77 réponses à ce sujet

[Breakdownz]

First of all, I’m aware I should probably be posting this in Story, Campaign & Characters, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to link my ME3 game to my account. I have my reasons…

So I spent the past two weeks replaying the Mass Effect trilogy and right now I'm in a frenzy, feeling like I should share my sights on several matters regarding the games, especially the ending.

Majority of the people who finished the game justify their choices in the end of the game with arguments like "This is the best ending because it's the Paragon ending - it's the good thing to do!" , or "This is the best ending because Shepard gets to live in the end", or "because Shepard gets to watch over people after his death", even "because Anderson would have wanted so". Seriously? It feels like nobody is looking at the big picture.
Commander Shepard and his crew on the Normandy were given the difficult mission to spread awareness of the incoming Reaper threat and the importance of gathering and uniting for undeniably the most challenging task the galaxy is yet to endure.
Although seeing the main character who we've grown so fond of throughout these three amazing games die at the end is definitely heartbreaking, people seem to forget that the purpose of the games itself is eliminating the ultimate threat and thus preserving and sustaining life in the Milky Way galaxy.

Having that cleared out, I'll share you my opinion on why "Synthesis" is the optimal ending for the series.

The majority seemed to have picked Destroy, but In my opinion it is the worst possible outcome for the Galaxy.
Sure, it does seem like the most secure and safe way to annihilate the Reapers, but it also annihilates all other synthetics. And no, I'm not saying that because the poor geths or EDI will be destroyed. It's because, as everybody knows, all dominant races have grown reliant on artificial intelligences for centuries and centuries. Ending them would mean many worlds will start from point 1, some might even cease to exist (let's not forget the Mass Relays don't work anymore) . Billions will probably die, and it will take the Galaxy huge efforts and a very long time before they start to function properly, let alone develop and improve. As time goes by, the dominant races will once again require the assisstance of synthetics, continuing the inevitable cycle. Let's not forget why the Reapers were programmed in the first place. They're not just a bunch of antisocial, immoral, lunatic robots who have a problem with everyone and like to kill, they are a product of an intelligent program (The Catalyst) created by the most powerful and advanced (as far as we know) species to ever exist in the Milky Way. And with its million-years experience, that program has concluded that there is no solution to the organic-synthetic war, except for harvesting. Meaning that eventually, that cycle will most likely continue, and the galaxy will once again be in chaos, as it was thousands of times before. In the long term, it's a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

The second most reasonable choice to many was Control, but whether it is reasonable is up for debate.
It gives the Galaxy a huge boost in technological advancement and development, it helps repair or rebuild the Mass Relays and devastated worlds in no time. To an extend, it gives us the security that with the power of the Reapers the organic-synthetic war cycle won't continue. Or does it? Does it guarantee us that one day the Reapers won't decide to evolve and rebel against their owners just like any other synthetic (including the Reapers' ancestor) history has told us about? It's hard to tell. What isn't hard to tell however is that there will always, and I mean always, be people who will want all the power of control for themselves. Another Cerberus-like organisation or even something worse, the mere existence of a power such as the Reapers means there will be people who will want it all for themselves.

And finally, Synthesis. Synthesis seems to be a very unexpected, unprepared for, radical choice, but in the long term, it feels like the most reasonable choice we are given to preserve galactic peace.
Cyborg babies? Not exactly. According to the Catalyst, it simply gives organics the power to understand how the AI's mind works, and vice versa. Perhaps synthetics get to understand organic psychology, philosophy, moral. Putting it simply, the two begin to get along with each other, bringing a (hopefully) permanent end to the "evolve and rebel against the creators" organic-synthetic conflict. Obviously, it doesn't guarantee there will be no more wars. For one reason or another, organic-organic, synthetic-synthetic and organic-synthetic conflict will always be present. But the Catalyst speaks about the "evolve and rebel against the creators" conflict as much more than just some conflict. For it, It is an inevitable neverending cycle of chaos.
Some suggested that a sharing between organic and synthetic data would make organics prone to viruses and programming, but let's not forget that every single organic born and Artifical Intelligence created would now share that same data. It's hard to speculate somebody or something would exploit and abuse that data against organics while it is sharing that same data itself.

Synthesis may be a very extreme and radical solution that goes against everything the galaxy has known and fought for, but let's face it, nobody in the Galaxy expected that some day a bunch of partly organic, partly synthetic machines would come devastate planets and harvest species to preserve order and fight the inevitable.


I know this is an unpopular opinion, so let me know why you completely or partially agree or disagree with me. The topic has been discussed before, but it is an interesting topic still up for debate nontheless and I'm looking forward for some feedback.
 

[earthboyjak]

I agree with you. My personal theory, which I think makes sense from every angle, is that the Intelligence set out to streamline and expedite evolution throughout the galaxy, knowing it could not resolve the problem it was created to solve immediately. Sapient life had to evolve beyond its tendency to fall into the cycle of technological development and downfall. That was what the harvest, the relay and the citadel "trap", the bits of tech from past cycles being left around, were all about: turning a process that could have taken billions of years into a process that took millions of years, and likely would have ended in the total destruction of galactic life before it finished. From the perspective of any one species, or one cycle, this may not seem justifiable. But the reapers only harvested specieis, both organic and synthetic, doomed to die anyway, and preserved their genetic and cultural history for the day when something like synthesis happened, making it available as a record for the ages.

However, there were other evolutionary outcomes. Some have postulated that Shepard was indoctrinated, which I think is not only wrong, but I believe he and his team mates showed an incredible resistance to indoctrination throughout the whole story. This is likely an unintended but inevitable development from millions of years of the reapers using the same strategy. Evolution could have (and I believe it did) also developed to simply allow a cycle to DEFEAT the reapers, hense the destroy ending, or sieze control of them. But neither of these things resolve the problem of organic vs. tech completely. Just because Shepard assumes control of the reapers doesn't mean the galaxy will rejoice and peace will reign forever. There could still be conflict, even if in the aftermath of the war the reapers appear to be helpful, a positive relationship with them may not last. And as you said, destroying them leaves the galaxy vulnerable to the same mistakes that got it into this whole mess in the first place, and potentially to the end of all life in the galaxy. Synthesis may present an enormous uncertainty, but it does resolve the one problem the Intelligence created the reapers for by uniting organic and synthetic life in to something new. That last step, apparently, required a decision, as it could not be forced. This was the cycle that was ready for it. I don't know if it was ONLY available if you had war assets from the geth or what have you. I know it required the most, but it would make the most sense if you could only attain it by making piece with synthetics.

Anyway, because it required a choice, the Intelligence had to account for other options. But I see it the way you do. Other options are equally valid when you're role-playing, but synthesis is the only actual solution.

EDIT: though, in retrospect, a shepard who's supportive of EDI and the geth, or a geth/quarian peace, may exemplify an evolved galactic society sufficient to destroy the reapers or control them and still have a bright future. Still, synthesis has the best odds.

[earthboyjak]

I also think when the star kid tells shepard it had TRIED synthesis before, but organics wouldn't accept it, that it's a hint that when it seemed to be betraying the Leviathans THIS is what it wanted to do. But they resisted, because they had too much pride. Then obviously the first reapers were the result of the conflict.

[God]

This'll be good. 

 

I like synthesis the concept. I dislike the presentation.

 

There's a a lot of assumptions in this argument here with objective statements over something that is inherently (and by design) very speculative and based on interpretation.

 

Speaking as someone who concurs with your outcome, your stance doesn't account for interpretation, and somethings you just don't get all that right.

[Monica21]

First of all, I’m aware I should probably be posting this in Story, Campaign & Characters, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to link my ME3 game to my account. I have my reasons....

 

Piracy? It's piracy, isn't it?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This'll be good.

 

Yup! I will be following this with great interest.

 

'Been a while since I've done this.   

[dorktainian]

"Your survival depends on stopping them, not understanding them........"

 

[Linkenski]

I was always under the impression that most people just hate synthesis because of the impossibility of it from a scientific standpoint. I'm not saying Mass Effect was ever scientifically correct in the first place, but it often gave the impression that it was emulating science in a proper way whereas the explanation and logistics of synthesis seem really banal and downright impossible even within ME's own lore.

 

My gripe is around EDI and from there a domino effect of thought that makes me reflect on all synthetic things. EDI becomes "alive" and is shown to be more humanlike in her thought and in her robot body... how? She's a blue-box in the normandy, not actually the Body, which is just a host for long-range physical interaction. EDI's brain and heart is stored in a big bulky crate of tech. If that's alive, then that's weird and I don't understand what it even means to be "alive" in this sense.

 

Synthesis is dumb, so while I agree with OP that if the (dumb) hypothesis that synthetics will always destroy all organics is true and the Reapers were a safety-mechanism to sustain the cycle of life and reproduction, then synthesis would be the best way to stop this, but the lead-up to this claim that synthetics will surely eradicate organics, vs what you see over the course of the trilogy and combined with what synthesis actually does, it's all very undercooked and silly.

 

Therefore I choose destroy, but in truth I think all of the 3 outcomes are terrible.

[Batarian Master Race]

I was always under the impression that most people just hate synthesis because of the impossibility of it from a scientific standpoint. I'm not saying Mass Effect was ever scientifically correct in the first place, but it often gave the impression that it was emulating science in a proper way whereas the explanation and logistics of synthesis seem really banal and downright impossible even within ME's own lore.

 

My gripe is around EDI and from there a domino effect of thought that makes me reflect on all synthetic things. EDI becomes "alive" and is shown to be more humanlike in her thought and in her robot body... how? She's a blue-box in the normandy, not actually the Body, which is just a host for long-range physical interaction. EDI's brain and heart is stored in a big bulky crate of tech. If that's alive, then that's weird and I don't understand what it even means to be "alive" in this sense.

 

Synthesis is dumb, so while I agree with OP that if the (dumb) hypothesis that synthetics will always destroy all organics is true and the Reapers were a safety-mechanism to sustain the cycle of life and reproduction, then synthesis would be the best way to stop this, but the lead-up to this claim that synthetics will surely eradicate organics, vs what you see over the course of the trilogy and combined with what synthesis actually does, it's all very undercooked and silly.

 

Therefore I choose destroy, but in truth I think all of the 3 outcomes are terrible.

 

This was always my half of my major beef with Synthesis. 

 

The other half is that Shepard is making a choice that affects the entire galaxy. Who gave him the power, the right to do so? Shepard may be space jesus, but he shouldn't get to play god like that.

[SwobyJ]

This was always my half of my major beef with Synthesis. 

 

The other half is that Shepard is making a choice that affects the entire galaxy. Who gave him the power, the right to do so? Shepard may be space jesus, but he shouldn't get to play god like that.

 

If you're so bothered by the bolded, then just Refuse.

[Batarian Master Race]

If you're so bothered by the bolded, then just Refuse.

 

Refuse is Bioware throwing a hissy fit over the fact that people disliked their endings.

 

Control and Destroy affect only the Reapers and only synthetics, respectively. Synthesis changes everything.

[Han Shot First]

Deus Ex did something like Synthesis much better:

 

[Linkenski]

If you're so bothered by the bolded, then just Refuse.

I think I agree here. I wasn't ever that bothered by the fact that Shepard forces whatever choice he makes on the rest. His little speech in refuse seems to communicate that he refuses to take the responsibility well enough.

 

He's in a situation with a clear ultimatum. That aspect of the ending always had the right impact, it's just that the details, hows and whys feel really dumb to me.

[elrofrost]

I was always under the impression that most people just hate synthesis because of the impossibility of it from a scientific standpoint. I'm not saying Mass Effect was ever scientifically correct in the first place, but it often gave the impression that it was emulating science in a proper way whereas the explanation and logistics of synthesis seem really banal and downright impossible even within ME's own lore.

 

My gripe is around EDI and from there a domino effect of thought that makes me reflect on all synthetic things. EDI becomes "alive" and is shown to be more humanlike in her thought and in her robot body... how? She's a blue-box in the normandy, not actually the Body, which is just a host for long-range physical interaction. EDI's brain and heart is stored in a big bulky crate of tech. If that's alive, then that's weird and I don't understand what it even means to be "alive" in this sense.

 

Synthesis is dumb, so while I agree with OP that if the (dumb) hypothesis that synthetics will always destroy all organics is true and the Reapers were a safety-mechanism to sustain the cycle of life and reproduction, then synthesis would be the best way to stop this, but the lead-up to this claim that synthetics will surely eradicate organics, vs what you see over the course of the trilogy and combined with what synthesis actually does, it's all very undercooked and silly.

 

Therefore I choose destroy, but in truth I think all of the 3 outcomes are terrible.

 

Yup. Synthesis just has to many questions. I mean, does it include ALL life? Viruses, trees, pigs, insects, etc, etc? Or just sentient life? And then my next question is, what is sentient life? And what about future races? The universe - life evolves, are "new" races gonna be disadvantaged by not being blended with tech?

 

I agree that if presented better, the endings would probably had been better received. But remember, before the expac the end just stopped. All these questions, and more with no answers. Not a good way to end a story (unless a sequel was planned). Even with the expac, we didn't get much answered. All-in-all the endings sucked.

I would've perferred a ME2 approach - an all out fight - win or lose.

 

My Sheaprds only selects Synthesis if they had gone to the trouble to save the Geth (either at the expense of the Quarians or the paragon method). Otherwise it's Destory or Control.

And I don't play ME for the ending anyway. I play it for everything else. The last thing I play in a play-through is Citadel. I treat it as an epilogue.

[Batarian Master Race]

Yup. Synthesis just has to many questions. I mean, does it include ALL life? Viruses, trees, pigs, insects, etc, etc? Or just sentient life? And then my next question is, what is sentient life? And what about future races? The universe - life evolves, are "new" races gonna be disadvantaged by not being blended with tech?

 

I agree that if presented better, the endings would probably had been better received. But remember, before the expac the end just stopped. All these questions, and more with no answers. Not a good way to end a story (unless a sequel was planned). Even with the expac, we didn't get much answered. All-in-all the endings sucked.

I would've perferred a ME2 approach - an all out fight - win or lose.

 

My Sheaprds only selects Synthesis if they had gone to the trouble to save the Geth (either at the expense of the Quarians or the paragon method). Otherwise it's Destory or Control.

And I don't play ME for the ending anyway. I play it for everything else. The last thing I play in a play-through is Citadel. I treat it as an epilogue.

 

If you're on PC, try the Citadel Epilogue Mod.

[SwobyJ]

Refuse is Bioware throwing a hissy fit over the fact that people disliked their endings.

 

Control and Destroy affect only the Reapers and only synthetics, respectively. Synthesis changes everything.

 

The waves hit everything. Everything is affected.

 

But only the Reapers/synthetics are altered, changed, destroyed in Destroy and Control.

 

This is getting into semantics and technicalities, but indeed, the Destroy wave still does affect everything else - it just doesn't do anything beyond its initial 'hit' (unless you're on Earth and its Low EMS).

 

I know what you mean and I don't mean to be disagreeable; only wanted to make a certain (sub)point.

[Batarian Master Race]

The waves hit everything. Everything is affected.

 

But only the Reapers/synthetics are altered, changed, destroyed in Destroy and Control.

 

This is getting into semantics and technicalities, but indeed, the Destroy wave still does affect everything else - it just doesn't do anything beyond its initial 'hit' (unless you're on Earth and its Low EMS).

 

I know what you mean and I don't mean to be disagreeable; only wanted to make a certain (sub)point.

 

That is perhaps the nitpickiest thing I've ever seen on the forums.

 

+1 to you.

[Youknow]

Synthesis is too confusing and really doesn't feel like Bioware sat down and actually thought about what it means. It COULD be the best ending in the sense that no one has to die or really lose their will I guess, but considering how vague it is about everything, you're really just left with shrugging and saying "I guess so" as a response. 

 

 

 

If you're so bothered by the bolded, then just Refuse.

 

But that's the thing, even refusing is making a decision for the entire galaxy as well. At least with Control and Destroy, you can argue that these ones are at least approved by most of the known galaxy that Sheperd has allied himself with. Destroy is easily able to be understood, it's what everyone has set out to do. Control I can see people being fine with because at the very least, they can say the reaper threat is over. Synthesis, people might not actually be happy with the idea of you doing something that changes their make up. 

 

It would have been interesting to see what other characters thought about a potential choice. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

My problem with it is that we don't really know what Synthesis does. But because we have so little comprehension of the consequences it is little more than a leap of faith (quite literally) and there really isn't any tension behind picking it, thus ruining it's impact as a choice. Like the rest of the choices I'm sure quite a few people walked towards it to see if any additional information would pop-up versus making a meaningful decision about the future of the galaxy.

 

Then again in my ending meaning theory, Synthesis being vague is exactly the point. What Synthesis does doesn't matter, what's important is what it represents from a mechanical perspective: it is the hardest to unlock ending (in terms of EMS) and serves as the optimal state alternative for the "Renegade" and "Paragon" options, that you get for unlocking the most points.

[Linkenski]

But synthesis narrative is actually the standard of Bioware storytelling now. In DAI I constantly felt like the plot hadn't been fleshed out by the writers at all. Even simple stuff like what the purpose of the Inquisition was was a whole lot of wishy washy nothingness, and several supposed exposition moments turned into vague gibberish, like this post.

I sort of agree with imaginary matter though. Synthesis is such a big idea that it would either take extremely intricate detail and description or it would need to remain as vague as possible, and that's also why I feel Extended Cut made some things worse. Synthesis was still poorly presented visually pre-EC but the whole epilogue speech by EDI in the EC is outrageous and ludicrus.

[SwobyJ]

My mind only really accepts Synthesis as long as I also imagine ME3 is all in a Reaper Matrix where all my wacky dreams (or at least the dreams of someone with otherwise limited imagination like Shepard) can come true, in a virtual sense.

 

And that, of course, wraps my mind up in craziness in a whole other way, so there's no way to be 'comfortable' with Synthesis for me, haha. But I can have a sort of fun with it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Well, this thread has been a bit disappointing. Not much here that I would argue against.   

 

I see no real problem with what the Catalyst says about organic/synthetic relations, especially not in the context of this fictional setting. Synthetics really have been ticking time-bombs -at best- through the length of the ME series. I also do believe that expanding what sapient organics are capable of is the most proactive way to approach this. I mean, it may not guarantee that we do not lose some major conflict with them, but it seems to bring a balance that mitigates just how bloody any such conflicts could be (which I think is all the Catalyst really requires to be "done" with the matter).

 

That is not ultimately why I chose it, though. It was about what fit Shepard, as I RP'd him. I actually chose Destroy the first time but it did not feel right. With few exceptions, "my" Shepard generally chose things with the greatest potential, even potential that included failure. In this case, it was about galactic civilization achieving groundbreaking things. So when I settled on Green ending, it just fit. That was just the kind of classic, crazy curve-ball choice my Shepard would make to end things.

 

I do not care too much about the smaller details, like plant life having been synthesized. FWIW, EC epilogue-slides do not show anything synthesized but sapient life.

 

I did not really care about the Reapers, either, as they related to the ending. I understand how the Green ending makes them stop killing/harvesting, which is all I need to choose it. Having them fix the mess they made is definitely worthwhile though. I do not require justice either since none exists anyway.

[Batarian Master Race]

That is not ultimately why I chose it, though. It was about what fit Shepard, as I RP'd him. I actually chose Destroy the first time but it did not feel right. With few exceptions, "my" Shepard generally chose things with the greatest potential, even potential that included failure.

 

Interesting. My Shepard, who was very similar in his choices, chose Destroy.

 

He was all about believing in the inherent goodness in the galaxy, and as such refused to follow the Catalyst's insistence that synthetics and organics would always conflict. He believed that our flaws made us who we our, our diversity was our greatest strength; to take that from the galaxy would be to create a bland existence.

 

The potential to prove the Catalyst wrong, to prove that the Galaxy was ready to accept a new definition of life... that potential was far greater than what would be accomplished by slotting a bunch of computer chips into everyone.

 

As for Control... That violates Shepard's belief in free will and free decisions. Even a "good" Shepard would be effectively a god, his very presence altering the way people act via fear of retribution. That would lead to a world where people did good things not out of goodness, but because the Reapers would react if they didn't.

 

In the end, Destroy was the only choice that wouldn't permanently change the universe. The Geth and EDI were the price Shepard had to pay thanks to an insane AI. It's not right to destroy an entire race like that, but it was the best of three bad options.

[Kynare]

I chose it the very first time I finished the game, wigged out on Shepard's suicide dive and Kaidan's green eyes and immediately reloaded for Paragon Control instead. Not that I have qualms with Synthesis as a prospective future. Just the "why would I jump into that radioactive-looking beam you kid bastard? do you think I'm stupid?!" part.

[voteDC]

I don't see why synthesis is going to bring peace. Turians are still turian, just with some synthetic parts now. Krogan are still krogan,  just with some synthetic parts now. Humans are still human.....well you get the point.

Hell apart from adding some green glow the Reapers don't change a bit, as they always were synthetic/organic hybrids.

Why would races suddenly start trusting the Reapers who have wiped billions of them out. Because they now have a shared glow?

Unless synthesis adds a mind control element, I just don't see how it is meant to bring the peace.