My main issue with synthesis is that it runs contrary to the major themes of the series, which up until that point - and especially within ME3 - expelled the importance of diversity and divergent evolution.
To have that theme run so strong throughout the series, and then to have the golden ending - the one that takes the most effort to achieve and promises a utopia as it's result - run completely contrary to that by happening via convergent evolution really rubbed me the wrong way.
I think it won't matter we are going to leave before the endings. Leaving after would automatically erase synthesis as a possibility.
I was so much hoping to remain in our galaxy with a canonized destroy but I guess BW wants a fresh galaxy to shape.
Giving a game all about choice a canon ending is a horrible idea. I mean, the ending was complete **** but don't take make that final choice irrelevant.
My main issue with synthesis is that it runs contrary to the major themes of the series, which up until that point - and especially within ME3 - expelled the importance of diversity and divergent evolution.
To have that theme run so strong throughout the series, and then to have the golden ending - the one that takes the most effort to achieve and promises a utopia as it's result - run completely contrary to that by happening via convergent evolution really rubbed me the wrong way.
I disagree with that.
If you really look at it, we see the failed attempts at Synthesis through force, vs willingly sacrificing oneself for it.
Saren vs Legion in this example. Saren willingly did what the Reapers wanted by becoming synthesized. He didn't sacrifice his being to do it, only his free will. This costed him his ideas and convictions, and in his language he talked about it, how submission is preferable to surrender; how we will be assimilated forcibly, whether we like it or not. People misconstrue Saren as being the poster boy for Synthesis, but I see that as the manipulation of the Reapers and the fact that Saren is emblematic of indoctrination, he had no control over his fate. Saren was using the idea of Synthesis without understanding it, without making that sacrifice to allow it to happen.
The true measure of how synthesis actually works really should be focused on Legion. Legion sacrificed his entire being to allow the Geth to evolve and achieve sentience. The reaper code had organic and synthetic parts to it, and the combination of that allowed the Geth to become diverse, to evolve and to achieve a higher level of sentience than ever before. Legion sacrifices his being to make sure the reaper code is distributed, and the Geth join the fight against the Reapers despite having their code as an upgrade. Allowing this to happen in Mass Effect 3 is also foreshadowing the synthesis choice in the games ending; are you willing to sacrifice yourself to evolve beyond yourself, to actually bring about a change in the galaxy?
I will say, I get why people don't like Synthesis, and you pretty much hit on it being very utopian in its conclusion (although fairly poignant and thought provoking) and the fact that yes, it is forcing evolution in some ways which is ethically questionable. That said; if what the Reapers argue and more or less everyone in the game kind of implies through past history, it's necessary to actually break the cycle. Destroy just wipes the slate clean, and Control literally creates God. Synthesis, however, starts something new, hence the utopian ideals of harmony.
Ah ****...I am getting all intellectual now. My bad.
Canon endings are bad.
The ME3 ending was bad.
The Andromeda-bound ship will have left the galaxy before the endgame so that the developers never have to directly address it again.
Canon endings are bad.
The ME3 ending was bad.
The Andromeda-bound ship will have left the galaxy before the endgame so that the developers never have to directly address it again.
I just want to say that I love your Dragon Age style avatar. Tali is bae.
Canon endings are bad.
The ME3 ending was bad.
The Andromeda-bound ship will have left the galaxy before the endgame so that the developers never have to directly address it again.
^This.
They will not be addressing the endings at all. The entire point of going to Andromeda. They are wiping the slate clean, pretending it never happened.
^This.
They will not be addressing the endings at all. The entire point of going to Andromeda. They are wiping the slate clean, pretending it never happened.
That's still not confirmed.
When its confirmed, then sure. Until then though...speculation.
I disagree with that.
If you really look at it, we see the failed attempts at Synthesis through force, vs willingly sacrificing oneself for it.
Saren vs Legion in this example. Saren willingly did what the Reapers wanted by becoming synthesized. He didn't sacrifice his being to do it, only his free will. This costed him his ideas and convictions, and in his language he talked about it, how submission is preferable to surrender; how we will be assimilated forcibly, whether we like it or not. People misconstrue Saren as being the poster boy for Synthesis, but I see that as the manipulation of the Reapers and the fact that Saren is emblematic of indoctrination, he had no control over his fate. Saren was using the idea of Synthesis without understanding it, without making that sacrifice to allow it to happen.
The true measure of how synthesis actually works really should be focused on Legion. Legion sacrificed his entire being to allow the Geth to evolve and achieve sentience. The reaper code had organic and synthetic parts to it, and the combination of that allowed the Geth to become diverse, to evolve and to achieve a higher level of sentience than ever before. Legion sacrifices his being to make sure the reaper code is distributed, and the Geth join the fight against the Reapers despite having their code as an upgrade. Allowing this to happen in Mass Effect 3 is also foreshadowing the synthesis choice in the games ending; are you willing to sacrifice yourself to evolve beyond yourself, to actually bring about a change in the galaxy?
I will say, I get why people don't like Synthesis, and you pretty much hit on it being very utopian in its conclusion (although fairly poignant and thought provoking) and the fact that yes, it is forcing evolution in some ways which is ethically questionable. That said; if what the Reapers argue and more or less everyone in the game kind of implies through past history, it's necessary to actually break the cycle. Destroy just wipes the slate clean, and Control literally creates God. Synthesis, however, starts something new, hence the utopian ideals of harmony.
Ah ****...I am getting all intellectual now. My bad.
Still, Legion's choice runs contrary to his own stated view point in ME2 where he exposed the importance of each species, including the geth, to evolve and develop at their own pace, in their own way, by their own means; i.e., self determination. Legion's final act could be seen as character development on his part, I suppose, though I wouldn't necessarily call it positive character development. His decision is one made at least partly out of desperation to avoid extinction and involved compromising his beliefs, so in that sense the only real difference between him and Saren is the self sacrifice bit, and complaints have been thrown at the game about how contrived that aspect of Legion's story is.
And the synthesis ending itself is still a case of it being forced on the galaxy. One person has a choice in this; no one else gets a say in whether they get matrix code skin or not. So it isn't synthesis by force vs willing sacrifice, it's forcing synthesis via willing, arbitrarily contrived sacrifice.
And you still have a lot of examples that run contrary to the synthesis message; Legion in ME2, as I said. Javik continuously speaks about how conforming to a single path is what doomed his cycle. Mordin's story arc and a lot of his philosophy, and really the salarians in general with their short sighted tendency to 'uplift' other races to solve immediate problems without thought to the long term consequences, which prove to be disastrous for all parties. That's essentially what synthesis is; forcibly uplifting every species in the galaxy whether they're ready for it or not.
Ugh. I've been up for about twenty minutes and haven't had any caffeine yet.
I disagree with that.
If you really look at it, we see the failed attempts at Synthesis through force, vs willingly sacrificing oneself for it.
Saren vs Legion in this example. Saren willingly did what the Reapers wanted by becoming synthesized. He didn't sacrifice his being to do it, only his free will. This costed him his ideas and convictions, and in his language he talked about it, how submission is preferable to surrender; how we will be assimilated forcibly, whether we like it or not. People misconstrue Saren as being the poster boy for Synthesis, but I see that as the manipulation of the Reapers and the fact that Saren is emblematic of indoctrination, he had no control over his fate. Saren was using the idea of Synthesis without understanding it, without making that sacrifice to allow it to happen.
The true measure of how synthesis actually works really should be focused on Legion. Legion sacrificed his entire being to allow the Geth to evolve and achieve sentience. The reaper code had organic and synthetic parts to it, and the combination of that allowed the Geth to become diverse, to evolve and to achieve a higher level of sentience than ever before. Legion sacrifices his being to make sure the reaper code is distributed, and the Geth join the fight against the Reapers despite having their code as an upgrade. Allowing this to happen in Mass Effect 3 is also foreshadowing the synthesis choice in the games ending; are you willing to sacrifice yourself to evolve beyond yourself, to actually bring about a change in the galaxy?
I will say, I get why people don't like Synthesis, and you pretty much hit on it being very utopian in its conclusion (although fairly poignant and thought provoking) and the fact that yes, it is forcing evolution in some ways which is ethically questionable. That said; if what the Reapers argue and more or less everyone in the game kind of implies through past history, it's necessary to actually break the cycle. Destroy just wipes the slate clean, and Control literally creates God. Synthesis, however, starts something new, hence the utopian ideals of harmony.
Ah ****...I am getting all intellectual now. My bad.
A lot of people didn't like how the Geth were handled either, myself included. Both cases are concluded in an incredibly convenient manner (essentially a "MacGuffin of Understanding") that eschewed a more interesing story. The Geth were already trying to achieve full intelligence on their own with their Dyson Sphere, and it has been proven that Geth can attain individual thought through the collective alone (the "there was a hole" conversation in ME2). The Reaper code ruined a more interesting dynamic which had the player attempt to not only reconcile a conflict between races but fundamental methods of thinking.
So, yes, Synthesis was foreshadowed, but only in ME3 by trampling over more interesting established plots and themes.
Even if you are completely satisfied with how the Geth were handled, I still think Synthesis has more negative implications than the Geth. Both involve evolution, but the Geth decision still leaves room for error. Synthesis still feels like a magical "everything's fixed" button whereas the future between the Geth and the Quarians is still up in the air. The two races still have to learn to accept each other, and I don't feel this 90's era "ignore race entirely," mentality that I felt at the end of the game.
Still, Legion's choice runs contrary to his own stated view point in ME2 where he exposed the importance of each species, including the geth, to evolve and develop at their own pace, in their own way, by their own means; i.e., self determination. Legion's final act could be seen as character development on his part, I suppose, though I wouldn't necessarily call it positive character development. His decision is one made at least partly out of desperation to avoid extinction and involved compromising his beliefs, so in that sense the only real difference between him and Saren is the self sacrifice bit, and complaints have been thrown at the game about how contrived that aspect of Legion's story is.
And the synthesis ending itself is still a case of it being forced on the galaxy. One person has a choice in this; no one else gets a say in whether they get matrix code skin or not. So it isn't synthesis by force vs willing sacrifice, it's forcing synthesis via willing, arbitrarily contrived sacrifice.
And you still have a lot of examples that run contrary to the synthesis message; Legion in ME2, as I said. Javik continuously speaks about how conforming to a single path is what doomed his cycle. Mordin's story arc and a lot of his philosophy, and really the salarians in general with their short sighted tendency to 'uplift' other races to solve immediate problems without thought to the long term consequences, which prove to be disastrous for all parties. That's essentially what synthesis is; forcibly uplifting every species in the galaxy whether they're ready for it or not.
Ugh. I've been up for about twenty minutes and haven't had any caffeine yet.
But everyone is also using their own justifications for this.
Uplifting the Krogan for example, is not the same as Synthesis because it was again, forced. Bakara also implies the Krogan were already in nuclear winter at this point, so their species was on decline. The Salarians own hubris as you say is true, but the entire arc runs parallel to what Saren did; the forced change without consequence.
Legion also should change as a character, and it was growth of the character from before. You basically had the choice of a genocide or evolution in that scenario as you say, but it was also something that Legion implied might be necessary for their long-term evolution. There is no going away from that; Legion felt the code was important enough to keep when others would say no, and Legion had ulterior motives for it early on, I would say. We also see Legion evolve throughout the game, witholding information from Shepard, talking about how his people are afraid and went back to the Reapers for preservation, and so forth. His own stated views changed, part of that may have been exposure as a platform to Shepard, Tali and so forth, part of that just the evolving thoughts of how people behave. Mordin is another example, his own justifications for the Genophange into a different direction this way. So characters staying stagnant is not a bad thing, it makes them believable as characters, and realistic in the context of the world.
The real crux of this is going to boil down to point of view, we both know that. To put it this way though, Legion as a character made the choice of self-sacrifice yes out of preservation, but also out of evolution. Legion wanted this for his people, because it knew that evolving was their only chance to overcome their own limitations. The real difference between Legion and Saren is not just self-sacrifice and motivation, but actual, evolving beliefs and how to achieve their desired goals. One is positive, one negative; both attempt to force evolution, but only one of them can work because they are not subjugated, they are not controlled, they made that choice.
Not to mention supporting Legion at this point more or less says Shepard is open to the idea of Synthesis in the long run; justifications for it don't matter, you are essentially allowing the Geth to rewrite their entire population, whether they like it or not. The issue will always boil down to it being an ethical one, but I never bought that the idea behind synthesis is a fully bad idea (it is an unknown idea that is presented as utopian, but it can have flaws like anything else) but it certainly never came out of nowhere. The game lays those seeds, the question is do you sow them?
I guess we can just chalk this up to an agree to disagree type of thing, but if nothing else once again the endings prove their worth in having an actual conversation.
But everyone is also using their own justifications for this.
Uplifting the Krogan for example, is not the same as Synthesis because it was again, forced. Bakara also implies the Krogan were already in nuclear winter at this point, so their species was on decline. The Salarians own hubris as you say is true, but the entire arc runs parallel to what Saren did; the forced change without consequence.
Legion also should change as a character, and it was growth of the character from before. You basically had the choice of a genocide or evolution in that scenario as you say, but it was also something that Legion implied might be necessary for their long-term evolution. There is no going away from that; Legion felt the code was important enough to keep when others would say no, and Legion had ulterior motives for it early on, I would say. We also see Legion evolve throughout the game, witholding information from Shepard, talking about how his people are afraid and went back to the Reapers for preservation, and so forth. His own stated views changed, part of that may have been exposure as a platform to Shepard, Tali and so forth, part of that just the evolving thoughts of how people behave. Mordin is another example, his own justifications for the Genophange into a different direction this way. So characters staying stagnant is not a bad thing, it makes them believable as characters, and realistic in the context of the world.
The real crux of this is going to boil down to point of view, we both know that. To put it this way though, Legion as a character made the choice of self-sacrifice yes out of preservation, but also out of evolution. Legion wanted this for his people, because it knew that evolving was their only chance to overcome their own limitations. The real difference between Legion and Saren is not just self-sacrifice and motivation, but actual, evolving beliefs and how to achieve their desired goals. One is positive, one negative; both attempt to force evolution, but only one of them can work because they are not subjugated, they are not controlled, they made that choice.
Not to mention supporting Legion at this point more or less says Shepard is open to the idea of Synthesis in the long run; justifications for it don't matter, you are essentially allowing the Geth to rewrite their entire population, whether they like it or not. The issue will always boil down to it being an ethical one, but I never bought that the idea behind synthesis is a fully bad idea (it is an unknown idea that is presented as utopian, but it can have flaws like anything else) but it certainly never came out of nowhere. The game lays those seeds, the question is do you sow them?
I guess we can just chalk this up to an agree to disagree type of thing, but if nothing else once again the endings prove their worth in having an actual conversation.
I can agree that you're probably close to the mark as far as Bioware's intentions. I just don't agree with those intentions and think that, whether I agree with them or not, Bioware fumbled the execution very badly, and as I mentioned in another thread, intentions are secondary to accomplishments.
That's still not confirmed.
When its confirmed, then sure. Until then though...speculation.
Speculation based on a firm grasp of the economics of game development.
Addressing multiple endings involves devoting resources (translation: money) towards that purpose. EA doesn't like devoting unnecessary resources towards projects.
Speculation based on a firm grasp of the economics of game development.
Addressing multiple endings involves devoting resources (translation: money) towards that purpose. EA doesn't like devoting unnecessary resources towards projects.
Educated guesses are all well and good, sure.
But don't pass it as fact yet. Until BioWare says its true or not I shall remain doubtful.
I can agree that you're probably close to the mark as far as Bioware's intentions. I just don't agree with those intentions and think that, whether I agree with them or not, Bioware fumbled the execution very badly, and as I mentioned in another thread, intentions are secondary to accomplishments.
Well you agreeing or disagreeing of their intentions is kind of a moot point because it's still a choice you make in-game. I don't agree with Control but I have Shepard's who would select Control in the end anyway, justifying the role-playing aspect of the game.
It seems abstractly we may all have problems with it in some way, which I think is the after-effects of complex, wide-sweeping conclusions.
Well you agreeing or disagreeing of their intentions is kind of a moot point because it's still a choice you make in-game. I don't agree with Control but I have Shepard's who would select Control in the end anyway, justifying the role-playing aspect of the game.
It seems abstractly we may all have problems with it in some way, which I think is the after-effects of complex, wide-sweeping conclusions.
But Synthesis isn't much of a role-playing decision. Obviously, you can have a Shepard who chooses or rejects Synthesis for whatever roleplaying reason, but BioWare made it pretty obvious that Synthesis was the choice they endorsed just by how they implemented their mechanics (high EMS). BioWare essetially made Synthesis the optimal outcome, the kind of decision that they believe any sensible person should go for. It's like the decisions in KotOR. You can be good or evil, but the moral of the story remains constant. Same with Mass Effect; you can choose the different options, but that doesn't change BioWare's agenda. They still think Synthesis is right, and I think that this particular view is so off base that it makes the ending bad.
It's another issue that Synthesis overwrites BioWare's previous intentions in ME2. That point isn't so subjective. Were it not for some interpretation within some of ME3's smaller arcs, the ending would be completely non sequitur and it's very existence required the writers to ignore some crucial aspects of the previous games. It forced them to manufacture an entire conflict between Synthetics and Organics that apparently is a universal constant (even after the Geth/Quarian conflic is resolved). I think the ending is bad because it required so much revisionism and what is essentially God just to be the least bit viable and the result it trampeled over its predecessors to achieve isn't very good at best and morally off base at worst.
My main issue with synthesis is that it runs contrary to the major themes of the series, which up until that point - and especially within ME3 - expelled the importance of diversity and divergent evolution.
To have that theme run so strong throughout the series, and then to have the golden ending - the one that takes the most effort to achieve and promises a utopia as it's result - run completely contrary to that by happening via convergent evolution really rubbed me the wrong way.
You assume Synthesis rids us of diversity and renders us all the same. It does not.
You assume Synthesis rids us of diversity and renders us all the same. It does not.
So I guess it's a safe assumption that Wreav would set his plans in motion to take revenge on the salarians and turians, and would still occupy and overpopulate various worlds since the genophage is automatically cured.
Retour en haut
