Shepard is making the choice; not open to a straw poll. Synthesis end the threat, and solves problems that Destroy cannot.
Your Shepard is making the choice, not mine. Mine says she wants nothing to do with that green stuff. Destroy ends the threat with the reapers being destroyed. Synthesis is something the thing wants. It did say its the ideal solution. Its something it likes, and works in its favor. That's another reason I shoot the tube
In that position, I wouldn't be so much concerned about the wave of green goodness as much as I would be concerned about the fact that it necessitates being dissolved into a giant ray. Yyyyyeah, no. I guess if you actually want to die, otherwise, screw that noise.
How I long for 80s sci-fi... the good ole days.
"What does God need with a starship?"
"Nuke it. It's the only way to be sure."
The epilogue for Destroy end in hopeful speculation, Quarians in masks, marooned organics, wayward fleets, and the death of Synthetic life. Synthesis ends with solutions.
Not true. The epilogue for Destroy is just as happy as the one for synthesis. The only difference is that those murderous machines the reapers are still around with synthesis.
Shepard is making the choice; not open to a straw poll. Synthesis end the threat, and solves problems that Destroy cannot.
The problem is that you're answering the question about what I want with "but it fixes everything" and that's still not an answer. It doesn't fix everything. None of the solutions fix everything, but Destroy is the only one that rids the galaxy of the Reapers and still allows life to change and evolve. You're robbing the galaxy of the opportunity to find out what happens when they can chart their own course instead of having it charted for them.
I'd rather take the certainty of destroying the Reapers than the unknowns of synthesis and control. Personally synthesis sounds fantastic. I'd love to not have to worry about memory loss or a sore back, the countless cycles of data and resources the Reapers may have to share, etc. But I don't know what will happen in the future of control and synthesis. Will the organics go with the flow seamlessly, or will their be unforeseen consequences? Organics are weird and unpredictable by nature. That chaos has led to a lot of bad things but also many good things. Destroy has less potential, but also less variables. We kill the Reapers and we may die with them. However the next cycle or possibly our own will get to live on their own terms.
The facts of the case (all canon, all presented in-game):
1) The reapers have killed trillions every 50,000 years for the last billion years.
2) Shepard is tasked by the Alliance with destroying the reapers.
3) Shepard has the approval/support of the Alliance and all the other known races to use the Crucible to destroy the reapers.
4) Neither the Alliance nor any of the other races has given Shepard permission or agreed to allow Shepard to take control of the reapers so if he chooses this option, he does so without their consent.
5) Neither the Alliance nor any of the other races has given Shepard permission or agreed to allow Shepard to somehow combine everyone with synthetics so if he chooses this option, he does so without their consent.
6) No one knows exactly what kind of creatures will be created with synthesis (will they still be able to have kids through sexual reproduction?, will the hybrids live forever? , will they share a hive mind or be individuals capable of independent thought and action, etc) but they will no longer be human or quarian or turian or asari, etc.
7) Choosing the destroy option kills all the reapers.
That's all I need to know to make the choice to destroy the reapers. No head-canon, no supposition, no guessing what might or might not happen in the future. It is the only logical choice that does not make use of supposition, guessing, etc.
I'll ask, then, how Destroy is technologically possible using only technology established through lore. How will its effects will reach their targets? I've criticized all the endings for defying all rationalization in terms of in-world logic. Admittedly the way Shepard implements Synthesis - by jumping into the beam - is the worst offender by far, and yes, I hate this level of space magic, but in the end I choose for the outcome.
The problem is that you're answering the question about what I want with "but it fixes everything" and that's still not an answer. It doesn't fix everything. None of the solutions fix everything, but Destroy is the only one that rids the galaxy of the Reapers and still allows life to change and evolve. You're robbing the galaxy of the opportunity to find out what happens when they can chart their own course instead of having it charted for them.
A problem only the Catalyst sees... who's been controlling the parameters for eons. It's part of the very problem it thinks it's trying to solve.
Life has never even been given a chance to thrive beyond the boundaries set in place.
But when things get out of their grasp, look what happens. The unpredictable. And it admits this. "Clearly organics are more resourceful than we realized."
They don't really look all that marooned. I guess I missed the slide of the turians standing on line for dextro soup in the new earth slums of London. I am curious as to why the quarians couldn't figure out the whole immunity boosting thing. I mean, the geth are strictly software, so their suits are fully capable of doing this with the right tweaks.
But we do have a scene where the fleet slowly moves by the heavily damaged relays while departing from the possible remains of the Citadel. No more FTL for quite some time. And maybe the lack of dextro lines is caused by their deaths; either by starvation or from other complications noted by EDI during the game.
Key word "maybe". I will say that "maybe" in Synthesis trillions of organics just killed themselves out of repulsion and everyone else started war with Reaper trooper husks and in the end more people died. Is it true? No, because the game doesn't state it. And do you really think that FTL is impossible without Mass Relays? How did Shepard get away from the Collector Base blast in ME2 then? With Mass Effect core, that's how.
Key word "maybe". I will say that "maybe" in Synthesis trillions of organics just killed themselves out of repulsion and everyone else started war with Reaper trooper husks and in the end more people died. Is it true? No, because the game doesn't state it. And do you really think that FTL is impossible without Mass Relays? How did Shepard get away from the Collector Base blast in ME2 then? With Mass Effect core, that's how.
Ok lets do what Starjar suggests shall we, and damn the consequences.
Control. Control the reapers, but the cycles will continue, the reapers will continue their slaughter as that is their primary function.
Synthesise ourselves into the reaper conciousness. Yay the huge killing machines are now our friends. Gee ma and pa, I know the reapers killed your asses but hey, now they're our friends. Appeasement.
Destroy the Reapers. Where does it say the cycles will continue? It only says eventually we will create new synthetics. I'm not seeing a problem here, because it will be on our terms.
'On our terms' may last a century, but folks forget, rebel, use auto-correct, etc. History will likely repeat.
I had this thought about this. What if we follow the path of leviathan? When starjar refers to us creating our own synthetics, what if we ultimately create our own reapers? Think Pacific Rim Jaegers except much bigger. That would be awesome. (not for those we kill tho)
Because I do not care what you want in my game. Synthesis does not fix everything, but does fix far more than the Destroy option.
And now life has that chance, and it is more effective than Destroy.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
@Monica21:
Why don't you choose Control then? It's the only option that preserves everyone's lives and biochemical integrity, if the latter is really so important to you. Destroy most emphatically does not since it kills all the synthetics.
I have no idea why I should care about the biochemical processes that power my life functions, apart from having to eat stuff that supports them. As long as all the functions of my body I value are supported by any other biochemistry, I see no reason why I should mind a change. I have proposed that a DNA-analogue might exist that supports everything we are, but also more than that. Namely, the integration with technology. And just as I'm not forced to use my natural gifts in any way, I don't see why I should be forced to integrate with anyhting after Synthesis. I see everything I value preserved, only with some new tools added, at the price of having some biochemical processes replaced. Not a price at all if you ask me.
@Monica21:
Why don't you choose Control then? It's the only option that preserves everyone's lives and biochemical integrity, if the latter is really so important to you. Destroy most emphatically does not since it kills all the synthetics.
Because it doesn't preserve the right to self-determination. And I can easily make the argument that Control is servitude.
You're cherry-picking though. Unless you come out and admit that you value the right to life of synthetics as less than the right to self-determination of everyone else, and that you value people's biochemical integrity as higher than the life of the synthetics *and* everyone's right to self-determination.
The ending is a calculus of values. All are important, but no ending preserves everything and so people have to decide based on what they value more and less. There is no more or less correct choice because there is no more or less correct value hierarchy.
Besides, I contest that Control means servitude. It means paternalism, but that's different. There's an ongoing debate on the merit (or lack thereof) of paternalism, but most objections that make sense are based in the corruptibility of humans. In Control, however, the deciding instance is not human and has no human limitations any more. I can easily imagine it: no more human limitations, no more need to participate in human power struggles in order to secure your place. In fact, as I see it, the biggest danger, if you can call it that, to a Control setup is that the Controller will just go away because its job - dealing with primitives who can't understand your reasoning - is so boring and frustrating.
And now life has that chance, and it is more effective than Destroy.
Not organic life, though.
The ending is a calculus of values. All are important, but no ending preserves everything and so people have to decide based on what they value more and less. There is no more or less correct choice because there is no more or less correct value hierarchy.
They are all basic "human" rights. The fact that the ending forces us to choose which to violate is a pretty good indicator that these are terrible endings.
They are all basic "human" rights. The fact that the ending forces us to choose which to violate is a pretty good indicator that these are terrible endings.
That's debatable.
In everyday practice, we set human rights absolute, but philosophically, they're anything but. We like our stories to affirm our values, but a point can be made that it's much more interesting to challenge them. The problem of the ME trilogy isn't that it did this, but that it did this at the end of a story where an unreflected feel-good morality was affirmed at every step. It might as well be the story that came before which was at fault.
They are all basic "human" rights. The fact that the ending forces us to choose which to violate is a pretty good indicator that these are terrible endings.
yeah but you assume that the reapers should fall under 'rights'. I would have thought that they gave up their 'rights' when they killed countless sentient creatures for the sake of lame circular reasoning.
Not organic life, though.
Retour en haut