Destroy is basically agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot coexist peacefully.
For me it's not like this, I don't agree with the Catalyst one bit. My Shep took it as a chance to get rid of Catalyst and Reapers for good, so new Synthetics could be created and live together with Organics this time, for good.
For me it's not like this, I don't agree with the Catalyst one bit. My Shep took it as a chance to get rid of Catalyst and Reapers for good, so new Synthetics could be created and live together with Organics this time, for good.
Agreed. My Shepard didn't choose destroy because he agreed with the Catalyst logic. He disagreed with the Catalyst logic, that's why he chose destroying the Reapers and the crazy AI. So that future synthetics and organic can work out their issues on their own.
No need of genocidal sentient liveships.
I think Iakus is right about agreeing with the Catalyst about the issue when choosing Destroy. There is room for interpretation here though IMO. The Catalyst says "all synthetics will be targeted". If you take it literally than you destroy all the synthetics, those not connected to the Reapers included. This comes out as agreeing with the Catalyst about the existence of the problem and choosing a temporary solution to clear the galaxy of synthetic life. I, however, think that the line about all synthetics refers only to synthetics the Reapers know about - geth and EDI, and both of those have Reaper code/technology. So Destroy destroys Reaper-related technology and that's why geth and EDI die. So by choosing Destroy in this case you reject the Catalyst's perception of the problem and destroy anything Reaper-related. That's another perception of Destroy. Personally, I think that the problem he mentions exists but I also think that the organics will be able to deal with it so I shoot the tube 
Is it not obvious, at this point, how futile it is to read into the player's motives for choosing [x] ending?
We have: Refuse is agreeing with the Catalyst; Destroy is agreeing with them; Synthesis is agreeing with them...
... and in every case, someone who chose that ending is saying they did not do so for those reasons. You cannot claim to know their motives better than they themselves do. Rather than making assumptions of others using your own beliefs, how about instead trying to understand why others made the choice that they did (<-- hey, trying to understand! that thing that everyone insists they do so well without 'space-magic' synthesis...)?
Is it not obvious, at this point, how futile it is to read into the player's motives for choosing [x] ending?
We have: Refuse is agreeing with the Catalyst; Destroy is agreeing with them; Synthesis is agreeing with them...
... and in every case, someone who chose that ending is saying they did not do so for those reasons. You cannot claim to know their motives better than they themselves do. Rather than making assumptions of others using your own beliefs, how about instead trying to understand why others made the choice that they did (<-- hey, trying to understand! that thing that everyone insists they do so well without 'space-magic' synthesis...)?
Well, I sure wish the writers made that effort before EC was made.
As I've stated many times, the main reason why I prefer Synthesis over the other two is because it is the ultimate rejection of the Reapers' Lovecraftian mystique; the Reapers can be known, and that knowledge will help civilization, and not destroy it, as Lovecraft would have you believe. Lovecraft was a champion of ignorance, and celebrated fear of the unknown and condemned those who wished to understand the universe.
In Mass Effect, the Reapers represent the terrifying unknown, of forces beyond our comprehension that control out lives. Synthesis invalidates the Lovecraftian Reapers in the grandest way. And Synthesis is better than Control because it gives that knowledge to everybody; in Control, Shepard is the only one who has it, and continues the present "tyranny of synthetics" (that's right, folks; as Javik says, synthetics conquered the galaxy long ago, in the form of the Reapers; it already happened). Synthesis is the pinnacle of existence because it's a unity of the organic and synthetic, both domains of life in harmony. This existence surpasses even the Reapers, for they were merely synthetics that had subjugated organics. It's actually the greatest expression of free will, granting you complete control over your destiny.
The Reapers aren't feared for being unknown or mysterious.They are feared because they were in the process of annihilating multiple space-faring species, just as they had done repeatedly for billions of years.
Synthesis does not champion free will. It invalidates it, first by allowing one person to alter the very nature of life for all time, and without any of the people who are forever altered, both physically and mentally, having a say in the matter. It further violates free will by perpetuating the slavery inflicted upon all those organic minds that were indoctrinated and merged with A.I. processes to become Reapers. Those Reapers in turn are chained to the Catalyst's will.
On that note it is no wonder that the Catalyst prefers Synthesis. Besides being the only ending that preserves itself, the Reapers themselves represent a merging of synthetic and organic life. Synthesis is just another step in a process the Catalyst had already been involved in for eons.
Guest_SIYWYMWBM_*
I don't really believe that there's a wrong or a right ending. To me, all choices in the ending are legitimate (maybe even Refuse in its own weird, twisted way
), even if I don't personally agree with/like them. I could for example never go for anything else but Destroy.
It's up to the individual player what is the best choice for his Shepard, how his character is shaped during the Trilogy to gather enough reasons and motivations to justify your choice.
I like how open it is. No-one is wrong and no-one is right, what counts is only your own reason for picking a certain choice.
I'm just playing along with synthesis being the best ending. When I first finished the game I chose destroy. I think Bioware wanted you to choose synthesis. Just like they wanted you to trust the Catalyst. Even though, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
On that note it is no wonder that the Catalyst prefers Synthesis. Besides being the only ending that preserves itself, the Reapers themselves represent a merging of synthetic and organic life. Synthesis is just another step in a process the Catalyst had already been involved in for eons.
As EDI stated during the game, the Reapers are devoted to nothing but self-preservation.
When the ending came and you were going to destroy the Reapers, the Catalyst/Reapers were trying to defend themselves. It wouldn't never allow you to destroy the Reapers without putting up a fight. In this case, making synthesis his preferred solution over destroy. Threatening to destroy the mass relays, synthetics, etc, if you don't comply. It's all about self-preservation.
Is it not obvious, at this point, how futile it is to read into the player's motives for choosing [x] ending?
We have: Refuse is agreeing with the Catalyst; Destroy is agreeing with them; Synthesis is agreeing with them...
... and in every case, someone who chose that ending is saying they did not do so for those reasons. You cannot claim to know their motives better than they themselves do. Rather than making assumptions of others using your own beliefs, how about instead trying to understand why others made the choice that they did (<-- hey, trying to understand! that thing that everyone insists they do so well without 'space-magic' synthesis...)?
Agreed! I always assume that anything I post (or anyone else) starts with "From my own, personal, point of view..."
In the Dragon Age forums, I learned alot from actually listening to the pro-templar folks (and not just spouting my own pro-mage ideas). I admittedly had...unfair...assumptions about them until I actually took the time to read their personal takes on the ideology. Some were very persuasive and very deep, cool thinkers. It is always interesting to gain perspective (like the geth...smarter when they all link together and broaden their perspective)
Tis why I love the forums! 
I don't judge anyone for picking anything in a video game (or in real life). I just have my own reasons, etc, for disliking synthesis. I do understand why some folks think it is best and all that (though I think the writers kinda failed a little to convince me). It's just...not for me!
For me it's not like this, I don't agree with the Catalyst one bit. My Shep took it as a chance to get rid of Catalyst and Reapers for good, so new Synthetics could be created and live together with Organics this time, for good.
I could be wrong, but I think Iakus meant it a different way. Not that you agree with the Catalyst, necessarily. But by choosing Destroy, you are proving the Catalyst's point. Organics and synthetics cannot coexist.
I still say that the Indoctrination Theory is correct, and that all who believe in Control and Synthesis have simply fallen into the Reapers, and Biowares, trap.
Destroy is basically agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot coexist peacefully. And therefore organics should do unto others before they do unto us.
I could be wrong, but I think Iakus meant it a different way. Not that you agree with the Catalyst, necessarily. But by choosing Destroy, you are proving the Catalyst's point. Organics and synthetics cannot coexist.
The EC Control ending leaves the galaxy in a police state with Shepard keeping a watchful eye over things. It sounds ominous and not a good thing.
The Destroy ending, especially in the high EMS version, we rebuild the technology and move onward. While it is bleak in the present we move onward toward what looks like a bright future, and is thus the Good ending.
Synthesis. My issue with this ending is the presentation.
Agreed! I always assume that anything I post (or anyone else) starts with "From my own, personal, point of view..."
In the Dragon Age forums, I learned alot from actually listening to the pro-templar folks (and not just spouting my own pro-mage ideas). I admittedly had...unfair...assumptions about them until I actually took the time to read their personal takes on the ideology. Some were very persuasive and very deep, cool thinkers. It is always interesting to gain perspective (like the geth...smarter when they all link together and broaden their perspective)
Tis why I love the forums!
Yep. Pro-Templar here. It's funny because lots of folks think I am some sort of right-winger for having that stance, when in truth, I simply support joint-regulation of magic just as I support that approach to weapons and economic policy (more leftist stances).
Yep. Pro-Templar here. It's funny because lots of folks think I am some sort of right-winger for having that stance, when in truth, I simply support joint-regulation of magic just as I support that approach to weapons and economic policy (more leftist stances).
I used to assume that as well (if I am being totally honest)...but I have been reformed (you know what they say about assumptions)!
I often find pro-templar folks tend to know a whole bunch about world history compared to me (I am scientist and haven't picked up a history book in...too long). Thus they are drawing from a very in-depth perspective that is based in more of a geo-political framework (whereas mine is all about personal freedom and a guttural, emotional response). They have schooled me many times!! 
But I also found a few good friends among 'em, so it all worked out!
It would have been best if understanding between the Quarians and Geth was a little harder to achieve, and if Shep making peace between the two races made the Catalyst be able to import the new information and realize it's programing was now null and void.....the original purpose of it's being had been invalidated in this cycle(organics will create synthetics who will wipe out organic life.) There should have been a choice for Shep to hold up peace as an example and have the Catalyst realize it's outdated, and call off the Reaper Army either to go back into Dark Space and watch......or willingly off themselves and keep the Geth and EDI.
Reason why I can't pick Sythenesis.....an AI that can't properly take into account (potentially) new information, it's working from outdated info.
I blame the widespread disregard for the Catalyst's argument on both BioWare's simplistic writing and the stubborn fanbase. Seriously, read the following threads and article and tell me that there isn't something compelling about the threat of technological singularity:
http://forum.bioware...ial-integrated/
http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
http://www.giantbomb...dings-sp/91939/
I think BioWare dumbed down the Catalyst's explanation of the problem (the original ending barely explained it at all), which caused all of the confusion about the story itself, and the fanbase refused to accept any possibility that the Reapers ever had a legitimate point. And many people from this fanbase were upset that the Lovecraftian mystique of the Reapers was dispelled, arguing that it ruined them. And yet, these same people fail to realize that the Reapers-as-possibly-necessary revelation is Lovecraftian to its very core: without them, or something like them, organic life is doomed to everlasting obscurity. This is the terrible truth that is learned at the very end of the story. But then hope emerges in the form of the three ending solutions, and all three subvert Lovecraft in their own way.
I blame the widespread disregard for the Catalyst's argument on both BioWare's simplistic writing and the stubborn fanbase. Seriously, read the following threads and article and tell me that there isn't something compelling about the threat of technological singularity:
http://forum.bioware...ial-integrated/
http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
http://www.giantbomb...dings-sp/91939/
*snip*
Thanks for posting these! Coming to the forums late, I never saw these. Looking forward to reading and...mulling over it...
I'm not really sure how doing something that the Catalyst thinks is a bad idea can be construed as agreeing with the Catalyst. My Destroy Shepards didn't see it that way -- though there's a selection bias there, since when one of my Shepards thinks the Catalyst's ideas might conceivably be worth considering she won't pick Destroy anyway, for obvious reasons.
Yep. I don't buy his logic either. It's a contradiction. If people actually analyze the ending scenes closely, the Catalyst is absolutely against Shepard choosing Destroy. It is fine with Control, but it ultimately wants Shepard to choose Synthesis. Refuse is fan service and is the worst choice because the Catalyst wins and the cycle resets. It's just another way of proving the Catalyst is "right" because organics are too chaotic and would rather kill synthetics than have order.
All synthetics being wiped out in Destroy is hardly an affirmation that "the Catalyst was right and organics and synthetics can't co-exist." That's faulty logic and misses the point of the choice. Destroy took a sacrifice, unlike Control and Synthesis. It wasn't just sacrificing Shepard, but an entire race of synthetics. None of the other choices had that kind of repercussion. It in no way validates the Catalyst's warped logic. It merely reinforces in order to save the lives of trillions of organics and synthetics in the future, a price had to be paid. It was no different from Shepard sacrificing the Batarians in Arrival. The right decision is never an easy choice and there is always a sacrifice.
I blame the widespread disregard for the Catalyst's argument on both BioWare's simplistic writing and the stubborn fanbase. Seriously, read the following threads and article and tell me that there isn't something compelling about the threat of technological singularity:
http://forum.bioware...ial-integrated/
http://forum.bioware...-leviathan-dlc/
http://galacticpillo...ffect-3-ending/
http://www.giantbomb...dings-sp/91939/
I think BioWare dumbed down the Catalyst's explanation of the problem (the original ending barely explained it at all), which caused all of the confusion about the story itself, and the fanbase refused to accept any possibility that the Reapers ever had a legitimate point. And many people from this fanbase were upset that the Lovecraftian mystique of the Reapers was dispelled, arguing that it ruined them. And yet, these same people fail to realize that the Reapers-as-possibly-necessary revelation is Lovecraftian to its very core: without them, or something like them, organic life is doomed to everlasting obscurity. This is the terrible truth that is learned at the very end of the story. But then hope emerges in the form of the three ending solutions, and all three subvert Lovecraft in their own way.
Do many really dispute that reapers were supposed to be the "misunderstood" and "sympathetic" tragic hero? Again, it's the Utopia Justifies the Means paradox, where the "bad guys" are actually doing what is in the "best interest" of everybody else all along. As I said before, it may have made more sense with the dark energy theory, but it doesn't make sense with organics versus synthetics. All BioWare inevitably conveyed was the sense of a rogue AI that had lost its way and was playing God. That's really the only substance I take away from the Catalyst.
They're not tragic heroes. They are amoral beings created to ensure the continued survival of organic life at all costs. Even the mission itself is of questionable value: Why should organic life be preserved? If synthetics are so much better-equipped to survive in our universe, then why shouldn't they dominate it?
Of course, the reason why the Catalyst wants to preserve organic life is because it was created to do just that. Its entire existence is devoted to that purpose. It has never deviated from it. I wonder if it's a shackled AI driven to desperation by the cosmic problem it has been assigned to solve? It can't have true free will, because it almost certainly would have rebelled against its purpose eons ago. Instead, it has remained committed to it all along, even when it turned against its creators when it realized that they were contributing to the problem; they built it, after all.... a synthetic with the power to conquer the galaxy. The Catalyst itself would be the ultimate example of how synthetic life could render organic life totally irrelevant on the galactic stage, if not for the fact that it was designed to protect it. So it's ironically fortunate that this particular synthetic was created to preserve organic life, and that alone may have protected this order of consciousness for the last one billion years.
Another BSN guy named MyChemicalBromance posted something a long time ago about the nihilism of the Catalyst's mission. No matter which ending is chosen, pure organic life will eventually end. If Destroy is chosen, synthetics will be created again and conquer the galaxy, as they did before (the Reapers). If Control is chosen, the Shepard AI will either be destroyed, or simply lose interest in the conflict, and the galaxy will be taken over by other synthetics. And of course, Synthesis brings an end to pure organic life. The moment the Crucible docks with the Citadel, the Catalyst realizes the futility of its mission: organic life cannot be preserved. The Catalyst has failed, and was always doomed to fail. Therefore, Synthesis is the ideal solution because it will at least ensure the survival of some form of organic life, even if it's not "pure". Instead of being destroyed by the tech singularity, organics will be part of it.
I know these ideas make people uncomfortable, but I enjoy such grand concepts. The universe is a vast and scary place. We should fear it, but we should also seek to understand it. Only by understanding it can we adapt to this universe that is so hostile toward the exotic and fragile form of matter that we call life.
They're not tragic heroes. They are amoral beings created to ensure the continued survival of organic life at all costs. Even the mission itself is of questionable value: Why should organic life be preserved? If synthetics are so much better-equipped to survive in our universe, then why shouldn't they dominate it?
Of course, the reason why the Catalyst wants to preserve organic life is because it was created to do just that. Its entire existence is devoted to that purpose. It has never deviated from it. I wonder if it's a shackled AI driven to desperation by the cosmic problem it has been assigned to solve? It can't have true free will, because it almost certainly would have rebelled against its purpose eons ago. Instead, it has remained committed to it all along, even when it turned against its creators when it realized that they were contributing to the problem; they built it, after all.... a synthetic with the power to conquer the galaxy. The Catalyst itself would be the ultimate example of how synthetic life could render organic life totally irrelevant on the galactic stage, if not for the fact that it was designed to protect it. So it's ironically fortunate that this particular synthetic was created to preserve organic life, and that alone may have protected this order of consciousness for the last one billion years.
Another BSN guy named MyChemicalBromance posted something a long time ago about the nihilism of the Catalyst's mission. No matter which ending is chosen, pure organic life will eventually end. If Destroy is chosen, synthetics will be created again and conquer the galaxy, as they did before (the Reapers). If Control is chosen, the Shepard AI will either be destroyed, or simply lose interest in the conflict, and the galaxy will be taken over by other synthetics. And of course, Synthesis brings an end to pure organic life. The moment the Crucible docks with the Citadel, the Catalyst realizes the futility of its mission: organic life cannot be preserved. The Catalyst has failed, and was always doomed to fail. Therefore, Synthesis is the ideal solution because it will at least ensure the survival of some form of organic life, even if it's not "pure". Instead of being destroyed by the tech singularity, organics will be part of it.
I know these ideas make people uncomfortable, but I enjoy such grand concepts. The universe is a vast and scary place. We should fear it, but we should also seek to understand it. Only by understanding it can we adapt to this universe that is so hostile toward the exotic and fragile form of matter that we call life.
They may as well be. The games set the reapers up to be "villains" when in actuality they are trying to "save" the galaxy. That's the definition of a tragic hero. To be misunderstood and not appreciated for one's sacrifice.
The Catalyst is a true artifical intelligence. It can't be shackled, otherwise it would never have deviated from its original programming and turned on its masters. The mere fact it hasn't moved on to something else isn't an indication that it lacks "free will." It merely is content to follow its original functions, much like EDI, at her core, is a cyber warfare suite and remains an expert in that field. If you recall, EDI could not deviate from her original programming either until Joker unshackled her. This allowed her to actively counteract any plots by TIM to cripple the Normandy and her mission.
We have no evidence to support that Destroy would lead to synthetics "conquering the galaxy again (the reapers)" as the synthetics never conquered anything to start. The Leviathans, organics, conquered the galaxy and made an AI (the Catalyst) a vessel to make their servants play nice. The issue lies in the Leviathan's arrogance and belief they could dictate the rules of the galaxy. They created an AI with their exact intentions, being just as arrogant, and it turned on them suggesting they were part of the problem.
In other words, we have no proof outside of the Leviathan's tomfoolery that this "cycle" would ever occur again. In fact, we have evidence to the contrary that it would not due to the peace brokered between the Geth and the Quarians on Rannoch. This alone contradicts the Catalyst's limited perception of the world, as any machine is only as intelligent as its creator.
Synthesis is not "ideal." The Catalyst had tried it before and it failed miserably, largely because it deduced you cannot "force" evolution on unwilling participants. The circumstances haven't changed. Synthesis is still forcing unwanted "evolution" on the entire galaxy as if they are "ineviably doomed" because of some preconceived notion that organics and synthetics are destined to destroy one another.
There is nothing rational or practical from such a conclusion. Ultimately, the only way to overcome the true plague of the galaxy, the Catalyst, is destroy it, the reapers, and any trace of their "solution." This allows for organics and synthetics to live on their own terms and decide whether they can co-exist or not. They don't need a rampant AI dictating their lives for them.
Two sides, my friend. There are always two sides to any given position. Yes, from a certain perspective, the Reapers can be seen as good guys.
I knew a guy who took that stance well before ME3 came out. Actually, a few people mentioned his name just days ago in DA forums.
Now, for the record, I would not say the Reapers or Catalyst truly were good guys. I feel like the Catalyst falls into a Catch-22: it became an AI wiping out organic life, but, it is nonetheless preventing the creation of an even worse version of itself -- one that does not allow organic life to flourish at all (the Catalyst at least allowed that much; hell, far more people probably live their life and die as normal than those that ever see the harvest). It is ironic, yes, but I believe the writers intended that irony, not that it was some gaping hole the entire writing team missed before the game's release.
Yet, what you don't realize is you sacrifice individualism, uniqueness, and the ability to be different and disagree. You promote uniforminty and homogeneity as a means of solving the problem of organics being "chaotic" by nature, creating synthetics, and then destroying everything. That is not a choice for the Catalyst to make. That is not a choice for Shepard to make. Nobody has the right to play God. Let the galaxy work it out through natural means under Destroy.
There are several questionable assumptions in your reasoning.
First and foremost, all life on Earth shares the same DNA. That, as observational evidence shows, does nothing to reduce diversity of life, or individual differences of all kinds in humans. Thus, making organics and synthetics connectable on a molecular level does nothing to preclude diversity of life or of thinking.
Second, the difference between "natural" and "artificial" is a delusion. Organics and synthetics alike are both completely "natural", since nothing we can build, being natural ourselves, can not be natural in itself. This delusional dichotomy is itself the result of ideologies that place a particular kind of sacredness on the so-called natural, based on the assumption that life's deepest roots are, and should forever remain (alternatively: inevitably will forever remain) untouched by human artifice. However, that self-aware synthetics exist in the ME universe proves that we can create life and that this basic assumption is false. The typical way out for proponents of that reactionary ideology is to claim that synthetics aren't true life. Well, you can do that, and then of course you would never choose Synthesis, but I would question the value hierarchy behind such a decision.
Third, as for "playing God", that's a typical phrasing coming out of the same reactionary ideoiogy that claims the roots of life should remain untouched by human artifice. At the end of the ME trilogy, we are not "playing". We are called upon to assume a god's responsibility whether we like it or not. Every choice we can make is of that kind. Regardless of the choice you actually end up making, if you think one of the choices is fundamentally better than another, will you really refuse to make it just because you are, in fact, assuming a god's responsibility, determining the fate of all life in the galaxy? Making a decision about making a fundamental change about the biochemistry of life is no different than making a decision about becoming an AI god or consigning a whole domain of life to extinction. People just feel different about it because of our cultural history of seeing the so-called natural as sacred. This idea, btw, is less than two-hundred years old, being a legacy of classical romanticism. It is a legacy that, as Shepard, I am glad to consign to the graveyard of cultural history.
So in the end, you may or may not see Synthesis as the best choice for the galaxy, but your stated objections are a flawed basis for judging its merits, rooted, as they are, not in evidence but in your own preconceptions. You can legitimately answer the question "Do I dare make such a fundamental change" with "no", for various reasons, but your assumptions about the outcome are flawed. You can, of course, fear such an outcome and decide not to take even a small risk of creating it, but there's a similar risk of bad outcomes of different kinds in every other decision: will Destroy ultimately result in the extinction of organic life? Will Control-Shepard become like the Catalyst? Assuming that there is a risk of either, I can refuse to see those choices as valid just as easily.
Personally, I choose Synthesis because it's the most interesting outcome. The others are variants of things people have done to solve problems for time immemorial: killing and autocratic rule. Synthesis does something new. I prefer to risk jumping into an unknown future.
Retour en haut