of them ready, culturally? What about the non-spacefaring races ike the yahg?  What about races beyond the relays whom we haven't even met?  Are pyjaks ready?  Thresher maws?  Oak trees?[/quote]

I think the galactic community can handle this responsibility.

Integration with technology won't matter to species that aren't advanced or intelligent. They have no tech to make use of. And seeing as the Crucible relies on the mass-relays to spread, it's not going to carry over to disconnected systems.


[quote]And speaking of technology, the Crucible was built using someone else's instructions, with no knowledge of what it did (aside from "it's some kind of weapon") How dos this mean anyone in the galaxy is ready for it?  Hackett was basically in charge of a bunch of cave men building an atomic bomb.[/quote]

Yes, and the Charon relay was already built when we found it and we used it with no knowledge of what it did.

Yet we used it anyway, and it was the good call.


[quote]How does any of this make the galaxy ready to handle what Synthesis may bring?  Particularly if it happens to every member of their race at once, whether they will it or not?[/quote]

They are ready, IMO, because the galaxy is mostly cooperative rather than violent with each other, and all species at hand bring many different talents to the table that will work well togeteher. When the wave hits, they'll have some figuring out to do on what, exactly, they've been bestowed with, but I do like their chances of figruing it out if they work together.


[quote]Little-known-fact: the elcor were an uplifted species. The asari discovered them and helped advance their spaceflight abilities to use mass-relays. It had no ill-effects on their species. Then again, their culture wasn't like the krogan's.

What constitutes "readiness" anyways? Seems like a pretty arbitrary construct to me. When humans uncovered the mass-relays, they were dealing with technology they did not build or understand from prior study. We jumped into it anyway. It advanced us hundreds of years forwards and the benefits have far and away outweighed the cons. Without it, we may not have even been around in the galaxy. Earth was very densely populated. Thane indicates that humans could have gone the way of the drell, dodo bird, dinosaur, whatever... had it not been for discovering the 'relays.[/quote]

You're only reinforcing my point.  Elcor were ready.  Krogan weren't.  A dozen races, each with their own cultures and mindsets are out there.  And who knows how many others whom we never even met.  EDI even mentions how the salarian equivalent of transhumanism is accepted in their society while it was still a contentious issue among humans.  Why should Synthesis be forced on an entire galaxy, spacefaring or not, sentient or not, just because one wonky AI declares "You're ready"[/quote]

Like I said, I don't really know what this arbitrary construct of "readiness" constitutes, but I explained above why I personally think this galaxy is. It's easy to say it about the elcor and krogan because we have hindsight on our side.


[quote]Oh, and the relay was left there for humans to discover.  It was a trap, meant to channel technological development down a particular path.  I'd say humanity benefited in spite of the relays (they were already researching FTL technology on their own)[/quote]

That really makes no sense. FTL tech was probably hundreds, maybe thousands of years away from being able to achieve the kind of space-travel the 'relays allowed us to achieve instantly. And given the dense population of Earth at the time, we may not have even been around long enough to see it bear fruit, especially since space-travel would be considered a waste of time to research while people are starving, the economy collapses, and people go to war.

The 'relays, for one thing, may have saved the human race in this story.

And then, whatever discoveries were made in space would also have to be attributed to the mass-relays, because they are what got us there, and that probably accounts for a lot of advances humans made (TIM indicated about as much).

It's not as if using mass-relays and advancing FTL flight are mutually-exclusive, it just didn't make too much sense to do the latter. One could argue that this complacency is a negative, but I don't see where this proved to be a real problem.

When the galaxy lost the relays to the war, they simply rebuilt them again. Up to that point? They were probably focusing on other important issues that demanded attention. Space-travel is kind of a luxury, you can have it, if you can afford it.


[quote]Backfired spectacularly here.  The endings (all of them, not just Synthesis) are so over-the-top saccharine in how aweseome everything is, how every potential negative aspect is swept under the rug, it just screams "Whitewash!"  Nothing is perfect.  Except Synthesis.  Trust Synthesis.  Try the Kool-Aid.  It's green.[/quote]

Like Citadel DLC?


[quote]Umm, wars have civilian casualties all the time.[/quote]

Enough to threaten the whole species involved? Not so much.


[quote]"Accept it or kill yourself?"  Seriously? 

That's right up there with...no, those examples would be way too inflamatory.[/quote]

No, I was making a point.

If you truly feel what took place wasn't worth your life -- it would be better to be dead -- you're welcome to end it.

However, if suicide still horrifies you, that should probably tell you something about your previous notion...

[Iakus]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
Yes. But integration can come on a mental level, as well as physical.

Pre-Sync, the only way organics can integrate with technology is physically (implants/augmentations).

Post-Sync? I bet they can now integrate other devices through a mental link.[/quote]

You realize the implication that Synthesis screws with people's minds is a major "implications unpleasant" for Synthesis right?

[quote]No. The thing that causes it (the Crucible) was not even touched by Reaper tentacles.[/quote]Yeah it's just fired through the Reaper invention and its function is explained by the Reaper guiding intelligence 

[quote]So? If I attached wings to every Mass Effect speices, they wouldn't become one avian master-race.

They would just be their species plus wings.

As for getting along, that can be said of the other endings too, and doesn't necessarily require assimilation.[/quote]It would if the wings seemed to cause them to act ooc

As for the other endings:

Control showed that peace would be enforced (by the sword if necessary) by the Shepalyst.  

And Destroy simply has Hackett musing that if the galaxy can unite against a threat as great as the Reapers, greater things can happen with them gone.  There is no statement that the peace will last.

In Synthesis, there is peace because Green.

[quote]
I think the galactic community can handle this responsibility.

Integration with technology won't matter to species that aren't advanced or intelligent. They have no tech to make use of. And seeing as the Crucible relies on the mass-relays to spread, it's not going to carry over to disconnected systems.[/quote]

That doesn't answer the question of looking at the situation in a vacuum.  You are assuming that humanity, asari, krogan, turians, salarians, elcor, hanar, quarians, geth, batarians, vorcha, rachni, drell, raoloi, virtual aliens, all of whom have civilizations of varying ages, temperments, perspectives, and philosophies, are all ready?

And who is one person, even one species, to make that judgement on all others?

And the wave does carry over to other systems.  Just look at the galaxy map.  There are colonies (and Reaper activity) in systems that have no relays

[quote]Yes, and the Charon relay was already built when we found it and we used it with no knowledge of what it did.

Yet we used it anyway, and it was the good call.[/quote]Relays=trap.  It was not the "good" call.  Humanity, the entire galaxy, got lucky.
[quote]They are ready, IMO, because the galaxy is mostly cooperative rather than violent with each other, and all species at hand bring many different talents to the table that will work well togeteher. When the wave hits, they'll have some figuring out to do on what, exactly, they've been bestowed with, but I do like their chances of figruing it out if they work together.[/quote]Rachni Wars
Krogan Rebellions
Morning War
Batarian slavers
Pirate fleets of the Terminus 
The interdiction of the yahg homeworld

The races bring a lot to the table, but they are each their own people, contentious even among their own people.  

Do you really think 21st century Earth would handle the green wave well?  The Mass Effect galaxy isn't really much different.

If you're going to pass judgement on every citizen of the galaxy, you have to be sure that every citizen of the galaxy is ready.  

[quote]That really makes no sense. FTL tech was probably hundreds, maybe thousands of years away from being able to achieve the kind of space-travel the 'relays allowed us to achieve instantly. And given the dense population of Earth at the time, we may not have even been around long enough to see it bear fruit, especially since space-travel would be considered a waste of time to research while people are starving, the economy collapses, and people go to war.[/quote]
And how do you know FTL technology was so far in the future?  More headcanon?  


[quote]
When the galaxy lost the relays to the war, they simply rebuilt them again. Up to that point? They were probably focusing on other important issues that demanded attention. Space-travel is kind of a luxury, you can have it, if you can afford it.[/quote]

The problem is they became reliant on the relays without understanding how they worked or where they came from.  Kinda like the Crucible.


[quote]Like Citadel DLC?[/quote]I don't pretend CItadel fits into the trilogy. Unlike the endings.  Especially Synthesis.  It's just fun.

[quote]Enough to threaten the whole species involved? Not so much.[/quote]Species?  No, given there is only one sentient species on Earth (that we know of)

But wars have depopulated entire cities, and more.  Look up the Thirty Years War.  A third of Germany was wiped out, by some estimates.

[quote]
No, I was making a point.

If you truly feel what took place wasn't worth your life -- it would be better to be dead -- you're welcome to end it.

However, if suicide still horrifies you, that should probably tell you something about your previous notion...
[/quote]

So everyone needs to convert to the Qun or go die...

Modifié par iakus, 05 décembre 2013 - 01:54 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

[quote]iakus wrote...


You realize the implication that Synthesis screws with people's minds is a major "implications unpleasant" for Synthesis right?[/quote]

Not if they have control over this ability... like, say, biotics (<-- a staple of this series).


[quote]
[quote]No. The thing that causes it (the Crucible) was not even touched by Reaper tentacles.[/quote]Yeah it's just fired through the Reaper invention and its function is explained by the Reaper guiding intelligence [/quote]

The "Reaper invention" was explained for its necessity: the Crucible alone does not have the desired amount of power for its solutions. With the Reapers dispersed through the galaxy through any given cycle, the effect has to be galaxy-wide. The Citadel allows this be pointing and firing the Crucible's energy at the relays, allowing it to travel as needed.

That's it. All of this was explained by Vendetta back at Cerberus HQ.

I devoted a whole thread to the topic: http://social.biowar.../index/16890923.

And on a meta-level, it's fairly obvious the Catalyst is acting as the author's voice in this scene ("info-dump").



[quote]It would if the wings seemed to cause them to act ooc[/quote]

With little variation, Green EC slides are virtually identical to the ones in Red/Blue under the same circumstance.

So it's not OOC -- they're not acting radically differently than they otherwise would be.


[quote]And Destroy simply has Hackett musing that if the galaxy can unite against a threat as great as the Reapers, greater things can happen with them gone.  There is no statement that the peace will last.[/quote]

There's no statement it will "last" in Green, either.

If you're making that assumption there, you may as well make it here, too.


[quote]That doesn't answer the question of looking at the situation in a vacuum.  You are assuming that humanity, asari, krogan, turians, salarians, elcor, hanar, quarians, geth, batarians, vorcha, rachni, drell, raoloi, virtual aliens, all of whom have civilizations of varying ages, temperments, perspectives, and philosophies, are all ready?[/quote]

Yes, mainly because they're not merely individual civilizations but a large, interconnected one. Now more than ever.


[quote]And who is one person, even one species, to make that judgement on all others?[/quote]

Someone who has been making controversial decisions since day-1 of the story.

Paragon!Shepard actually happens to be particularly self-righteous in this regard.


[quote]And the wave does carry over to other systems.  Just look at the galaxy map.  There are colonies (and Reaper activity) in systems that have no relays[/quote]

I can't verify that, sorry. Console burnt out.


[quote]Relays=trap.  It was not the "good" call.  Humanity, the entire galaxy, got lucky.[/quote]

"Trap" is a moot point -- it failed. Backfired, in fact. We advanced just outside their ability to stop us.

Luck belongs to the good players.



[quote]
[quote]They are ready, IMO, because the galaxy is mostly cooperative rather than violent with each other, and all species at hand bring many different talents to the table that will work well togeteher. When the wave hits, they'll have some figuring out to do on what, exactly, they've been bestowed with, but I do like their chances of figruing it out if they work together.[/quote]Rachni Wars
Krogan Rebellions
Morning War
Batarian slavers
Pirate fleets of the Terminus 
The interdiction of the yahg homeworld[/quote]

What's your point, exactly?

Quite frankly I'm not expecting a perfect solution, just a mostly-good one for it to prove worthwhile in my eyes.

I mean, all of those kinds of conflicts can arise again post-Destroy, even if you saved everyone in doing so. Is that reason not to fight for that future? Of course not. New wonders and new horrors both will always potentially exist in the future.


[quote]If you're going to pass judgement on every citizen of the galaxy, you have to be sure that every citizen of the galaxy is ready.[/quote]

I reject this notion. In an emergency, most doctors can perform a procedure on you without your expressed consent or an LPA's. If the circumstances at the end of ME3 do not constitute an emergency, I don't know what the hell does.


[quote]
[quote]That really makes no sense. FTL tech was probably hundreds, maybe thousands of years away from being able to achieve the kind of space-travel the 'relays allowed us to achieve instantly. And given the dense population of Earth at the time, we may not have even been around long enough to see it bear fruit, especially since space-travel would be considered a waste of time to research while people are starving, the economy collapses, and people go to war.[/quote]And how do you know FTL technology was so far in the future?  More headcanon?[/quote]

Common sense, for anyone who understands the concept of light-speed and the distance between systems.

In Mass Effect, it takes hours just to travel across a single system, from planet to, say, mass-relay.

... that would make for really slow travel from system-to-system. FTL doesn't even exist here w/o mass-effect tech.


[quote]
[quote]Like Citadel DLC?[/quote]I don't pretend CItadel fits into the trilogy. Unlike the endings.  Especially Synthesis.  It's just fun.[/quote]

Indeed. And that's the real reason the ending isn't received well at the end of the day.

All other complaints don't hold when applied to other parts of the story that the player happens to enjoy.


[quote]
[quote]Enough to threaten the whole species involved? Not so much.[/quote]Species?  No, given there is only one sentient species on Earth (that we know of)

But wars have depopulated entire cities, and more.  Look up the Thirty Years War.  A third of Germany was wiped out, by some estimates.[/quote]

The (*estimated) loss of part of a country is not comparable to the whole species at hand. It's really not.

And more to the point, no war is comparable to the end of civilization as we know it.

I don't think even you believe it is.


[quote]No, I was making a point.

If you truly feel what took place wasn't worth your life -- it would be better to be dead -- you're welcome to end it.

However, if suicide still horrifies you, that should probably tell you something about your previous notion...
[/quote]

So everyone needs to convert to the Qun or go die...[/quote]


I don't know if you're being obtuse or you legitimately can't comprehend the simple point I'm trying to make.

But since you're still freaking out about the suicide part, that should tell you something. You're valuing your life highly enough to keep living anyway. So you can argue all you want that Sync was somehow "not worth" saving your life -- by whatever arbitrary concept of "worth" you're using -- but you prove otherwise by still finding suicide undesirable.

And that holds true in Red & Blue, too, if you also believe those are "not worth" the lives they save either.

[Iakus]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Not if they have control over this ability... like, say, biotics (<-- a staple of this series).[/quote]

I don't think we're using the same definition of "screws with people's minds"

[quote]
There's no statement it will "last" in Green, either.

If you're making that assumption there, you may as well make it here, too. [/quote]

Hackett uses If and can statements to predict the future "imagine what we can achieve now that they are defeated" "we can rebuild everything that was destroyed" and such. It is an uncertain, but optimistic view.

EDI uses definitive "will" statements " With peace across the galaxy and unlimited access to knowledge" ""we will reclaim our worlds and the stars" It's clearly meant to convey that this "Green Utopia" inevitably means permanent peace.


[quote]Yes, mainly because they're not merely individual civilizations but a large, interconnected one. Now more than ever.[/quote]Except their not.  The Terminus is a fractious set of shifting alliances the Citadel is terrified of seeing unified.  The batarians went rogue decades ago.  No one likes the quarians.  Organics are afraid of the geth.  Everyone's worried about the rachni.  Not to mention the krogan.  No one takes the vorcha seriously.  

And it's a good idea to forcibly connect them all, because "they're ready?



[quote]Relays=trap.  It was not the "good" call.  Humanity, the entire galaxy, got lucky.[/quote]
[quote]
"Trap" is a moot point -- it failed. Backfired, in fact. We advanced just outside their ability to stop us.

Luck belongs to the good players.[/quote]

The Protheans were more advanced, and lost.

This cycle got lucky.  A number of fortuitous breaks,  the Prothean scientists sabotaging the Keepers, Vigil sending out the warning, Shepard surviving the beacon, Cerberus having the Lazarus Project, Liara finding the Crucible blueprints, Vendetta knowing what the Catalyst was (and Shepard having the Cipher to activiate it)  came together allowing the cycle to be broken. 


[quote]I reject this notion. In an emergency, most doctors can perform a procedure on you without your expressed consent or an LPA's. If the circumstances at the end of ME3 do not constitute an emergency, I don't know what the hell does.[/quote]This effects every single being in the galaxy, organic and synthetic, and their progeny, for all time.  Not a medical emergency involving one person 

[quote]
[quote]Common sense, for anyone who understands the concept of light-speed and the distance between systems.

In Mass Effect, it takes hours just to travel across a single system, from planet to, say, mass-relay

.... that would make for really slow travel from system-to-system. FTL doesn't even exist here w/o mass-effect tech.[/quote]That's because they stop researching it once Prothean ruins are found.

Their tech is so copy-paste they can't even figure out how to do away with Prothean failsafes that keep them from ftl-ing into Reaper ships.

[quote]
[quote]Indeed. And that's the real reason the ending isn't received well at the end of the day.

All other complaints don't hold when applied to other parts of the story that the player happens to enjoy.[/quote]The ending isn't well received because it isn't fun and it doesn't fit in the story.  At least CItadel is fun.

[quote]
[quote]The (*estimated) loss of part of a country is not comparable to the whole species at hand. It's really not.

And more to the point, no war is comparable to the end of civilization as we know it.

I don't think even you believe it is.[/quote]Wars have ended civilizatons.

And Mass Efect equates worlds with nations

[quote]
But since you're still freaking out about the suicide part, that should tell you something. You're valuing your life highly enough to keep living anyway. So you can argue all you want that Sync was somehow "not worth" saving your life -- by whatever arbitrary concept of "worth" you're using -- but you prove otherwise by still finding suicide undesirable.

And that holds true in Red & Blue, too, if you also believe those are "not worth" the lives they save either.
[/quote]

I don't think any of the endings are worthwhile, no.  Look at the banner in my sig.

But if you think Synthesis is worthwhile, was Synthesis achieved in Spain circa 1500?